UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Other High Profile Cases and Persons of Interest => The murder of landscape architect Joanna Yeates in Bristol in December 2010. => Topic started by: [...] on March 29, 2017, 02:17:38 PM
-
As time has passed in relation to this terrible crime, I was wondering if peoples views and attitudes had changed and whether they believed Dr Vincent Tabak should have received a Manslaughter Conviction or that the Murder Conviction was correct..
There are some whom believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent.....
87
-
As time has passed in relation to this terrible crime, I was wondering if peoples views and attitudes had changed and whether they believed he should have received a Manslaughter Conviction or that the Murder Conviction was correct..
There are some whom believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent.....
It is a mystery to me as to why he was convicted of murder, maybe that is why two jurors declined. He is an intelligent bloke with a girlfriend, a good job and a loving family such as we were told. To go out and kill on a premeditated basis was illogical imo.
Given the somewhat complicated criteria for murder versus manslaughter under English Law I believe the verdict was correct. The evidence from the trial appears to indicate that there was a prolonged assault on Joanna and that she fought for her life. The claim of accidental killing must surely be discounted in those circumstances. Although there is no proof that Tabak set out to kill Joanna, the evidence strongly suggests he did so in the end.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/
-
I believe that, at first, four jurors declined, then the judge said he would accept a majority verdict.
I have said on a number of occasions that I do not KNOW that Vincent Tabak is innocent. I could be quite wrong about this, but I believe he could well be. The verdict has never sat well with me. All my views are laid out in our 100 page thread, but for those who can't be bothered to go through it all (and I cant really blame you), these are my reasons why:
No forensic evidence found in either Joanna's flat, or in Vincent's.
VT had (as far as we know) no previous "form" of any kind.
As far as we know, he did not know Joanna (she and Greg moved into their flat very shortly before Vincent went to America to work for six weeks.). He had no reason to kill her. Who goes and kills their neighbour after a long day at work, when they didn't even know that neighbour, and had no criminal record whatsoever?
Vincent was accused of killing Joanna between 16th and 19th December----this was said in court. If he didn't do it on the evening of the 17th, he could not have done it, as his girlfriend, Tanja was around to provide him with an alibi after that (and nobody has ever suggested that she was in on it). There is no evidence that Joanna was killed on the evening of the 17th. In fact, a witness who heard someone scream "help me" on the morning of the 18th, was never asked to testify in court.
The people allegedly seen and heard by Chris Jefferies were never investigated----as far as we know, and the content of his second witness statement has never been made public.
It is assumed that Vincent confessed to the crime. What he actually said was that he was going to plead guilty, ie he said that he was going to say he had done it, not that he had done it. When first arrested, he said he was innocent, and that he would not have even recognised Joanna, had he not seen her picture in the newspaper. He decided to plead guilty after several weeks on remand. He had never even been inside a police station before his arrest, so who knows what he went through in prison while on remand.
There were a number of odd things about the trial:
His girlfriend, Tanja , did not testify.
His boss did not testify.
His landlord did not testify.
The jury never heard about all the fire and rescue personnel and vehicles deployed to recover Joanna's body (see page 27 of the thread) which, supposedly, was found by dog walkers on a verge, leading me to suspect that the body was, in fact, left somewhere far less accessible. This does not necessarily mean that VT was not the killer, but why were the public and the jury not told?
Why did the defence not do more to defend?
From what I have read of the trial, VT seemed like an automaton, and told a story that was obviously a pack of lies---it seemed as if he was merely telling the story he had been told to tell. I think that is why he "could not remember" the answers to many of the questions he was asked.
In addition, why has everything been so quiet since? This was a very high profile murder case. I would have expected somebody to have written a book, I would have expected some tabloid to have reported on VT's prison experiences, even if it was just regarding his taste in pizza, or his having been knifed or beaten up, I am very surprised that no tabloid has reported on what his family thinks, what his girlfriend thinks what his friends think, etc, I would have expected a reply to my request for his prison number so that I could write to him (you may think I'm "sick" to want to do so----no, I'm not, I actually want to write the book!!).
Ok, let's leave things here for now---I know people don't like long posts, and there is plenty on the thread!
-
I believe that, at first, four jurors declined, then the judge said he would accept a majority verdict.
I have said on a number of occasions that I do not KNOW that Vincent Tabak is innocent. I could be quite wrong about this, but I believe he could well be. The verdict has never sat well with me. All my views are laid out in our 100 page thread, but for those who can't be bothered to go through it all (and I cant really blame you), these are my reasons why:
No forensic evidence found in either Joanna's flat, or in Vincent's.
VT had (as far as we know) no previous "form" of any kind.
As far as we know, he did not know Joanna (she and Greg moved into their flat very shortly before Vincent went to America to work for six weeks.). He had no reason to kill her. Who goes and kills their neighbour after a long day at work, when they didn't even know that neighbour, and had no criminal record whatsoever?
Vincent was accused of killing Joanna between 16th and 19th December----this was said in court. If he didn't do it on the evening of the 17th, he could not have done it, as his girlfriend, Tanja was around to provide him with an alibi after that (and nobody has ever suggested that she was in on it). There is no evidence that Joanna was killed on the evening of the 17th. In fact, a witness who heard someone scream "help me" on the morning of the 18th, was never asked to testify in court.
The people allegedly seen and heard by Chris Jefferies were never investigated----as far as we know, and the content of his second witness statement has never been made public.
It is assumed that Vincent confessed to the crime. What he actually said was that he was going to plead guilty, ie he said that he was going to say he had done it, not that he had done it. When first arrested, he said he was innocent, and that he would not have even recognised Joanna, had he not seen her picture in the newspaper. He decided to plead guilty after several weeks on remand. He had never even been inside a police station before his arrest, so who knows what he went through in prison while on remand.
There were a number of odd things about the trial:
His girlfriend, Tanja , did not testify.
His boss did not testify.
His landlord did not testify.
The jury never heard about all the fire and rescue personnel and vehicles deployed to recover Joanna's body (see page 27 of the thread) which, supposedly, was found by dog walkers on a verge, leading me to suspect that the body was, in fact, left somewhere far less accessible. This does not necessarily mean that VT was not the killer, but why were the public and the jury not told?
Why did the defence not do more to defend?
From what I have read of the trial, VT seemed like an automaton, and told a story that was obviously a pack of lies---it seemed as if he was merely telling the story he had been told to tell. I think that is why he "could not remember" the answers to many of the questions he was asked.
In addition, why has everything been so quiet since? This was a very high profile murder case. I would have expected somebody to have written a book, I would have expected some tabloid to have reported on VT's prison experiences, even if it was just regarding his taste in pizza, or his having been knifed or beaten up, I am very surprised that no tabloid has reported on what his family thinks, what his girlfriend thinks what his friends think, etc, I would have expected a reply to my request for his prison number so that I could write to him (you may think I'm "sick" to want to do so----no, I'm not, I actually want to write the book!!).
Ok, let's leave things here for now---I know people don't like long posts, and there is plenty on the thread!
All very good points but at the end of the day Vincent Tabak pled guilty to manslaughter and has never retracted that admission. There was no reason for him to do so other than the enormous weight of guilt and shame which he had brought upon himself and his family respectively.
I agree, there are elements of this case which require further scrutiny but I fear the only miscarriage was the charge itself which the CPS brought and thereafter managed a 10 - 2 jury majority.
-
Nope he was guilty - should have been murder. HELP ME!
A young woman attending a party at a neighbouring house on Canynge Road on the night of Yeates' disappearance recalled hearing two loud screams shortly after 9:00 pm coming from the direction of Yeates' flat. Another neighbour who lived behind Yeates' home said that he heard a high-pitched woman's voice scream "Help me".
The prosecution also said that Tabak attempted to implicate Chrisopher Jefferies for the murder during the police investigation, and that in the days following Yeates' death, he had made internet searches for topics that included the length of time a body takes to decompose and the dates of refuse collections in the Clifton area.
In his defence, Tabak claimed that the killing had not been sexually motivated, and told the court that he had killed Yeates while trying to silence her after she screamed when he tried to kiss her. He claimed that Yeates had made a "flirty comment" and invited him to drink with her. He said that after she screamed he held his hands over her mouth and around her neck to silence her. He denied suggestions of a struggle, claiming to have held Yeates by the neck with only minimal force, and "for about 20 seconds". He told the court that after dumping the body he was "in a state of panic".
In the months leading up to Yeates' death, Tabak had used his computer to research escort agencies during business trips in the United Kingdom and United States, and contacted several prostitutes by phone.
He also viewed violent internet pornography that depicted women being controlled by men, showing images of them being bound and gagged, held by the neck and choked. During the murder investigation, police found images of a woman who bore a striking resemblance to Yeates. In one scene she was shown pulling up a pink top to expose her bra and breasts. When Yeates was discovered, she was wearing a similarly arranged pink top.
At Tabak's trial, prosecuting barrister Nigel Lickley QC, argued that the evidence of Tabak's activities should be provided to the jury: "It might shed light on the need to hold a woman for long enough and the need to squeeze hard enough to take her life." Details of Tabak's viewing of pornography were not included in the prosecution's case since the judge believed it did not prove that Tabak had acted with premeditation. After the trial it was disclosed that images of child pornography had been found on Tabak's laptop.
http://murderpedia.org/male.T/t/tabak-vincent.htm
-
Nope he was guilty - should have been murder. HELP ME!
A young woman attending a party at a neighbouring house on Canynge Road on the night of Yeates' disappearance recalled hearing two loud screams shortly after 9:00 pm coming from the direction of Yeates' flat. Another neighbour who lived behind Yeates' home said that he heard a high-pitched woman's voice scream "Help me".
The prosecution also said that Tabak attempted to implicate Chrisopher Jefferies for the murder during the police investigation, and that in the days following Yeates' death, he had made internet searches for topics that included the length of time a body takes to decompose and the dates of refuse collections in the Clifton area.
In his defence, Tabak claimed that the killing had not been sexually motivated, and told the court that he had killed Yeates while trying to silence her after she screamed when he tried to kiss her. He claimed that Yeates had made a "flirty comment" and invited him to drink with her. He said that after she screamed he held his hands over her mouth and around her neck to silence her. He denied suggestions of a struggle, claiming to have held Yeates by the neck with only minimal force, and "for about 20 seconds". He told the court that after dumping the body he was "in a state of panic".
In the months leading up to Yeates' death, Tabak had used his computer to research escort agencies during business trips in the United Kingdom and United States, and contacted several prostitutes by phone.
He also viewed violent internet pornography that depicted women being controlled by men, showing images of them being bound and gagged, held by the neck and choked. During the murder investigation, police found images of a woman who bore a striking resemblance to Yeates. In one scene she was shown pulling up a pink top to expose her bra and breasts. When Yeates was discovered, she was wearing a similarly arranged pink top.
At Tabak's trial, prosecuting barrister Nigel Lickley QC, argued that the evidence of Tabak's activities should be provided to the jury: "It might shed light on the need to hold a woman for long enough and the need to squeeze hard enough to take her life." Details of Tabak's viewing of pornography were not included in the prosecution's case since the judge believed it did not prove that Tabak had acted with premeditation. After the trial it was disclosed that images of child pornography had been found on Tabak's laptop.
http://murderpedia.org/male.T/t/tabak-vincent.htm
Hi pathfinder
The screams are how the police determined the time that Joanna Yeates was attacked according to DCI Joe Goff, but they discounted other screams that where heard... the neighbour who heard something along the lines of 'Help Me'.. was a forum user on BC called Kingdom who lived behind Canygne Road.
He says that he actually heard the 'Help Me".. on Saturday 18th December 2010 mid morning, also the neighbours on the Friday evening originally thought the screams were party goers, and the timings are all different.
I don't believe that Dr Vincent Tabak tried to implicate CJ, it was either an observation or what he had said in his early written statements, he had helped move the car...
"I remember at some point before he was arrested but after Joanna was known to be missing that Tanja and I were staying at her parents' house in Cambridge for Christmas," Tabak's statement said.
"The police had phoned us at least twice while we were there. Tanja and I discussed the business of being asked to help move his car in the icy drive on Saturday December 18.
This made me question when CJ saw people at the gate, as he told the Leveson Inquiry that his car was on the road at the time, but he wasn't completley sure that it was the Friday evening he saw this happen..
(IMO) I think the car was on the road Saturday because the drive was icy and he wouldn't put it back in it's designated parking space as he had difficulty moving it without assistance.
Which would then make Saturday the day he say or heard someone at the small gate.. (IMO)
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-trial-vincent-275169
-
This case raises an interesting question. Why would anyone think that Vincent Tabak is innocent or might be innocent if he has already admitted to manslaughter and has maintained that position since his trial?
-
This case raises an interesting question. Why would anyone think that Vincent Tabak is innocent or might be innocent if he has already admitted to manslaughter and has maintained that position since his trial?
I am of the belief he is Innocent John, as you are aware...
This case has caused me many sleepless nights, it goes around and around... I believe the Police rushed to accuse Dr Vincent Tabak as they had CJ....
There underhanded tactic of going over to Holland to interview him as a supposed witness, was indeed a interview as a suspect, with it taking some 6 hours, which Dutch Law allows for an interview of a suspect before you charge or release them.. They were only supposed to be asking him when CJ's car had changed position, according to DC Karen Thomas... This was a 5 minute question..(IMO) They didn't need to fly to Holland for this (IMO)
The trial was a travesty from start to finish, with The Dutchman sat not knowing the answers to over 80 questions that the prosecution had put to him... The Defence not only did not defend (IMO) they actively helped the prosecution with underhand statements of despise for their client with words such as:
1: his conduct after Yeates died when he hid the body was “frankly disgusting” and had caused untold anguish and agony to her family.
2: “I’m not going to ask you to like Vincent Tabak. There’s probably nothing to like.”
3: And Miss Morson seems to agree, having failed to make a single appearance at court.
4: He had told “lie after lie to the police.
5: “did everything he could to cover his tracks”.
6: He added that he would not try to justify Tabak’s actions after her death, saying his client was “living a lie” by attending dinner parties and attempting to carry on his life as normal.
7: “I’m not going to ask you to have any sympathy for him. He deserves none.
8: “I’m not going to ask you to excuse his conduct. There can be no excuse.
9: “If I was to set out to win a popularity contest I would lose.
10: He told the court: “Of course, afterwards his behaviour is utterly disgraceful. It’s not going to be justified by me
The searches I do not believe belonged to Dr Vincent Tabak, the prosecution also asked the jury to add a word they apparently had not written in their copy of the 1300 page document...They asked them to add "DEFINITION" to the words "Sexual Conduct'... which changes the meaning altogether. As for 'Sexual Conduct'.. that is a legal term and I'm sure Dr Vincent Tabak would not be aware of this fact...
I'll continue on another post... I know mine are generally very long.. but I would say informative...
-
The time scale in which Dr Vincent Tabak had to do this crime is quite small, which makes CJ's statements very valuable as evidence as to what he saw or observed over the weekend of 17th Dec to 19th Dec 2010. But we do not know their content..
If as is reported in the media that Joanna Yeates wore a Pink Flower Patterned Top and her Jeans are Blue in the court drawings, that suggests that she had changed her clothing on the Friday evening possibliy the Saturday morning... If we say Friday, that still changes the timescale that the prosecution have said her death occurred.
The Timescale is paramount... The 1300 page document that the prosecution furnished the defence with on the 7th Oct 2011 in court, contained all the Timelines, emails, texts and phone calls of Joanna Yeates, Greg Reardon, Tanja Morson and Dr Vincent Tabak.. The defence did not have the time to cross reference these timelines to even see if his client had the window of opportunity to commit the offence.
At no time does Dr Vincent Tabak confess to this crime, not even to the pretend chaplain Brotherton whom assumed the roll as Chaplain in Long Lartin just before Dr Vincent Tabak was sent there.. Brotherton was an Ardent member of the Salvation Army and therefore didn't have to keep any talk between himself and prisoners private, it never had anything to do with him betraying the church... he betrayed himself (IMO) and personally I believe he was put in Long Lartin just for Dr Vincent Tabak. (IMO)
Going back to the 1300 page document, there are 2 searches which I believe it was impossible for Dr Vincent Tabak to have done, these are innocuous searches and were easily over looked:
On 18 Dec 2010, Tabak searched at
1.26 am- ‘BBC news’ and ‘weather forecast’
1.46 am- ‘weather forecast’
1.47 am- ‘BBC Bristol news’
At 1:26 am Dr Vincent Tabak was still at home, he was seen leaving at 1:38am on the 18th December 2010
He had gone to collect his girlfriend Tanja from the party she had been attending and he had driven to the centre of Bristol to pick her up...
This means it's IMPOSSIBLE (IMO) for Dr Vincent Tabak to have done two searches one at 1:46am and one at 1:47am on the 18th December 2010, when he was not at home to do these searches!!!
For me this revelation discredits all of the searches that they have attributed to Dr Vincent Tabak..
Not only that the defence had him in his own flat till 9:29pm on Friday 17th December 2010
The moving of a dead weight is extremely difficult, he is supposed to have moved Joanna Yeates numerous times into rooms in her flat and into his flat then into a bicycle bag/cover then his car, all without it causing him a problem.. Moving a dead weight is extremely difficult and exhausting. Statistically I do not believe that most perpertetors move their victim from the scene of crime, rather they walk/drive them to the location they are found.
Lyndsey Lennen stating in The Guardian and I quote:
A colleague went down to supervise the removal of her clothing and preserve any body fluids: "The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky." Under the media glare, the work was flat-out: clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours.
So if it only took 48 hours to turn around everything and they had Dr Vincent Tabak DNA on the 31st December 2010 which they obtained in Holland, how did she manage to analylis Dr Vincent Tabak's Black Coat when he hadn't been arrested by till the 20th January 2011??? I know that they had access to all of the flats at Canygne Road, Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson had moved out..
Is she admitting to having his coat fibres from that earlier time??? (IMO) she is!!!!
So Lyndsey Lennen says 48 hours and DCI phil Jones stated it took weeks..... on the Crime Watch Program...
I'll stop there for the moment.... there is plenty of information in the main thread which casts doubt on Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction.(IMO)
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jan/17/csi-oxford-lgc-forensics
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
This case raises an interesting question. Why would anyone think that Vincent Tabak is innocent or might be innocent if he has already admitted to manslaughter and has maintained that position since his trial?
No, John, the interesting question is, why anyone would think him GUILTY after being confronted with all the evidence of the weirdest murder prosecution of all time? Can you cite any other high-profile case where an eminent defence barrister used so many devices to ensure a guilty verdict for his own client?
Not once did the prosecutor mention the word "motive". Counsel for the Defence would know that the jury would have expected to hear what the police and the CPS thought was this highly motivated academic defendant's motive for killing Joanna. So his first line of defence would be to draw the jury's attention to the prosecution's failure to suggest a motive. Did Counsel for the Defence EVER even mention the word "motive" - no, he did not. This meant that the jury couldn't even discuss the motive.
Why did Vincent Tabak not replace his lawyers when he had the chance? Just to jog your memory, he retained the same two law firms when he appeared on trial for possessing illegal images of child abuse 2½ years after his conviction for murder. Why would even a guilty defendant be satisfied with such an appallingly inadequate defence performance? There can be only one rational explanation, and that is, that the CPS wanted a murderer, and Vincent Tabak's lawyers undertook to serve him up to them, in return for a secret amnesty and a new identity.
-
At this point I'll post the results of the poll to see if it changes as time passes:
Guilty as Charged (16.7%)
Guilty of Manslaughter not Murder (41.7%)
Think he could be Innocent (25%)
He is Innocent (16.7%)
Interesting statistics so far....
-
This case raises an interesting question. Why would anyone think that Vincent Tabak is innocent or might be innocent if he has already admitted to manslaughter and has maintained that position since his trial?
People have confessed to crimes they haven't committed in the past and now.... It is well known that people whom are either under duress or cannot cope mentally with the situation in front of them confess just for it all to go away...
Once you have gone down that path it is extremely difficult to undo as with Stefan Kizco and the West Memphis Three... it takes years and lots of help from people whom believe in you...
-
At no time does Dr Vincent Tabak confess to this crime, not even to the pretend chaplain Brotherton whom assumed the roll as Chaplain in Long Lartin just before Dr Vincent Tabak was sent there.. Brotherton was an Ardent member of the Salvation Army and therefore didn't have to keep any talk between himself and prisoners private, it never had anything to do with him betraying the church... he betrayed himself (IMO) and personally I believe he was put in Long Lartin just for Dr Vincent Tabak. (IMO)
Not only was Brotherton put there just for Vincent Tabak - he was a senior prison officer from another prison, pretending to be an independent chaplain. Counsel for the defence made a pretence of discrediting him under cross-examination in court, referring amongst other things to an imaginary statement made by the witness on 16 February 2011 that neither the judge nor the jury ever got to see. However, Counsel never asked him, "Am I right in thinking that you are a senior prison officer by profession?"
-
This case raises an interesting question. Why would anyone think that Vincent Tabak is innocent or might be innocent if he has already admitted to manslaughter and has maintained that position since his trial?
I agree with the replies to this question given by Nine and Leonora----apart from the fact I do not believe that Vincent is anywhere other than in prison! I, too, have said plenty on this subject on the main thread.
I would like to know more about Vincent's state of mind at the time he decided to plead guilty to manslaughter. Had he been given medication that might cause him not to be able to remember what happened, or which induced false memories? Had he suffered a breakdown? Was he severely depressed? Was he able to cope with being in prison? Was he being treated well? Had he just given up?
Many people have confessed to things they did not do: it is a well known phenomenon. However, don't forget that he said he was going to plead guilty---he did not say "I killed Joanna." That is what the newspapers said!
I have been trying to make contact with Vincent for some time. For some reason (too much work, according to them), the Prisoner Location Service has not been forthcoming with a response to my request to write to him. If Vincent were to tell me at this stage, that yes, he did kill Joanna, and why he did it, and that made sense, then I would have to accept that I had been wrong, and he was guilty. Until then, I suspect that he had nothing to do with the crime.
-
The time scale in which Dr Vincent Tabak had to do this crime is quite small, which makes CJ's statements very valuable as evidence as to what he saw or observed over the weekend of 17th Dec to 19th Dec 2010. But we do not know their content..
At the police station and for the first three of his preliminary appearances in court, VT was represented by lawyers from Crossman & Co of Radstock and Albion Chambers. The most important thing about this team is that they told the magistrate that he would be applying for bail the next day, only to change their minds the following day at the Crown Court. Why did they do this? The only probable explanation is that the lady from the CPS (who as we know had been planning this for some time) chose her moment to notify VT's lawyers of something that convinced them that bail would not be granted and that their client was therefore guilty.
This is enormously important. I believe that the crying girl ruse was intended to deceive primarily Crossman & Co. You may have other explanations. The CPS may have told VT's lawyers about the 43 injuries to the body (which they would otherwise not have learnt about until their own pathologist examined it later). These had not been made public. They may have alleged that VT attempted to incriminate the landlord, which Crossman & Co wouldn't have known as their client certainly wouldn't have told them.
Did the CPS at this stage reveal to VT's lawyers the contents of CJ's 2nd witness statement, which is STILL to this day a closely guarded secret? Did the CPS at this state reveal what was really talked about during the long, expensive interview at Schiphol, which, again, we can only guess at? Did the CPS reveal that VT already knew Joanna well, as an unattributed press report claimed at the time, though it was never even hinted at in court? The CPS knew that VT would sack his lawyers, and this meant that the new lawyers who took over his defence would not have access to whatever secrets the CPS had revealed to Crossman & Co.
This is all far more important than a naive faith in any so-called confession that anyone who reads what was actually said in court can see for themselves wasn't a confession at all.
-
At the police station and for the first three of his preliminary appearances in court, VT was represented by lawyers from Crossman & Co of Radstock and Albion Chambers. The most important thing about this team is that they told the magistrate that he would be applying for bail the next day, only to change their minds the following day at the Crown Court. Why did they do this? The only probable explanation is that the lady from the CPS (who as we know had been planning this for some time) chose her moment to notify VT's lawyers of something that convinced them that bail would not be granted and that their client was therefore guilty.
This is enormously important. I believe that the crying girl ruse was intended to deceive primarily Crossman & Co. You may have other explanations. The CPS may have told VT's lawyers about the 43 injuries to the body (which they would otherwise not have learnt about until their own pathologist examined it later). These had not been made public. They may have alleged that VT attempted to incriminate the landlord, which Crossman & Co wouldn't have known as their client certainly wouldn't have told them.
Did the CPS at this stage reveal to VT's lawyers the contents of CJ's 2nd witness statement, which is STILL to this day a closely guarded secret? Did the CPS at this state reveal what was really talked about during the long, expensive interview at Schiphol, which, again, we can only guess at? Did the CPS reveal that VT already knew Joanna well, as an unattributed press report claimed at the time, though it was never even hinted at in court? The CPS knew that VT would sack his lawyers, and this meant that the new lawyers who took over his defence would not have access to whatever secrets the CPS had revealed to Crossman & Co.
This is all far more important than a naive faith in any so-called confession that anyone who reads what was actually said in court can see for themselves wasn't a confession at all.
Are you disputing that Tabak instructed his Counsel that he would plead to manslaughter because that is relative point here and not what he supposedly did or did not tell a prison chaplin.
As far as the change of mind over bail is concerned there are many reasons why this could have happened, some of which you speculate on above. Vincent Tabak is a foreign national and as he was facing a very serious charge it is quite normal for bail to be denied. In fact, Tabak was remanded in custody for his own safety initially.
Undoubtedly, the CPS were in discussion with Tabak's lawyers which is quite normal practise. Following those discussions his lawyers decided that bail was unlikely to be granted so never pursued the issue, I see no mystery in what occurred, this is how the criminal justice system works in the UK.
-
Looking at the poll, I see that most people who have voted so far believe it was manslaughter.
So, why do you think he approached Joanna at all ? Do you believe the story he told in court about the "pass gone wrong?" Do you think Joanna did invite him in to her flat? Do you think he forced his way in, or was already there , snooping around? Did he follow her home-----could "trolleyman" in Waitrose have been VT? (Some people on other fora have suggested this, although it wasn't mentioned in court.
Does anyone think Vincent and Joanna might have known each other previously? Again, this has been suggested, but was not established at the trial.
Does anyone believe that he was acting out what he had watched in porn movies? If so, why choose his next door neighbour? He was bound to get caught, and surely, he was intelligent enough to realise that!
Does anyone think he was under the influence of drink or drugs at the time?
Does anyone believe he and Jo had consensual sex, and he accidentally strangled her?
I don't believe these scenarios, but I am very interested to know what other posters think.
-
Looking at the poll, I see that most people who have voted so far believe it was manslaughter.
So, why do you think he approached Joanna at all ? Do you believe the story he told in court about the "pass gone wrong?" Do you think Joanna did invite him in to her flat? Do you think he forced his way in, or was already there , snooping around? Did he follow her home-----could "trolleyman" in Waitrose have been VT? (Some people on other fora have suggested this, although it wasn't mentioned in court.
Does anyone think Vincent and Joanna might have known each other previously? Again, this has been suggested, but was not established at the trial.
Does anyone believe that he was acting out what he had watched in porn movies? If so, why choose his next door neighbour? He was bound to get caught, and surely, he was intelligent enough to realise that!
Does anyone think he was under the influence of drink or drugs at the time?
Does anyone believe he and Jo had consensual sex, and he accidentally strangled her?
I don't believe these scenarios, but I am very interested to know what other posters think.
Only Vincent Tabak will know the answer to these questions and its a real pity the opportunity was lost at his trial to clarify them.
Why don't you e-mail him and ask him to clarify these matters?
-
Only Vincent Tabak will know the answer to these questions and its a real pity the opportunity was lost at his trial to clarify them.
Why don't you e-mail him and ask him to clarify these matters?
As I have previously said, one needs a prisoner's permission before one can write/e mail them, and also their prison number. I have applied for both-------and no response (other than the service is very busy, etc etc) has been forthcoming.
-
Only Vincent Tabak will know the answer to these questions and its a real pity the opportunity was lost at his trial to clarify them.
Why don't you e-mail him and ask him to clarify these matters?
I agree---it was a great pity that these issues were not clarified in court, and not only Vincent Tabak could have clarified them.
I dare say his partner would have had some idea as to whether or not he was into kinky sex.
I dare say at least one female friend or colleague could have commented on whether he was the type of man who made unwelcome advances to women, or stalked them.
I dare say somebody could have commented on how much he drank, and whether or not he used cannabis.
-
I'm with pathfinder73 and everyone else who says he should have been found guilty of murder. IIRC there was evidence that in the 24 hours before the killing he had watched a video of the violent rape and killing of a woman, yet another case which shows the baneful influence of watching violence
-
I'm with pathfinder73 and everyone else who says he should have been found guilty of murder. IIRC there was evidence that in the 24 hours before the killing he had watched a video of the violent rape and killing of a woman, yet another case which shows the baneful influence of watching violence
Hi Blonk
There was NO evidence that he had been watching video's of porn or any video's showing a woman being killed.... that's what the media said after the trial..
I believe the Porn was a ruse as to bolster public opinion that they had convicted the right man... They never produced it in court and personally I do not believe it existed..
The series that the media referred to is called Sex and Submission which people are able to view on adult TV channels...
I believe it was the prosecutions wish to make the public support them in their case, without having the evidence to back it up!!!!!
-
Was VT asked about this at his trial?
-
Was VT asked about this at his trial?
No.... anything to do with the pornography wasn't introduced in the trial as evidence and was only released to the media after the trial had finished...
Therefore I cannot see how they sentenced him (I Believe).. as a sexual motivated attack...
http://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Vincent-Tabak-7570-1.law
There was no proof that it was sexually Motivated and Joanna Yeates had NOT been sexually assaulted.
-
No.... anything to do with the pornography wasn't introduced in the trial as evidence and was only released to the media after the trial had finished...
Therefore I cannot see how they sentenced him (I Believe).. as a sexual motivated attack...
http://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Vincent-Tabak-7570-1.law
There was no proof that it was sexually Motivated and Joanna Yeates had NOT been sexually assaulted.
The jury would have thought it was sexually motivated, as a result of the story VT gave. Personally, I don't think his story was true: I believe it was suggested by his lawyers, and he went along with it, but others believe differently. Certainly, he can't have killed Joanna in her flat (or in his), as no forensic evidence was found in either flat. However, this was part of his story!
I am a cynic, of course, and I don't think there was a motive, as I don't believe it was VT who killed Joanna. However, this was a young man accused of the murder of a young woman, so , naturally, a sexual motive would go down well as a reasonable explanation.
-
As far as the change of mind over bail is concerned there are many reasons why this could have happened, some of which you speculate on above.
In his first statement, given to police the same day as he was arrested, 20th January 2011, Vincent Tabak insisted that he did not know Joanna Yeates and that he had never spoken to her nor her boyfriend. “Until her picture was shown prominently in the press I would not have recognised her,” he told the detectives.
The very next day, 21st January 2011, The Sun told a different story:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/324139/weeping-girl-tipped-off-jo-police/
“Tabak knew landscape architect Jo and they worked together on joint schemes for their respective firms, according to a former colleague of his at consultant engineers Buro Happold. They said: ‘They would have met in her office or on location.’”
Who was this mysterious colleague? How did they know that he had denied knowing her during his interrogation at the police station? If Crossman & Co and Albion Chambers had time to read all the newspaper reports on his arrest while all this was going on, did they ask their client about this? Did he deny it? Was it a subsequent tip-off from the CPS suggesting that his statement was untrue that prompted the lawyers to change their minds about bail?
-
If this "mysterious colleague" existed, and had evidence that Vincent and Jo did know each other, why wasn't he or she asked to testify in court?
If they had known each other, a scenario whereby he , perhaps, was likely to "try it on" with her when both their partners were absent, would seem much more plausible, IMO. Surely, the prosecution team would have wanted that to come out in court???
-
Only Vincent Tabak will know the answer to these questions and its a real pity the opportunity was lost at his trial to clarify them.
Why don't you e-mail him and ask him to clarify these matters?
The first part of your post is very close to something that DCI Phil Jones said in public after the trial. DCI Jones is known for being very economical with the truth. You for one would not believe any answers that Vincent Tabak might give, either under oath or by e-mail, so your post is not worth the paper it is printed on. DCI Jones, on the other hand, is one of those who DOES know the answers to these questions. We know he knows. We know that he is not telling, even though the public has a right to know.
First and foremost, we know that DCI Jones and his colleagues are not prepared to let anyone read what was in the landlord's 2nd witness statement. The landlord is reckoned to be an exceptionally reliable witness of unblemished character who saw two or three persons on Joanna's front path just after 9 p.m., probably on Saturday 18th December 2010. Who were these persons, that their identities must be kept secret even 6 years later?
We know that two of Jones's colleagues interviewed both Vincent Tabak and his girlfriend at Schiphol, yet the only details that the court was told about this couldn't have occupied more than 15 minutes of the 6 hours the interview lasted. The DC who testified may not have lied, but the judge ought to have spotted that she didn't tell the whole truth and asked her to explain herself. Once again, what have the police got to hide after 6 years? Why don't you e-mail them?
The public also has a right to know by what process the police so quickly and categorically eliminated Joanna's boyfriend as a suspect, but decided instead to arrest on very insubstantial grounds the landlord, a person of very good character who could have had no motive to kill Joanna and who scarcely knew her. The boyfriend may have had an alibi for the Friday evening, but not for 7 hours during the Sunday evening. Suspecting the boyfriend is standard practice. I repeat this here as there are some who don't seem to have grasped the basic facts of the case.
The Fire Service have repeatedly refuse to explain why four fire engines and a substantial crane were summoned to recover Joanna's body, but the jury was not told. The police must know the reason why.
The police also have statements from Joanna's parents, taken within hours of their arriving at the flat, when they later alleged they were already 100% sure she had been abducted. Yet they were not called to testify. The fact is that the police are sitting on a wealth of reliable answers to hitherto unanswered questions for which Vincent Tabak can in no way be held responsible. We WOULD know the truth if the police were willing to tell it.
-
Are you disputing that Tabak instructed his Counsel that he would plead to manslaughter because that is relative point here and not what he supposedly did or did not tell a prison chaplin.
I'm not disputing it - I'm insisting that any plea would not have been his decision. It would have been his lawyer's recommendation. Just to clarify facts that we know:
(1) After the prisoner had held conversations with Peter Brotherton in prison, he ceased to be represented by Crossman & Co instructing Albion Chambers, and his case was taken overy by Kelcey & Hall instructing William Clegg Chambers. It seems most probable that it was Vincent Tabak who decided to change his lawyers, though it is just possible that it was his first defence team themselves who recommended the second team.
(2) There is no question but that Peter Brotherton, under oath, told the court that the prisoner had told him in February 2011 about the plea he might be making, and that this plea might be "guilty". At no time did Peter Brotherton actually state that the prisoner had told him that he had killed Joanna. It was Counsel for the Defence who, in a subordinate clause, under cross-examination, used the words "he had killed Joanna".
We know that a lawyer from Crossman & Co or Albion Chambers, who had declined to apply for bail for their client, and therefore believed him to be guilty, visited the prisoner in his cell BEFORE the first conversation with Peter Brotherton. It must have been this lawyer who, for some reason we don't know, advised Vincent Tabak that he plead guilty of manslaughter.
By the time the case came to court, we all heard how meagre the evidence against Vincent Tabak actually was. This didn't matter, as he had "confessed", and went on to recount, at great length, but with little credibility, how he claimed to have committed the crime. Surely it is obvious, however, that in the absence of a "confession", even Albion Chambers could have secured a "not guilty" verdict from the jury? However, unlike the jury, WE KNOW that the confession to the "chaplain" was a very cleverly executed fake. So why did he plead guilty of manslaughter? I am not going to repeat here the dozen or so points of evidence that suggest strongly that his plea too was faked, but I maintain firmly that the real Vincent Tabak never did plead guilty.
-
I'm not disputing it - I'm insisting that any plea would not have been his decision. It would have been his lawyer's recommendation. Just to clarify facts that we know:
(1) After the prisoner had held conversations with Peter Brotherton in prison, he ceased to be represented by Crossman & Co instructing Albion Chambers, and his case was taken overy by Kelcey & Hall instructing William Clegg Chambers. It seems most probable that it was Vincent Tabak who decided to change his lawyers, though it is just possible that it was his first defence team themselves who recommended the second team.
(2) There is no question but that Peter Brotherton, under oath, told the court that the prisoner had told him in February 2011 about the plea he might be making, and that this plea might be "guilty". At no time did Peter Brotherton actually state that the prisoner had told him that he had killed Joanna. It was Counsel for the Defence who, in a subordinate clause, under cross-examination, used the words "he had killed Joanna".
We know that a lawyer from Crossman & Co or Albion Chambers, who had declined to apply for bail for their client, and therefore believed him to be guilty, visited the prisoner in his cell BEFORE the first conversation with Peter Brotherton. It must have been this lawyer who, for some reason we don't know, advised Vincent Tabak that he plead guilty of manslaughter.
By the time the case came to court, we all heard how meagre the evidence against Vincent Tabak actually was. This didn't matter, as he had "confessed", and went on to recount, at great length, but with little credibility, how he claimed to have committed the crime. Surely it is obvious, however, that in the absence of a "confession", even Albion Chambers could have secured a "not guilty" verdict from the jury? However, unlike the jury, WE KNOW that the confession to the "chaplain" was a very cleverly executed fake. So why did he plead guilty of manslaughter? I am not going to repeat here the dozen or so points of evidence that suggest strongly that his plea too was faked, but I maintain firmly that the real Vincent Tabak never did plead guilty.
Maybe the first Lawyers only gave him a "Base Metal Service" too as he was recieving legal aid.. maybe they didn't look into what the facts really were and passed the hot potato over to Clegg whom is aware of what a "Base metal Service " will actually give you...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg387448;topicseen#msg387448
One aspect I really am curious too, is..... What evidence Cook originally had and did he pass all this evidence over to Clegg??
I say this because Clegg doesn't seem to be aware fully of his clients movements and has him in his own flat til 9:29pm on Friday 17th December 2010
-
Have to admit I didn't think I was familiar with this case but once googled and watched a You Tube programme following the case it was very familiar. From what I can establish the conviction was pretty safe and the question of manslaughter although possible I do not consider to be highly likely. In this case I think Tabak is banged to rights
-
First and foremost, we know that DCI Jones and his colleagues are not prepared to let anyone read what was in the landlord's 2nd witness statement. The landlord is reckoned to be an exceptionally reliable witness of unblemished character who saw two or three persons on Joanna's front path just after 9 p.m., probably on Saturday 18th December 2010. Who were these persons, that their identities must be kept secret even 6 years later?
We know that two of Jones's colleagues interviewed both Vincent Tabak and his girlfriend at Schiphol, yet the only details that the court was told about this couldn't have occupied more than 15 minutes of the 6 hours the interview lasted. The DC who testified may not have lied, but the judge ought to have spotted that she didn't tell the whole truth and asked her to explain herself. Once again, what have the police got to hide after 6 years? Why don't you e-mail them?
The public also has a right to know by what process the police so quickly and categorically eliminated Joanna's boyfriend as a suspect, but decided instead to arrest on very insubstantial grounds the landlord, a person of very good character who could have had no motive to kill Joanna and who scarcely knew her. The boyfriend may have had an alibi for the Friday evening, but not for 7 hours during the Sunday evening. Suspecting the boyfriend is standard practice. I repeat this here as there are some who don't seem to have grasped the basic facts of the case.
Did we ever get to see the first witness statement???
I believe too that it could quite have probably been the Saturday 18th December 2010 that CJ saw or heard someone at the little gate...
By Dr Vincent Tabak having a plea impressed upon him (IMO) that stops a full trial taking place where all the witness's would have had to take the stand, and he could have faced his accusers..
It's all neatly wrapped in a 'Plea Bow' and there's The Dutchman, sat there for all to ridicule and say a story that sort of covers the bases, but NOT quite...
I agree Leonora.. usually in cases it's the partner of the deceased who comes under scrutiny first and we are not aware of what the Police did to eliminate him..
But they tried their hardest to have Dr Vincent Tabak in their clutches (IMO)... as you say going out of their way to interview him in Holland when they could have quite easily have waited on his return...
It is extremley odd that the Holland 6 hour interview took place at all and one really has to wonder why??? especially at this point they had not cross referenced any of Joanna Yeates work collegues or close friends DNA..\
There could not have been any evidence at all for the Police to even suspect Dr Vincent Tabak when they went over to Holland, so why the big drama and why take his DNA if they hadn't gone prepared!!!!
There's definitley something fishy about this case...... I just don't know what it is!!!!!
-
Given the somewhat complicated criteria for murder versus manslaughter under English Law I believe the verdict was correct. The evidence from the trial appears to indicate that there was a prolonged assault on Joanna and that she fought for her life. The claim of accidental killing must surely be discounted in those circumstances. Although there is no proof that Tabak set out to kill Joanna, the evidence strongly suggests he did so mercilessly in the end.
In those circumstances under English Law, it has to be murder.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/
-
Have to admit I didn't think I was familiar with this case but once googled and watched a You Tube programme following the case it was very familiar. From what I can establish the conviction was pretty safe and the question of manslaughter although possible I do not consider to be highly likely. In this case I think Tabak is banged to rights
Which youtube program did you watch Singularity???
-
There's definitley something fishy about this case...... I just don't know what it is!!!!!
I agree! I don't know what it is, either---------
-
Have to admit I didn't think I was familiar with this case but once googled and watched a You Tube programme following the case it was very familiar. From what I can establish the conviction was pretty safe and the question of manslaughter although possible I do not consider to be highly likely. In this case I think Tabak is banged to rights
Did the You Tube programme you saw show the four fire engines, the crane and the 23 fire officers that were needed to recover Joanna's body from the verge of a country lane? Did the programme include an explanation of why the jury was told only that two straps and a broom-handle were used, with no mention of the fire engines? Since you think the right person was convicted, perhaps you would like to explain to this thread the discrepancy between what the court and the public were told and what really happened?
-
From what I can establish the conviction was pretty safe and the question of manslaughter although possible I do not consider to be highly likely. In this case I think Tabak is banged to rights
Perhaps you would like to tell this thread of any other murder trial you have researched in which a defendant of good character, with not so much a parking ticket to his discredit, is defended by a barrister who opened his speech with the remark, "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I do not ask you to like my client. There is probably nothing to like about him"? With a Defence Counsel like that, who needs a Prosecutor?
-
Did we ever get to see the first witness statement???
I believe too that it could quite have probably been the Saturday 18th December 2010 that CJ saw or heard someone at the little gate...
I am sure you and I would be able to find quite lot of unexpected nuggets even in CJ's first witness statement (to the police), but don't hold your breath! It has never seen the light of day. But make no mistake, it's his 2nd witness statement that is the holy grail of this case. Don't be deluded into believing that this is just about two or three persons on Joanna's front path just after 9 p.m. one evening, which most probably was Saturday 18th December 2010. On the contrary, it is what he has NEVER made public that is the real Pandora's box. How can I be so sure of this? I can be sure, not least because EVEN the makers of the high-budget and very pro-landlord "Lost Honour" docu-drama were not able to get EITHER CJ OR the police to give them even a tiny peep at this explosive statement - even though they were meticulous enough to depict the incident itself, as best they could, in their story. Think about the implications of why the landlord and the police would still want to preserve each other's secret so many years after the case was "closed".
-
I agree Leonora.. usually in cases it's the partner of the deceased who comes under scrutiny first and we are not aware of what the Police did to eliminate him..
The DC who flew to Schiphol testified in court that it was there, in Holland, while the landlord was still in custody back in Bristol, that she began to suspect Vincent Tabak, whom the police had previously regarded as a witness. By the time of his trial, the arrest of the landlord was universally understood to have been a mistake on the part of the police. Up until one week after Joanna's body was found, the police seemingly knew so little about the fate of Joanna that they had no suspect more serious than Christopher Jefferies, and it turned out that he wasn't their man anyway. If the police really knew so little, then how could they possibly have known enough to eliminate others with the alacrity with which they did so? Were they really bumbling along under a veil of ignorance, as they appeared to be doing, or did they really know more than they were telling, as Joanna's father stated at the time? No TV documentary has even asked this obvious and important question.
-
It is extremley odd that the Holland 6 hour interview took place at all and one really has to wonder why??? especially at this point they had not cross referenced any of Joanna Yeates work collegues or close friends DNA..\
There could not have been any evidence at all for the Police to even suspect Dr Vincent Tabak when they went over to Holland, so why the big drama and why take his DNA if they hadn't gone prepared!!!!
You think it extremely odd, I think it extremely odd, but do the other posters on this thread think it odd? They just think it odd that we even bother to think about it at all. I think THEM odd for not seeing the importance of what was discussed during the remaining 5 hours and 45 minutes, after the matters of the direction of the landlord's car (5 minutes), the removal of Joanna's front door (5 minutes) and the taking of the swab accompanied by the fussing of the civilian females (5 minutes) had all been completed. I don't even think the judge odd for not asking the witness, "Detective Constable Thomas, would you please tell the court what was talked about during the remaining 5 hours and 45 minutes of your time in Holland?" Call me cynical, but for "odd", read "hidden agenda".
-
Maybe the first Lawyers only gave him a "Base Metal Service" too as he was recieving legal aid.. maybe they didn't look into what the facts really were and passed the hot potato over to Clegg whom is aware of what a "Base metal Service " will actually give you...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg387448;topicseen#msg387448
One aspect I really am curious too, is..... What evidence Cook originally had and did he pass all this evidence over to Clegg??
I say this because Clegg doesn't seem to be aware fully of his clients movements and has him in his own flat til 9:29pm on Friday 17th December 2010
I feel quite sorry for the unknown lawyer from Crossman & Co and for Paul Cook QC, as I am confident that they both did their best, yet glory was snatched from them. I am also confident that these lawyers kept their client fully informed of the evidence against him, and so whatever case files Mr. Clegg and his colleagues requsitioned from their predecessors, they received.
Do not be deceived if William Clegg seemed not to be aware. William Clegg is the sort of barrister who never says anything in court without a reason, nor does he keep silent without a reason. I do not buy your theory of parsimony.
On the day he was arrested, detectives called at Buro Happold and took away some boxes. No doubt they consulted his bosses at the same time to find out how well he knew Joanna Yeates. Do not be deceived by the silence of Buro Happold. Their account of the case would be far more revealing and credible than the phoney secrets that DCI Phil Jones claims only Vincent Tabak knows.
-
If this "mysterious colleague" existed, and had evidence that Vincent and Jo did know each other, why wasn't he or she asked to testify in court?
If they had known each other, a scenario whereby he , perhaps, was likely to "try it on" with her when both their partners were absent, would seem much more plausible, IMO. Surely, the prosecution team would have wanted that to come out in court???
What motive could the Prosecution possibly have had to call a witness who could testify that the defendant knew Joanna Yeates professionally? This would play havoc with the "enhanced statement" that he had so obligingly signed, demonstrating to the jury that he was a "crazy detached person" quite prepared to inflict 43 injuries on his hapless victim with no motive whatsoever. A plausible scenario would make the defendant seem human and his actions understandable, sympathetic even, especially to the youthful jurors.
-
It is a mystery to me as to why he was convicted of murder, maybe that is why two jurors declined. He is an intelligent bloke with a girlfriend, a good job and a loving family such as we were told. To go out and kill on a premeditated basis was illogical imo.
Given the somewhat complicated criteria for murder versus manslaughter under English Law I believe the verdict was correct. The evidence from the trial appears to indicate that there was a prolonged assault on Joanna and that she fought for her life. The claim of accidental killing must surely be discounted in those circumstances. Although there is no proof that Tabak set out to kill Joanna, the evidence strongly suggests he did so in the end.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/
How can there be a prolonged assault when the original prognosis stated by DCI Phil Jones was that there were No significant injuries???
-
How can there be a prolonged assault when the original prognosis stated by DCI Phil Jones was that there were No significant injuries???
He probably meant visible injuries.
-
He probably meant visible injuries.
If Joanna's injuries were not visible, how did they later manage to count 43?
I would imagine a number of these were obtained during the retrieval of her body------which, given the amount of fire and rescue equipment involved, must have been very difficult. The weather conditions could well have accounted for some of them, too.
-
At the police station and for the first three of his preliminary appearances in court, VT was represented by lawyers from Crossman & Co of Radstock and Albion Chambers. The most important thing about this team is that they told the magistrate that he would be applying for bail the next day, only to change their minds the following day at the Crown Court. Why did they do this? The only probable explanation is that the lady from the CPS (who as we know had been planning this for some time) chose her moment to notify VT's lawyers of something that convinced them that bail would not be granted and that their client was therefore guilty.
This is enormously important. I believe that the crying girl ruse was intended to deceive primarily Crossman & Co. You may have other explanations. The CPS may have told VT's lawyers about the 43 injuries to the body (which they would otherwise not have learnt about until their own pathologist examined it later). These had not been made public. They may have alleged that VT attempted to incriminate the landlord, which Crossman & Co wouldn't have known as their client certainly wouldn't have told them.
Did the CPS at this stage reveal to VT's lawyers the contents of CJ's 2nd witness statement, which is STILL to this day a closely guarded secret? Did the CPS at this state reveal what was really talked about during the long, expensive interview at Schiphol, which, again, we can only guess at? Did the CPS reveal that VT already knew Joanna well, as an unattributed press report claimed at the time, though it was never even hinted at in court? The CPS knew that VT would sack his lawyers, and this meant that the new lawyers who took over his defence would not have access to whatever secrets the CPS had revealed to Crossman & Co.
This is all far more important than a naive faith in any so-called confession that anyone who reads what was actually said in court can see for themselves wasn't a confession at all.
The Sobbing girl was definitley a RUSE... she never made an appearance in court.. she was the reason that they arrested Dr Vincent Tabak in the first place (IMO) she had incriminated Dr Vincent Tabak..
So where was she when the Murder Trial took place??????
Or where at least was the phone call that must have been recorded by the Police not played in court, or a written statement from this so called WITNESS!!!!
Where was this evidence??????
-
Did he leave via the little gate??
Well I'm not sure.. again on the video Killers: Vincent tabak around 12.55
Jo,s parents says they notice that there where foot prints going diagonally across the lawn, they encounter a couple walking across the lawn, in a reconstruction.
whether this is Tabak and Tanja I'm not sure, but it begs the question that who ever walked across the lawn possibly did so because the path was
A: slippy because of the snow or
B: It was a shortcut..
Either way it suggests that Vincent Tabak didnt need to mention the little gate, as he would have said he"d taken a shortcut across the lawn..
Who's diagonal footprints where they?
And did they go from right to left diagonally or Left to right diagonally?
I have quoted from an old post, because I still cannot see why Dr Vincent Tabak would walk past Joanna Yeates private entrance, when the easier route is turning left out of his flat on what appears to be a GRAVEL drive.. I have attached a picture..
So who's foot prints were in the snow ???
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I have quoted from an old post, because I still cannot see why Dr Vincent Tabak would walk past Joanna Yeates private entrance, when the easier route is turning left out of his flat on what appears to be a GRAVEL drive.. I have attached a picture..
So who's foot prints were in the snow ???
If I were Vincent Tabak or Tanja Morson, I would NEVER take the route past the entrance to Joanna's flat, unless I knew her much better than they did. I would feel it to be an intrusion on their private space. Only if there was someone whom I seriously wanted to avoid (such as a nosy journalist or a persistent sales person) standing in the main driveway would I sneak guiltily round the back and along the narrow path - only to be discovered and pounced upon anyway.
-
If I were Vincent Tabak or Tanja Morson, I would NEVER take the route past the entrance to Joanna's flat, unless I knew her much better than they did. I would feel it to be an intrusion on their private space. Only if there was someone whom I seriously wanted to avoid (such as a nosy journalist or a persistent sales person) standing in the main driveway would I sneak guiltily round the back and along the narrow path - only to be discovered and pounced upon anyway.
I agree leonora.... there is no reason for anyone to pass their private entrance, when they all had their own, I never understood why Dr Vincent Tabak would do that,... It just adds to they story of how he came across Joanna Yeates... because they can't and I can't see how else he could on that Friday Night... I do not believe he did!!!
-
If I were Vincent Tabak or Tanja Morson, I would NEVER take the route past the entrance to Joanna's flat, unless I knew her much better than they did. I would feel it to be an intrusion on their private space. Only if there was someone whom I seriously wanted to avoid (such as a nosy journalist or a persistent sales person) standing in the main driveway would I sneak guiltily round the back and along the narrow path - only to be discovered and pounced upon anyway.
Maybe that was the shortest route to their car?
-
Maybe that was the shortest route to their car?
- Only if the car was parked by the gate for Flat 1 or further towards the junction with Percival Road - and even then, shortest by only a few paces. Vincent Tabak CYCLED every day and at weekends - he was obviously the sort of fitness enthusiast who would use the stairs at an airport rather than the escalators. I doubt very much if taking a short cut to save a few yards was ever on his agenda.
-
It is a mystery to me as to why he was convicted of murder, maybe that is why two jurors declined. He is an intelligent bloke with a girlfriend, a good job and a loving family such as we were told. To go out and kill on a premeditated basis was illogical imo.
Given the somewhat complicated criteria for murder versus manslaughter under English Law I believe the verdict was correct. The evidence from the trial appears to indicate that there was a prolonged assault on Joanna and that she fought for her life. The claim of accidental killing must surely be discounted in those circumstances. Although there is no proof that Tabak set out to kill Joanna, the evidence strongly suggests he did so in the end.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/
John, your post does seem (to me) to contradict itself!
-
What was the Evidence???????
A Plea and a load of searches that should be challenged !!!
Partial DNA and Timelines that were with held to trial....
-
John, your post does seem (to me) to contradict itself!
The difficulty I believe in this case is that what began as a bit of flirting ended up as a murder.
-
The difficulty I believe in this case is that what began as a bit of flirting ended up as a murder.
I Do NOT believe that there was any flirting going on whatsoever... I believe that's a concocted story by the defence(IMO) to have a reason why Dr Vincent Tabak would apparently attack his next door neighbour whom he hadn't even ever past the time of day with!!!
What did he do.... And forgive my sarcasm..... Go to work,.. work... ,train back home... get home.. go take pictures and then think I won't bother going to Asda I'll see if my lucks in with the girl next door... It's ridiculous to even suggest it (IMO)
Was Dr Vincent Tabak KNOW for getting aggressive when he was rebuffed??????????
Did he get Angry when told NO in general?????
These simple questions should have been STARING everyone in the face at trial..... There was Nothing....And I'll repeat Nothing, given in evidence or anything ever to suggest that this was part of Dr Vincent Tabak's Character!!!
You need MOTIVE!!!! and for the life in me I cannot see ANY!!!!
-
Yes, it would have been easy enough to find people who would have been able to tell the court whether VT had ever "come on to" female friends or colleagues, whether he was known to lose his temper, become aggressive when told "no", whether he used cannabis, whether he drank a lot, whether he was the kind of chap who might dare "try his luck" with a girl next door, whom, so it seems, he did not even know.
But they didn't bother, did they?
We all know why!
-
Yes, it would have been easy enough to find people who would have been able to tell the court whether VT had ever "come on to" female friends or colleagues, whether he was known to lose his temper, become aggressive when told "no", whether he used cannabis, whether he drank a lot, whether he was the kind of chap who might dare "try his luck" with a girl next door, whom, so it seems, he did not even know.
But they didn't bother, did they?
We all know why!
Yes...... because he DIDN"T DO IT... (IMO)!!!!!!
There must have been a much better suspect, than the random next door neighbour, who had NO connection whatsoever too, other than living next door...
Strangling is very personal... you want that person to know your killing them.... he had NO reason to do this and the preposterous scenario that he was into strangulation porn to use for the suggestion that was the reason is ridiculous..
Not being rude.. but you would have at least thought Dr Vincent Tabak would have had his pants down at this point... it doesn't make sense that this was sexual....
The strangulation porn is about controlling someone, and that takes time... lets not forget, they tried to make us believe that he was experienced in this department with the use of prostitutes... Well only an inept inexperienced killer would even attempt such a sexual move and most probaly would have sexually assaulted them anyway!!!! (IMO)
-
Yes...... because he DIDN"T DO IT... (IMO)!!!!!!
He pleaded guilty, so they, apparently, didn't need to bother!
-
He pleaded guilty, so they, apparently, didn't need to bother!
Are we NOT supposed to have FACTS to back up a PLEA????
-
Yes, it would have been easy enough to find people who would have been able to tell the court whether VT had ever "come on to" female friends or colleagues, whether he was known to lose his temper, become aggressive when told "no", whether he used cannabis, whether he drank a lot, whether he was the kind of chap who might dare "try his luck" with a girl next door, whom, so it seems, he did not even know.
But they didn't bother, did they?
We all know why!
Shouldn't that have come to be part of the "Bad Character Evidence?????? his harrassing of woman??
If there were NO woman to testify to Dr Vincent Tabaks 'Bad Character'.. then he must have been squeeky clean.. Why on God's green earth would he then do something completely out of Character????
Was he on drugs????? Well I don't think so because I'm sure they would have tested his Hair, urine etc and would have had a wealth of evidence to back themselves UP!!!
But alas no.... Nothing....Nothing at all in the way of ANY EVIDENCE to back up this STORY he told!!!!!!
-
Are we NOT supposed to have FACTS to back up a PLEA????
Hm-----apparently not!
-
Are we NOT supposed to have FACTS to back up a PLEA????
Actually no. That's why when someone is clinically sane and pleads guilty we don't require a trial. Tabal pled guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter which would have seen him get out of jail after several years but the CPS went for murder thus the trial and the life sentence which will see him spend at least 20 years in prison.
-
Actually no. That's why when someone is clinically sane and pleads guilty we don't require a trial. Tabal pled guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter which would have seen him get out of jail after several years but the CPS went for murder thus the trial and the life sentence which will see him spend at least 20 years in prison.
Yes ... but when was he given his Mental state assessment??????? The answer to that appears to be NEVER!!! No such medical assessment was heard at court..
Not one assessment to even state he was clinically sane... Did they not check his mental health, as apparently he was put on suicide watch and put in a perspex fronted cell... Bit like a goldfish... but on a human level...
I can tell you when I got flooded I was well fed up with people gawping in my windows, I felt like a sideshow!!!
-
The Joanna Yeates case fell squarely into our current investigation into the murders of a number of women in quite specific areas, particularly Bristol. Due to Tabak's conviction our investigation never started, even though Yeates met all the parameters, but now we have read all the viewpoints on here we are generating an inquiry, just a couple of folders so far with not a lot in them, but it's a start. Avon and Somerset Constabulary (A&S Const.) have known since 1981 they had a rogue killer out there but they were just quite without the ability, intellectual or otherwise, to resolve the issue, adopting as they have the functional, self deceiving, methodology of the Ostrich. The nature of the injuries inflicted on Yeates bear a striking familiarity to other women who have died at the hands of our primary suspect. This case against Tabak is unusual in that A&S Const. would have been desperate for a success, it doesn't matter whether they have the right man or not, they had to be seen to do something, anything. The next point is, "Why did Tabak submit a manslaughter plea?" Would a Dutch speaking (and I know the Dutch are excellent in their use of English) short term immigrant to the UK understand the nuances of the English Legal system, I doubt it personally. Would his command of English allow him to interpret correctly what anyone talking in police type slang was actually saying, I doubt that too, especially if you haven't been trained in R2I and are left disorientated by continuous questioning by changing pairs of officer's after many hours of sleep deprivation. This smacks of the standard hard guy, friendly guy, double act on the part of the interviewing police officers. Who put the idea into his head that his best option is to enter a plea of guilty to manslaughter, effectively removing the risk of a prosecution for murder, certainly not his advising solicitor, he'd have know that was utter nonsense. However, it would have been the police's best option to convince him that he would be protecting himself from the risk of going to trial on a murder charge by entering a false plea and suggesting how he could explain it away. Once Tabak had entered the plea he had enough sense to realise that withdrawing the plea was not going to be an option thereby risking a charge of murder being thrown straight back at him. What no-one had explained to him is that the judge in a UK court is at liberty to change any charge at any point. Another pyrrhic victory for the corruption that claims to represent justice if the truth turns out to be different.
-
The Joanna Yeates case fell squarely into our current investigation into the murders of a number of women in quite specific areas, particularly Bristol. Due to Tabak's conviction our investigation never started, even though Yeates met all the parameters, but now we have read all the viewpoints on here we are generating an inquiry, just a couple of folders so far with not a lot in them, but it's a start. Avon and Somerset Constabulary (A&S Const.) have known since 1981 they had a rogue killer out there but they were just quite without the ability, intellectual or otherwise, to resolve the issue, adopting as they have the functional, self deceiving, methodology of the Ostrich. The nature of the injuries inflicted on Yeates bear a striking familiarity to other women who have died at the hands of our primary suspect. This case against Tabak is unusual in that A&S Const. would have been desperate for a success, it doesn't matter whether they have the right man or not, they had to be seen to do something, anything. The next point is, "Why did Tabak submit a manslaughter plea?" Would a Dutch speaking (and I know the Dutch are excellent in their use of English) short term immigrant to the UK understand the nuances of the English Legal system, I doubt it personally. Would his command of English allow him to interpret correctly what anyone talking in police type slang was actually saying, I doubt that too, especially if you haven't been trained in R2I and are left disorientated by continuous questioning by changing pairs of officer's after many hours of sleep deprivation. This smacks of the standard hard guy, friendly guy, double act on the part of the interviewing police officers. Who put the idea into his head that his best option is to enter a plea of guilty to manslaughter, effectively removing the risk of a prosecution for murder, certainly not his advising solicitor, he'd have know that was utter nonsense. However, it would have been the police's best option to convince him that he would be protecting himself from the risk of going to trial on a murder charge by entering a false plea and suggesting how he could explain it away. Once Tabak had entered the plea he had enough sense to realise that withdrawing the plea was not going to be an option thereby risking a charge of murder being thrown straight back at him. What no-one had explained to him is that the judge in a UK court is at liberty to change any charge at any point. Another pyrrhic victory for the corruption that claims to represent justice if the truth turns out to be different.
WOW........
-
The Joanna Yeates case fell squarely into our current investigation into the murders of a number of women in quite specific areas, particularly Bristol. Due to Tabak's conviction our investigation never started, even though Yeates met all the parameters, but now we have read all the viewpoints on here we are generating an inquiry, just a couple of folders so far with not a lot in them, but it's a start. Avon and Somerset Constabulary (A&S Const.) have known since 1981 they had a rogue killer out there but they were just quite without the ability, intellectual or otherwise, to resolve the issue, adopting as they have the functional, self deceiving, methodology of the Ostrich. The nature of the injuries inflicted on Yeates bear a striking familiarity to other women who have died at the hands of our primary suspect. This case against Tabak is unusual in that A&S Const. would have been desperate for a success, it doesn't matter whether they have the right man or not, they had to be seen to do something, anything. The next point is, "Why did Tabak submit a manslaughter plea?" Would a Dutch speaking (and I know the Dutch are excellent in their use of English) short term immigrant to the UK understand the nuances of the English Legal system, I doubt it personally. Would his command of English allow him to interpret correctly what anyone talking in police type slang was actually saying, I doubt that too, especially if you haven't been trained in R2I and are left disorientated by continuous questioning by changing pairs of officer's after many hours of sleep deprivation. This smacks of the standard hard guy, friendly guy, double act on the part of the interviewing police officers. Who put the idea into his head that his best option is to enter a plea of guilty to manslaughter, effectively removing the risk of a prosecution for murder, certainly not his advising solicitor, he'd have know that was utter nonsense. However, it would have been the police's best option to convince him that he would be protecting himself from the risk of going to trial on a murder charge by entering a false plea and suggesting how he could explain it away. Once Tabak had entered the plea he had enough sense to realise that withdrawing the plea was not going to be an option thereby risking a charge of murder being thrown straight back at him. What no-one had explained to him is that the judge in a UK court is at liberty to change any charge at any point. Another pyrrhic victory for the corruption that claims to represent justice if the truth turns out to be different.
Areialhunter..... I cannot believe your post....
I have prayed, not that I am religous... but I just needed someone else to look at this in a different light and you have....
I don't know Dr Vincent Tabak from Adam or Andrew.... but I believe I know what is right.... And to me this is my wish... that somebody looks at the tripe that is the offical line, and says.... Why would A Placid Dutch National even do that.....
-
WOW........
How refreshing to hear from someone seriously prepared to suspect that Joanna Yeates was murdered by a rogue killer ("Mr X"), and not by a placid Dutch engineer with a PhD! Welcome to a very exclusive club Aerial Hunter.
"A&S Const. would have been desperate for a success, it doesn't matter whether they have the right man or not, they had to be seen to do something, anything." That is certainly how it seems, when you look at the suspects who were arrested: (1) Christopher Jefferies, (2) Vincent Tabak. However, for a quick and dirty conviction, they needed to look no further than Joanna's boyfriend - who had no alibi for approx. 7 hours - a window during which she could have been killed, if only Vincent Tabak hadn't subsequently told the court he had killed her two days earlier. There is much more to this case than meets the eye, as a glance at the thread titled "The Hundred Questions" reveals.
"Would a Dutch speaking (and I know the Dutch are excellent in their use of English) short term immigrant to the UK understand the nuances of the English Legal system?" IMO this wasn't the problem. Tabak's command of English was excellent - his PhD thesis was written in English, and he had spent four years working with English-speaking professionals, not to mention living with his educated English girlfriend for 15 months. Furthermore, we know many of the forthright questions he was asked after his arrest, and they were easy to understand - and equally easy for him to answer "No comment" to. We know he did that. We also know that the (unidentified) duty solicitor who sat in on his interrogation believed in his innocence and produced three very specific statements for him to sign. She was no slouch. We know the names of the two detectives who might have tried to play "hard guy, friendly guy", but they didn't get away with it.
Nevertheless, Tabak seems to have sacked her company, Crossman & Co, after they changed their minds about applying for bail. Something fishy took place involving the so-called prison chaplain he consulted, and the lawyers who took over, Kelcey & Hall and William Clegg Chambers. In any event, I have produced evidence on another thread that it was not actually Tabak himself who entered the plea, some 4 months later, but an imposter.
William Clegg QC is a formidably competent barrister who could explain anything to anybody - including a suicidal Dutchman with a PhD. Mr Clegg could also persuade anyone of anything, if he so chose. His behaviour in this case was amazing. He could have told his client to withdraw his plea - but instead he did the opposite.
-
Haven't a clue who you are, Ariel Hunter, and I am not going to ask!
I have had a frivolous afternoon , spending money in the sales. I wouldn't say I had lost all hope here, but I reckoned I could afford to waste an afternoon!
Then, I came on here and saw your post, and what can I say?????? I had been hoping for something like this, which was why I started the thread.
I have been trying to make contact with Vincent Tabak since November, and the Prisoner Location Service have continued to fob me off. This morning, I asked for a useful reply to my request by the middle of next month, otherwise, I will write to my MP.
Not that I think my MP will be in any way helpful, but what more can I do?
-
The Joanna Yeates case fell squarely into our current investigation into the murders of a number of women in quite specific areas, particularly Bristol. Due to Tabak's conviction our investigation never started, even though Yeates met all the parameters, but now we have read all the viewpoints on here we are generating an inquiry, just a couple of folders so far with not a lot in them, but it's a start. Avon and Somerset Constabulary (A&S Const.) have known since 1981 they had a rogue killer out there but they were just quite without the ability, intellectual or otherwise, to resolve the issue, adopting as they have the functional, self deceiving, methodology of the Ostrich. The nature of the injuries inflicted on Yeates bear a striking familiarity to other women who have died at the hands of our primary suspect. This case against Tabak is unusual in that A&S Const. would have been desperate for a success, it doesn't matter whether they have the right man or not, they had to be seen to do something, anything. The next point is, "Why did Tabak submit a manslaughter plea?" Would a Dutch speaking (and I know the Dutch are excellent in their use of English) short term immigrant to the UK understand the nuances of the English Legal system, I doubt it personally. Would his command of English allow him to interpret correctly what anyone talking in police type slang was actually saying, I doubt that too, especially if you haven't been trained in R2I and are left disorientated by continuous questioning by changing pairs of officer's after many hours of sleep deprivation. This smacks of the standard hard guy, friendly guy, double act on the part of the interviewing police officers. Who put the idea into his head that his best option is to enter a plea of guilty to manslaughter, effectively removing the risk of a prosecution for murder, certainly not his advising solicitor, he'd have know that was utter nonsense. However, it would have been the police's best option to convince him that he would be protecting himself from the risk of going to trial on a murder charge by entering a false plea and suggesting how he could explain it away. Once Tabak had entered the plea he had enough sense to realise that withdrawing the plea was not going to be an option thereby risking a charge of murder being thrown straight back at him. What no-one had explained to him is that the judge in a UK court is at liberty to change any charge at any point. Another pyrrhic victory for the corruption that claims to represent justice if the truth turns out to be different.
I've been reading your other posts and find interesting what you have said... Do you think the Glenis Caruthers case has any baring on this case?
Just re-reading about Glenis Caruthers Case.. cannot see why a young girl would leave a party and go out side walking on her own in the pitch black... someone must have accompanied her.. Someone she probably trusted..
I remember with The joanna yeates case the Police were looking at connections between the two...
-
Here's a quote about Glenis Caruthers:
One almost felt that it was a mistake thinking this was a murder case.' The pathologist could only find a small abrasion on the throat. It seemed like an indecent assault from behind with a hand to the throat.
Wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak, supposed to have strangled Joanna Yeates with one hand????
But I do remember when the Police questioned Dr Vincent Tabak, they asked if he had strangled her from behind:
:: Whether he had been invited into her flat.
:: Whether he had made sexual advances to her.
:: Whether he had done anything to stop her screaming.
:: Whether he had strangled her from the front or behind.
:: Whether he had attempted to revive her.
:: Why he needed to put his hands around her throat.
:: Where the strangulation took place.
:: Whether he had a conversation with her.
:: Whether he went into the bedroom or lounge.
:: Whether she had done anything to lead him on.
:: Was she dead when he put her in the boot of the Renault Megane.
:: When did he take her to Longwood Lane.
:: Whether his drinking had increased following her death.
Why would the police even ask Dr Vincent Tabak if he had strangled Joanna Yeates from behind???? Surely the evidence would show how she had been strangled....
Does these questions make you ask... Was Joanna Yeates Strangled from behind?????
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-trial-vincent-275169
https://www.flickr.com/photos/brizzlebornandbred/5324888496
-
Leonora,
In answer to some of your points:
At present we are looking at one individual who we consider may have been responsible for a large number of attacks. The attacks all have a particular signature, the victims are a means to and end, not the primary objective. As this, at present, is our line of inquiry I must not yet consider the boyfriend, the missing 7 hours and the missing pizza. If Yeates didn't die in the hours after arriving home that may account for the missing pizza and so on. Let us look first at our own line of inquiry and if it doesn't come to anything then we'll come back to this. The issue for me is why admit to manslaughter in the first place?? For the time being I am going to ignore this but its a hard one to find a way around.
RGDS
AH
-
Leonora,
In answer to some of your points:
At present we are looking at one individual who we consider may have been responsible for a large number of attacks. The attacks all have a particular signature, the victims are a means to and end, not the primary objective. As this, at present, is our line of inquiry I must not yet consider the boyfriend, the missing 7 hours and the missing pizza. If Yeates didn't die in the hours after arriving home that may account for the missing pizza and so on. Let us look first at our own line of inquiry and if it doesn't come to anything then we'll come back to this. The issue for me is why admit to manslaughter in the first place?? For the time being I am going to ignore this but its a hard one to find a way around.
RGDS
AH
Reading into this I would believe that whoever did the crime and other crimes was keeping someone quite... Did Joanna Yeates know something she wasn't supposed to know .. or was she about to spill some beans????
-
So... going with the possibility that Joanna Yeates was strangled from behind, could someone have put her in a choke hold?????
Wouldn't that incapacitate her???? And the police originally said that there were NO significant injuries!!
There really doesn't seem to have been much of a struggle and it all appears to have happened relatively quickly...
I keep going back to why Dr Vincent Tabak would move a body that many times and to me it doesn't make sense... But if Joanna Yeates was know to her killer moving her makes all the sense in the world.....
I think i'll say, someone out there knows who really killed Joanna Yeates.... I don't believe that it was Dr Vincent Tabak!!
-
Our new poster has got me thinking.... I don't know who did this... but there are ways in which someone could have been able to dispose of a body without suspicion...
I was trying to think of vehicles that could go on Longwood Lane without causing suspicion if they stopped...
Rescue services
Taxi's
Police
Council Wagons
Any vehicle connected to the quarry....
Maybe it the mode of transport that needs looking at... rather than who killed her... who deposited her, maybe a better way of looking at it....
-
I've been reading your other posts and find interesting what you have said... Do you think the Glenis Caruthers case has any baring on this case?
Just re-reading about Glenis Caruthers Case.. cannot see why a young girl would leave a party and go out side walking on her own in the pitch black... someone must have accompanied her.. Someone she probably trusted..
I remember with The joanna yeates case the Police were looking at connections between the two...
They were, and they questioned CJ about Glenis. He was very lucky to have good friends and lawyers, as he could so easily have been stitched up, IMO. Not only would his DNA have been in Joanna's flat, as he was her landlord, but he is also old enough (and I believe, was living in the area at the time) to be considered a suspect for the Glenis murder------unlike VT.
-
Actually no. That's why when someone is clinically sane and pleads guilty we don't require a trial. Tabal pled guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter which would have seen him get out of jail after several years but the CPS went for murder thus the trial and the life sentence which will see him spend at least 20 years in prison.
I am aware that DCI Phil Jones stated, after the plea hearing on 5 May 2011, that a "full trial" would be held because Vincent Tabak denied the charge of murder though pleading guilty to manslaughter. However, when Judge Treacy set out the timetable at the third preliminary hearing on 31 January 2011, this timetable included a plea hearing on 4 May 2011 and a trial beginning 4 October 2011, both at Bristol Crown Court. At this time, Vincent Tabak had appeared at no fewer than three public hearings without once entering a plea. The judge's timetable implies that on 31 January Vincent Tabak still denied having anything to do with Joanna's death.
I seriously doubt your claim that some defendants get convicted of murder without any trial. This is in any case academic, because your reiterated appeals to "normal" procedure carry no weight when seen in the light of the uniquely abnormal behaviour of Counsel for the Defence in the trial of Vincent Tabak.
-
Im trying to clarify where Joanna Yeates worked... Think Im confused.. Yes BDP... has been mentioned , I also read that they moved to Bristol with the firm Hyland Edgar Driver... So when did they both switch firms??
-
Im trying to clarify where Joanna Yeates worked... Think Im confused.. Yes BDP... has been mentioned , I also read that they moved to Bristol with the firm Hyland Edgar Driver... So when did they both switch firms??
As far as I can recall, Jo switched firms, although I don't know when. It is true that she and Greg met at Hyland Edgar Driver, where both off them worked originally. As far as I know, Greg still works there.
-
As far as I can recall, Jo switched firms, although I don't know when. It is true that she and Greg met at Hyland Edgar Driver, where both off them worked originally. As far as I know, Greg still works there.
But I thought that they both worked at the same firm... so if Greg still works there when did he work at BDP????
He saw her after work, didn't he... kissed her goodbye... so he must have finished around the same time as she did... It's only 1 minutes walk to The Ram from BDP.. that was why I was trying to work out what time they finished work...
Reardon has returned to the office where he used to work with Yeates and has bought a flat in Bristol.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/dec/14/joanna-yeates-boyfriend-talks-sun
After graduating in 2004, he qualified as an architect in 2007.
Friends yesterday described him as an ‘exceptionally good’ skier who had organised events for the British University Snowsports Council after graduating.
Following qualification he worked for three firms of architects, and reached the finals of a national building exercise competition as a part of a team.
Wonder which firms...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340586/Boyfriend-missing-architect-Jo-Yeates-sobs-I-want-Christmas.html#ixzz4dl5rkzVc
-
I believe they both worked at Hyland Edgar Driver, which is where they met. Then, Jo moved to BDP, but Greg stayed put.
They met at lunchtime on Friday 17th, not after work. After work, Jo went to the Ram, with her colleagues (as she did every Friday evening), and Greg went home to get ready for his trip to Sheffield. That is when he had trouble with the car, which indicates that neither of them used the car for work. Cold weather, unused car---that's why the battery was flat, I assume.
There are various errors in the newspaper reports------for example, one reporter was saying that Vincent and Tanja had split up at the time of his arrest!
-
... They met at lunchtime on Friday 17th, not after work...
There are various errors in the newspaper reports------for example, one reporter was saying that Vincent and Tanja had split up at the time of his arrest!
Actually Greg Reardon, testifying, told the Court that he and Joanna Yeates exchanged a "kiss and a cuddle" in the lobby of the office where they worked at 4.45 p.m. So they did meet briefly after work as well.
The claim that Vincent and Tanja had split up was not an "error" - it was what we now call "false news". The allegation was attributed to two or three neighbours, none of whom was named. If they had not wished to be named, then the reporter would have mentioned this. If the journalist got the story from the police, however, they would assume it was reliable, and print it "as is". Geoffrey Morson at first denied this allegation, but later on seemed to be less sure. Not until the trial did it emerge that, at a dinner party only five days before he was arrested, Tanja Morson had held Vincent Tabak's hand under the table and confided to her neighbour that they planned to get married.
-
Does anyone have a timeline for Vincent Tabak extending from the day he killed Joanna to the day of his conviction?
If anyone does, can you post it as a new thread please. TY
-
Actually Greg Reardon, testifying, told the Court that he and Joanna Yeates exchanged a "kiss and a cuddle" in the lobby of the office where they worked at 4.45 p.m. So they did meet briefly after work as well.
The claim that Vincent and Tanja had split up was not an "error" - it was what we now call "false news". The allegation was attributed to two or three neighbours, none of whom was named. If they had not wished to be named, then the reporter would have mentioned this. If the journalist got the story from the police, however, they would assume it was reliable, and print it "as is". Geoffrey Morson at first denied this allegation, but later on seemed to be less sure. Not until the trial did it emerge that, at a dinner party only five days before he was arrested, Tanja Morson had held Vincent Tabak's hand under the table and confided to her neighbour that they planned to get married.
This is my slight problem... if she finished work at 4:45pm and its only 1 minutes walk to The Ram... what did she do for over an hour before The Ram??
She was supposed to be in the Ram between 6:00pm and 9:00pm
-
This is my slight problem... if she finished work at 4:45pm and its only 1 minutes walk to The Ram... what did she do for over an hour before The Ram??
She was supposed to be in the Ram between 6:00pm and 9:00pm
I expect that Greg Reardon left work first, as he had a long journey ahead of him. I expect Joanna Yeates stayed in the office longer.
After work, Joanna took off the multi-coloured striped top she had been wearing, and put it into her rucksack. She and her Irish colleague Darragh Bellew left their office on Park Street together, withdrew money from a cash dispenser, and then walked up the hill to the Bristol Ram pub at 32 Park Street for a pre-Christmas office get-together with other staff from their office.
Greg Reardon got back to the flat at 5.20 p.m., he loaded his things for the weekend into the car he shared with Joanna – a Ford Ka registered in her name, which was parked by the kerb on 44 Canynge Road.
-
Does anyone have a timeline for Vincent Tabak extending from the day he killed Joanna to the day of his conviction?
If anyone does, can you post it as a new thread please. TY
You have a way of putting things, John, that invites droll humour. The timeline you describe would be a very short one indeed, as those of us who have studied the case know that Vincent Tabak did not kill Joanna at all.
If you were to rephrase that by: "a timeline for Vincent Tabak extending from the day that Joanna went with colleagues to the Bristol Ram pub to the day of his conviction", on the other hand, it would be a rather long post, as it covers a period of eleven months.
-
You have a way of putting things, John, that invites droll humour. The timeline you describe would be a very short one indeed, as those of us who have studied the case know that Vincent Tabak did not kill Joanna at all.
If you were to rephrase that by: "a timeline for Vincent Tabak extending from the day that Joanna went with colleagues to the Bristol Ram pub to the day of his conviction", on the other hand, it would be a rather long post, as it covers a period of eleven months.
It is forum policy to deal with matters according to Law and that requires referring to Vincent Tabak as a convicted murderer. That said, I do appreciate you providing the timeline as requested.
-
The Joanna Yeates case fell squarely into our current investigation into the murders of a number of women in quite specific areas, particularly Bristol. Due to Tabak's conviction our investigation never started, even though Yeates met all the parameters, but now we have read all the viewpoints on here we are generating an inquiry, just a couple of folders so far with not a lot in them, but it's a start. Avon and Somerset Constabulary (A&S Const.) have known since 1981 they had a rogue killer out there but they were just quite without the ability, intellectual or otherwise, to resolve the issue, adopting as they have the functional, self deceiving, methodology of the Ostrich. The nature of the injuries inflicted on Yeates bear a striking familiarity to other women who have died at the hands of our primary suspect. This case against Tabak is unusual in that A&S Const. would have been desperate for a success, it doesn't matter whether they have the right man or not, they had to be seen to do something, anything. The next point is, "Why did Tabak submit a manslaughter plea?" Would a Dutch speaking (and I know the Dutch are excellent in their use of English) short term immigrant to the UK understand the nuances of the English Legal system, I doubt it personally. Would his command of English allow him to interpret correctly what anyone talking in police type slang was actually saying, I doubt that too, especially if you haven't been trained in R2I and are left disorientated by continuous questioning by changing pairs of officer's after many hours of sleep deprivation. This smacks of the standard hard guy, friendly guy, double act on the part of the interviewing police officers. Who put the idea into his head that his best option is to enter a plea of guilty to manslaughter, effectively removing the risk of a prosecution for murder, certainly not his advising solicitor, he'd have know that was utter nonsense. However, it would have been the police's best option to convince him that he would be protecting himself from the risk of going to trial on a murder charge by entering a false plea and suggesting how he could explain it away. Once Tabak had entered the plea he had enough sense to realise that withdrawing the plea was not going to be an option thereby risking a charge of murder being thrown straight back at him. What no-one had explained to him is that the judge in a UK court is at liberty to change any charge at any point. Another pyrrhic victory for the corruption that claims to represent justice if the truth turns out to be different.
Looking at connections.....
The only connection to certain cases is they either had graduated from University, worked at A university or were a student at a University,....
Glenis Caruthers..... Student ... Grass Verge
Melaine Hall ..... Graduate ... Grass Verge
Claudia Lawrence ....Worked.... ??? Not found
Joanna yeates ..... Graduate..... Grass Verge
All fair haired...
two had rusk sacks....
Three found on Grass Verges
If its possibly a serial killer... I think I read the other day that most serial Killers occupation in the Uk is Driver...
What about someone who works on the roads.... wouldn't be unusual to see such a person in any street or main road or motorway....
Where there road works near these people on these dates of disappearance????
Reading about Melaine Hall it sounds like she had been kept somewhere...
Could be a freelance plumber/ electrian etc... who travels up and down the country or who has a contract with the University's
Alternatively they could supply Flooring to retail outlets... Maybe they fitted retail shops etc....
Or possibly someone who had something to do with Plant hire.... or Transporting Plant Hire
Where all of these avenues checked out... Below I found a reference to an investigation in August 2010
Near M5.....
What about vehicle recovery service... as an occupation.. you wouldn't look out of place anywhere.....
In August 2010, a new investigation began, centred on an area in Worcestershire, near to Pershore and Drakes Broughton
A grass verge seems a common place to deposit of a body..... maybe Melaine hall was kept for along time ...
-
...
If its possibly a serial killer... I think I read the other day that most serial Killers occupation in the Uk is Driver...
Joanna and Greg had moved into the flat only six weeks before her death. At least some of their furniture was new, as police questioned two IKEA delivery drivers, James Crozier and James Alexander, who were known to have made a delivery to Flat 1.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/312830/joanna-ikea-pair-in-police-quiz/
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2012/mar/16/sun-joanna-yeates
-
The more I look at this case The More I believe he is Innocent...
I have gone back to "The Judge Rinder" Program and have transcribed some of what has been said:
DCI Phil Jones say:
Whilst the Officers.. the.. were getting the details... and taking a statement from Vincent Tabak, they started to become suspicious and a little concerned about his behaviour, because he started to ask questions around the Forensic evidence and started to explain how he had walked dwon the foot path past the flat on the evening of Joanna's disappearance and how he slipped and he'd possibily touched the front door... And... And things like that.... So there was something just not quite right about him.... And the Officer erm..decided...erm.. following the policy we had taken with all our witness's... to ask him for a voluntary DNA swab, which he agreed to do.....
Now... I like that statement... Because i would like to see a "List of "ALL THE WITNESS"S IN THIS CASE...AND THE TIME AND DATE EACH ONE VOLUNTARY GAVE A DNA SAMPLE......
Judge Rinder then says; By now the Police had also retreieved the DNA from Joanna's body...
DCI Phil Jones goes on to say: What we had one of her jeans (Throug) (That bit is Inaudible)of her knees off her chest area were was a mixed DNA profile... which had similar components, so it had some of Joanna Yeates DNA in it and another persons in there.... we needed to identify who it belonged to..
This next quote threw me...
It was around the 20th January, that erm... we positively identified there were components in the mixed DNA.. of Vincent Tabak
Ok... Is this "Components in the "Mixed DNA" sample retrieved from Joanna Yeates... Or as it reads to me now....
The sample that they took from Dr Vincent Tabak had mixed DNA in it....??
Thinking about that it is possible that within Dr Vincent Tabak's mouth, there could be "Mixed DNA" as I'm sure he and Tanja Morson were often intimate....
But because we are thinking Joanna Yeates and Mixed DNA of another Profile.... We never considered the fact that it is possible for a mouth swab to contain "Mixed DNA" in a sample... And that it is Dr Vincent Tabak's "Mouth swab" That DCI Phil Jones is refering too....
Edit:..... In this Judge Rinder Program... It is DCI Phil Jones who is explaining that the "Phone Call from Dr Vincent Tabak, is why he was questioned... he says;
As a Result of that I sent a team over to the Netherlands to speak to Vincent Tabak Immediatley
Well if he wasn't the lead SIO in "The Murder Investigation" How did he manage to send out a team to the Netherlands ???
-
Maybe it's Dr Vincent Tabak , that saw something that Evening/Morning... and that's why someone would want to keep him quite! (IMO)
-
Maybe it's Dr Vincent Tabak , that saw something that Evening/Morning... and that's why someone would want to keep him quite! (IMO)
It is very probable that Vincent Tabak, Tanja Morson and Christopher Jefferies all noticed that lights were on inside Joanna Yeates's flat on the Friday, the Saturday and the Sunday, and that these were switched off and on. When he heard that the police were saying Joanna had disappeared on Friday evening, CJ would be bound to tell the police AND his tenants and neighbours and compare notes with them about this. When TM and VT saw him on TV being evasive and vague, telling quite a different story, they assumed he was guilty. What we DO know is that we DON'T know most of what was said for nearly 6 hours at Schiphol. This must have been about what they saw between them that weekend, and it must have been a lot more than just two or three persons on Joanna's front path after dark. That is only the cover story that the landlord and the police have allowed us to hear.
-
Part One.....
Complex Case Unit:........ So when did Dr Vincent Tabak actually come under this banner??
South West Complex Casework Unit
The CPS set up Complex Casework Units (CCUs) in 2008 to help us deal more effectively with major cases, working closely with the police and other law enforcement agencies to disrupt and prosecute organised crime. A national template was created for the new units and there is now a CCU in 14 out of the 15 CPS Areas with separate arrangements for London
Ok... he falls foul of that quote..... Dr Vincent Tabak has "Nothing" to do with Organised crime.... Yet "Ann Reddrop" The "Head" of "The Complex case unit" did everything in her power to assist "Avon and Somerset Police"... In the planned arrest of "Dr Vincent Tabak"...
How can that be????
(1): Substantial and complex fraud
(2): Large scale human trafficking
(3): Serious drug related offences involving substantial importation, manufacture or supply, particularly with an
international dimension
(4): Major targeted local criminals in organised or international crime
(5): Serial sexual assault where there has been a protracted investigation
(6): Large scale child abuse, abduction or paedophile abuse cases involving multi generational abuse of several
victims
(7): Major large scale public disorder offences of a political, racial or religious nature, or which cause particular local
concern
(8): Complex / serious cases involving professional misconduct
(9): Hate related murders
(10):Mercy killings / aiding and abetting suicide
(11):High profile / multi victim / multi defendant murders
(12):Serious / complex Animal rights extremism cases especially across several police force areas
(13):Complex restraint and confiscation of assetsRape offences involving unusual violence or repeated attacks
(14):Cases involving complicated public interest immunity (PII) issues
(15):Complicated betting / lotteries cases
(16):Sensitive, serious or complex cases of major media interest e.g. allegations involving individuals or
organisations with a high public profile
(17):Cases requiring consideration of gross negligence manslaughter and any case involving a fatality in which the
investigation is being conducted in accordance with the Deaths at Work protocol (but note that cases of
corporate manslaughter are currently dealt with in the Special Crime Division in HQ)
(18):Outgoing European Arrest Warrant cases i.e. where the Area is seeking the return of a suspect from abroad
(19):Mutual Legal Assistance by vetting proposed letters of request (LORs)
(20):Cases where consideration is being given to issues of immunity and restricted use agreements under Serious (21):Organised Crime Act (SOCA) 05 (but not in relation to approving a letter of agreement with a co-operating
defendant)
(21):All cases involving the negotiation of jurisdiction with the USA
Scanning through the list I cannot see Dr Vincent Tabak fitting any of the above criteria...
(1): Dr Vincent Tabak isn't connected to any Fraud.. Ann Reddrop herself said of his perfect record
(2):Dr Vincent Tabak is part of any "Human Trafficing"...
(3):Dr Vincent Tabak has "NO" drug related Offences ... no Affliation to Organised Crime
(4):Dr Vincent Tabak was Not Involved with Local/International Organised crime
(5):Dr Vincent Tabak was not a "Serial Attacker and "NO Sexual assault had taken place!!
(6): Dr Vincent Tabak was not involved with Large scale child abuse, abduction or paedophile abuse cases involving
multi generational abuse of several victims
(7): Dr Vincent Tabak was Not Involved in any Scale of public Offence s , never mind Large scale..
(8): Dr Vincent Tabak was Not part of any Complex / serious cases involving professional misconduct
(9): Dr Vincent Tabak Was Not Involved in any Hate related Murder...
(10):Dr Vincent Tabak did NOT do Mercy killings / aiding and abetting suicide
(11):Dr Vincent Tabak didn't kill multiple victims that were High profile / multi victim / multi defendant murders
(12):Dr Vincent Tabak was not an extremist ...as didn't fit this criteria Serious / complex Animal rights extremism
cases especially across several police force areas
(13):Dr Vincent Tabak did not involved Complex restraint and confiscation of assetsRape offences involving unusual
violence or repeated attacks
(14):Dr Vincent Tabak was NOT involved in :Cases involving complicated public interest immunity (PII) issues
An order that PII applies would usually be sought by the British government to protect official secrets, and so
can be perceived as a gagging order. That I am aware of...
(15):Dr Vincent Tabak was NOT involved with betting
(16): Dr Vincent Tabak was not part of any :Sensitive, serious or complex cases of major media interest e.g.
allegations involving individual organisations with a high public profile
(17): Dr Vincent Tabak was not involved in Cases requiring consideration of gross negligence manslaughter and any
case involving a fatality in which the investigation is being conducted in accordance with the Deaths at Work
protocol (but note that cases of corporate manslaughter are currently dealt with in the Special Crime Division
in HQ)
(18): Dr Vincent Tabak did not have Outgoing European Arrest Warrant cases i.e. where the Area is seeking the
return of a suspect from abroad
(19): Dr Vincent Tabak did not come under Mutual Legal Assistance by vetting proposed letters of request (LORs)
(20): Dr Vincent Tabak as far as I am aware was not give immunity...
(21): Dr Vincent Tabak didn't come under All cases involving the negotiation of jurisdiction with the USA
So far... Dr Vincent Tabak does not come under any of these criteria..... And having Ann Redropp at The Head of the Investigation into Dr Vincent Tabak is quite disconcerting....
http://www.cps.gov.uk/southwest/who_we_are/complex_casework_unit/
-
Part two.........
Or should it be Called What is going on!!!!!!
I have used this quote before... but in the light of the above post I believe it needs to be scrutinized ;>>>
Ann Reddrop, Head of the Crown Prosecution Service South West Complex Casework Unit said:
“Vincent Tabak was a cunning, dishonest and manipulative man who knew exactly what he was doing when he killed Joanna Yeates. Today he has been convicted by a jury in Bristol of her murder last year, despite claiming he meant her no harm.
Firstly we need to look at her title:
Ann Reddrop, Head of the Crown Prosecution Service South West Complex Casework Unit... She is obviously an extremely important person... whom has spent her time chasing a "Placid Dutch National" around so she can prosecute him for this crime...... The big Question is "WHY"???????
Why would she stick her Neck out to "Prosecute" Dr Vincent Tabak... when we can all plainly see he doesn't fit the "Criteria " of any of the above "Listed" for South West Complex Casework Unit to be involved with him for!!!!
It's one of the OMG Moments.... what on earth is going on!!!!! Lets try to make him fit at least one of them....
(17):Cases requiring consideration of gross negligence manslaughter and any case involving a fatality in which the investigation is being conducted in accordance with the Deaths at Work protocol (but note that cases of
corporate manslaughter are currently dealt with in the Special Crime Division in HQ)
You would have to split this one to even make it fit slightly... It's in relation to work deaths.. But If I take the first part of the sentence "Maybe... That's what they tried to use" (IMO)
Cases requiring consideration of gross negligence manslaughter I suppose you could say That Strangling someone In what they tried to describe as an act due to it being "Sexually Motivated".. Would in one sense possibly come under that "Heading"..... But even if `I try to give Ann Reddrop the benifit of the doubt... This doesn't work either......
From the Official Government Website:
The Crown's case is, and always has been, that it was a deliberate act on his part and that is why we refused to accept his plea to manslaughter and he has faced trial for murder over the past four weeks.
So if she is "FREELY" Admitting That her position was that Dr Vincent Tabak HAD MURDERED Joanna Yeates... Then my question is this:.. What were "The South West Complex Casework Unit..
doing bringing Dr Vincent Tabak to trial????
This is "Quadruply Important"... For 'The Charge of "MURDER" under The division of charging responsibility Paragraph 15... It is "The Polices Responsiblity... Now this is where things get Interesting.........
https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/directors_guidance/dpp_guidance_5.html#a16
-
Part Three.............
Continuing from where I left off.........""This is "Quadruply Important"... For 'The Charge of "MURDER" under The division of charging responsibility Paragraph 15... It is "The Polices Responsiblity... Now this is where things get Interesting.........""
16. CPS Charging Decisions....
Prosecutors will make charging decisions in all cases not allocated to the police in paragraph 15. In a case where any offences under consideration for charging include an offence which must be referred to a prosecutor under this Guidance then all related offences in the case will be referred to a prosecutor to consider which should be charged.
So following the letter of the Law... "The CPS" and especially "The Complex Case Unit" don't really need to do anything to Dr Vincent Tabak.... Should have been a straight forward "Murder Charge"... and if my understanding is correct in accordance with "Paragraph 15"... It is The Polices Responsibility!!!
So why all out with The Complex Case Unit?????
Determining whether a Guilty Plea may be anticipated Paragraph 17...
A guilty plea may be anticipated where either:
the suspect has made a clear and unambiguous admission to the offence and has said nothing that could be used as a defence, or
the suspect has made no admission but has not denied the offence or otherwise indicated it will be contested and the commission of the offence and identification of the offender can be established by reliable evidence or the suspect can be seen clearly committing the offence on a good quality visual recording.
Ah........ Is this what they had in mind.... Dr Vincent Tabak pled Guilty To Manslaughter..... But Ann Reddrop persuade the "Public" that They would go for No less than "A MURDER CHARGE".....
But it's saying "Anticipated"... What indication Did Ann Reddrop have to "ANTICIPATE" a "GUILTY PLEA"????
She had to go with the "Notion"... not only that...
She had to go with the Belief that The CONFESSION To The Chaplain was true!!!!!!... Now how is that possible?? She is.. "The Head Honcho" of this whole Caboodle..... and has not got to her position by believing a verbal/written statement of a man who has "Assumed The Role of Chaplain".... And had No witness's or recorded testomony to prove the "Allegation" That Dr Vincent Tabak.."Did indeed Admit to the MURDER Of Joanna Yeates"....
So (IMO)... She cannot Anticipate..." ANYTHING".... take this part of the Paragraph..
the suspect has made a clear and unambiguous admission to the offence and has said nothing that could be used as a defence,
We can all go.... "YES" He Pled Guilty To Manslaughter:... but on taking a fresh look at that statement... It doesn't apply.... The "Anticipation Part" has to be "BROTHERTON"...
The only "ANTICIPATION" should have been an ANTICIPATION That he would plead Guilt to "Murder and NOT Manslaughter....
Lets check the second part of the Paragraph...
the suspect has made no admission but has not denied the offence or otherwise indicated it will be contested and the commission of the offence and identification of the offender can be established by reliable evidence or the suspect can be seen clearly committing the offence on a good quality visual recording.
Well... Dr Vincent Tabak... did "make an "Admission" when the got to The Old Bailey... But That is NOT what Paragraph 16 is about..... It may sound like procedure was followed... BUT it wasn't (IMO)...
Dr Vincent Tabak constantly denied having ANYTHING To Do WITH THE Joanna Yeates Murder.... And most people were indeed "Shocked" when he "Pled" "GUILTY" At The Old Bailey!!
Reliable "Evidence" or "Good Quality Video."... Now I can 100% say that the Evidence was poor at best.... The DNA was Partial and "NOWHERE" were there any CCTV or Video Evidence showing that Dr Vincent Tabak, had Committed this OFFENCE"!!!
https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/directors_guidance/dpp_guidance_5.html#a16
-
Part 4..............
After covering Paragraph 17....
Prosecutor’s review of police charged cases
Review.... Well Ann Redropp does state she Advise The Police... I was about to find it on the internet... But The "CPS's NEWS" seems to have been removed.... But I always have a copy....
"Late in December 2010, the police asked for assistance and guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service. That assistance has come from the South West Complex Casework Unit based here in Bristol. I reviewed the evidence, advised that Vincent Tabak should be charged with Joanna's murder and began preparing the case for trial.
"In May 2011, Tabak admitted the manslaughter of Joanna but that was only part of the story. The Crown's case is, and always has been, that it was a deliberate act on his part and that is why we refused to accept his plea to manslaughter and he has faced trial for murder over the past four weeks.
Following all the Guidelines and "Procedures" why is Ann Redrrop Involved???... So according to this.... And this is Screaming in Everyones Faces... It was "The CPS" That took this case to "Ann Redrrop" of "THE COMPLEX CRIME UNIT"... To ask for ADVICE......
Why are There Not Legal Bodies Everywhere... Jumping up and Down... Doing The Fangango Saying ....Everything about this case is WRONG!!!!! Why not??
Its a bit like the Advert... "It does exactly what it says on the tin"!! But in this case It doesn't.... Anne Redropp IS... and not by any fluke or chance.. 'The Head Of The Complex Crime Unit"!!... She's not doing "what it says on the tin"..
What Reason has she become Involved....??
The CPS have gone to Ann Redrrop for "ADVISE" as she puts it.. because they "Must Be looking at what I can only Imagine is "A Serial Killer"...(IMO)... I've covered all the reasons as to what 'The Complex Crime Unit ".. Cover.. and Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't come under ANY... and I will repeat "ANY' of the criteria laid out in the 21 Points I have posted from it's website....
The big question now is........ Has Ann Redropp in persuing Dr Vincent Tabak for a "Murder" in regards to The Joanna Yeates Case gone beyond her remit.... Has she "Abused " her Power and brought "More" Than The full Force Of the Law Down On Dr Vincent Tabak's Head!!! As IN MY OPINION... she has!!!
In May 2011, Tabak admitted the manslaughter of Joanna but that was only part of the story. The Crown's case is, and always has been, that it was a deliberate act on his part and that is why we refused to accept his plea to manslaughter and he has faced trial for murder over the past four weeks.
Again... This statement shouts out that she has assited in The "Unlawful Incarceration"(IMO) of Dr Vincent Tabak for The Murder of Joanna Yeates!!!
Once she had 'REVIEWED" The Case... She must have "KNOWN" That Dr Vincent Tabak did not come under the 21 criteria for "The Complex Crime Unit" to continue supporting Dr Vincent Tabak's PROSECUTION!!! (IMO)
Without my posts... she is there for all to see :.... After The Trial of Dr Vincent Tabak... she has stated publically Many times That they were never going to accept Dr Vincent Tabak's "Manslaughter Plea" and were going for "A Murder Trial"... i'm sure most will remember her doing this....
But I say... She......"SHOULD NOT HAVE EVEN BEEN IN FRONT OF ANY CAMERA"S PUBLICALLY PROCLAIMING HER INTENTION TO PERSUE THIS CASE"....... Because it with Regards to Dr Vincent Tabak... It never came under her "Juristiction".. (IMO) and so far as to say that it was an "Illegal Prosecution of A Placid Dutchman"... who not only had to contend with a CPS's prosecution...
But The Full Force of The Complex Crime Unit And Their extensive Powers to Prosecute a Dutch National on what can be only desribed as 'Flimsy at best" Case against him....
But that is only part of it... Because he then has A Defense Council who have "Publically Stated" that they have different levels of "Service" for Clients... "Base Metal Service".. Being one of them...And I'm gathering that Dr Vincent Tabak only came up to their "Base metal Service" as he had legal aid!!!
Why would "The Head Of The Complex Case Unit"..waste "Public Money" pursuing a "Simple" Murder case... When they could have sat back and accepted his "Manslaughter Plea"?? Why did Ann Redrrop by her own admission, continuing in "This Illegal Prosecution" of a Dutchman?/(IMO)
In May 2011, Tabak admitted the manslaughter of Joanna but that was only part of the story. The Crown's case is, and always has been, that it was a deliberate act on his part and that is why we refused to accept his plea to manslaughter and he has faced trial for murder over the past four weeks.
She clearly says that "WE" refused to accept his plea to "Manslaughter".... We means Including herself.. and as far as I can tell she had 'NO RIGHT".. to pursue Dr Vincent Tabak whatsoever in her position!!! (IMO)
She did NOT need to be the FACE of this trial..... What was she hoping for???
I believe 'A Full Investigation Needs To Be Carried Out Immediateley" I Believe That "Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction is "UNSAFE"... I Believe that Dr Vincent Tabak should be released immediatley.. And not only a trial to prove that this was a massive injustice.. But an Inquiry On such a level .. That "The Leveson Inquiry" would pale into insignificance!!!
I have always believed that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent!! And i think if people have the paitence to read my posts they too would come to the same "conclusion"....
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/cps_statement_on_vincent_tabak_/index.html
Above is The Removed Link... I Wonder Why??
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/cps_statement_on_vincent_tabak/
This link is all thats left as far as I can see on the CPS website in relation to Dr Vincent Taba's Trial...
-
Part 5...... In the Interest of Justice and Fair Play.....
Late in December 2010, the police asked for assistance and guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service. That assistance has come from the South West Complex Casework Unit based here in Bristol. I reviewed the evidence, advised that Vincent Tabak should be charged with Joanna's murder and began preparing the case for trial.
"In May 2011, Tabak admitted the manslaughter of Joanna but that was only part of the story. The Crown's case is, and always has been, that it was a deliberate act on his part and that is why we refused to accept his plea to manslaughter and he has faced trial for murder over the past four weeks.
Sometimes a re-read is helpful...
(1): Late in December 2010, the police asked for assistance and guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service.
(2):That assistance has come from the South West Complex Casework Unit based here in Bristol.
(3): I reviewed the evidence, advised that Vincent Tabak should be charged with Joanna's murder and began
preparing the case for trial.
I know I believe I covered this... But Breaking down The sentences,... helps to Define Ann Redrrop's Actions...(IMO)
(1): Avon and Somerset Police have taken The correct course of action.. as far as I can see and brought The Case
to the CPS's Attention...(IMO)...
(2): This is "Clearly" where Ann Redrrop "Proudly Boast's" That assistance has come from
the South West Complex Casework Unit based here in Bristol.
(3): And this is the "part" she takes "FullyResponsibility (IMO)I reviewed the evidence,
advised that Vincent Tabak should be charged with Joanna's murder and began preparing the case for
trial..
She alone is "responsible as far as I can see... For Dr Vincent Tabak's "Incarceration" and The treatment he recieved whilst he was on remand..... (IMO)
It makes me go back to Dr Vincent Tabak's Original Lawyer "COOK"..... I can only assume as The Head of The Complex Crime Unit. had taken command of this unholy "Prosecution"(IMO)...That he must have been left in No Doubt.. That Dr Vincent Tabak was Involved in something so vast, that he maybe didn't have 'The Experience ".. to deal with what can only be assume to be.....
A Case Of Such Significance....
A Case of Such magnitude..
A Case of Such Important That it involved "The Complex Crime Unit".. who according to The Criteria for Their Involvement.. Needs a bit of "Organised Crime In there!!!!
I'm Not surprised "Cook" ran for The hills... With the "Full Weight Of "The Complex Case Unit" and the Head Honcho at "The Wheel"... The poor man probably turned about face and got out of there pretty sharpish...(IMO)..
So where do we legally stand in regards to this absolute "Nightmare"??
Because we have two Families to consider how they would respond to this information...
On the one hand we have "The Yeates Family... whom have trusted our Justice System to bring about the Lawful Prosecution of The Man They Believe responsible for Their Daughters Death...
And on the other hand we have "The Tabak Family" who have always believed that there "Son" didn't commit this crime and prey and hope that "Justice" will be done!!
So even if you are of the persuasion that you believe Dr Vincent Tabak "Guilty"... You cannot possibly be happy with what I believe "The Mis- Use" of Public Money and More Importantly.. "The Mis-Use" of "The Complex Crime Units" resources to prosecute a "Placid Dutchman" who had NO ties to anything criminal whatsoever.. And should have had a "FairTrial".. that all people of this United Country of Ours Desereves!!!
(In My Humble Opinion) Nine..
-
Here's a question to consider.. which I need to try an Investigate further....
Thinking about "Ann Redrrop and her "Media" appearances In connection To The Joanna Yeates Case"... I was wondering.... Who??? Is the head of their Media Communications Department at The CPS's and The "Complex Crime Unit"????
Amanda Hirst was For 'Avon And somerset Police as she had expressed at "The Leveson Inquiry"
I have found the Interview That Ann Redrrop does after the trial and it can be seen here.... But just iincase as with all of Important Statement to video.. I will transcribe this Interview and will use on another post... because that too need scrutinising... (IMO)...
Ann appeared in "The Killers" Documentary... to explain her position and feeling about Dr Vincent Tabak... And cemmented what can only be described, as 'The Final Nail" in the coffin of Dr Vincent Tabak...(IMO)
She has used the media to highlight her vast Experience and Knowledge " of The Prosecution of this Dutch National and without us knowing for sure has been ill advised by someone to take this role of "Public Relations" to a whole new level (IMO)..
But who has that Role at"The CPS".. And if they didn't have someone who advises The likes of Ann Redrrop.... "The Head of "The Complex Crime Unit"... To be 'The Voice of The People"???
Has the CPS got a "Media Communications Advisor"... maybe someone might wish they had ..(IMO) because the Interview which is linked below.. only Supports my 5 part post on the subject...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8856060/CPS-Vincent-Tabak-was-cunning-and-dishonest.html
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
If Tabak saw something he's hardly likely to keep quiet whilst staring at a life sentence. I doubt if anyone is going to be persuasive enough to ge him to shut up if he had evidence.
-
On the other hand if the police did know something that is so sensitive they may be using all means to deflect the inquiry. If DNA belonging to Tabak was found on Yeates' clothing she would only have to brush against something Tabak had touched, use the same door handle then touch her own item of clothing, testing is that sensitive.
-
Ann Redrrop Interview on 28 Oct 2011..... Part One......
Here is the transcript of the video I linked in the above post of mine:..
Vincent Tabak was a cunning, dishonest and manipulative man who knew exactly what he was (deali) doing when he killed Joanna Yeates... Today he has been convicted by a jury of her murder last year, despite claiming he meant her know harm.. he was cunning and dishonest towards his girlfriend, with whom he had maintained a normal relatioship.. Even going as far as to text her shortly after jo was dead to say he was bored..
He manipulated the Police by virtue of his Indepth research on the internet.. to keep one step ahead of the Investigation, before his arrest, looking up extradition and medical details of decomposition.. he made very selective admissions surrounding the circumstances of Jo's death which sought to cast herin an Unfavourable light... And he kept this up even when he gave Evidence to the Jury...
Tabak thought his cleverness and deceit would prevent him from being convicted of a brutal murder............. He was wrong!
Jo went missing on Friday 17th December last year after meeting with friends for a drink.. For several days the Police mounted a "Missing Person Inquiry", but with the discovery of her body on Christmas Morning, this became a "Murder Investigation...
Late in December the Police ask for assistance and guidance from The Crown Prosecution Service.. That assistance has come from "The South West Case Work Unit" based here in Bristol... I reviewed the Evidence and Advised that Vincet Tabak should be charged with this murder and began preparing this case for trial... In May this year Tabak admitted Jo's Manslaughter....but that was only part of it..
The Crowns Case is... and always has been that it was a deliberate action on his part.. And "That|is why we refused to accept his plea for Manslaughter"... and he faced trial for "Murder"o over the past $ weeks....
Jo's family have been here in Bristol, during the trial and have listened to much of the evidence... Our thoughts are with them and with her partner Greg today as Tabak begin's a life sentence for "Murdering" Jo...
I find reading her words they tend to stick in my mind.. putting together with her own vocal words I can envisage her intension and her actions on "Pursuing The prosecution of Dr Vincent Tabak....(IMO)..
I'm going to pick over this on another post...as there are many questions I feel need answering...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8856060/CPS-Vincent-Tabak-was-cunning-and-dishonest.html
-
On the other hand if the police did know something that is so sensitive they may be using all means to deflect the inquiry. If DNA belonging to Tabak was found on Yeates' clothing she would only have to brush against something Tabak had touched, use the same door handle then touch her own item of clothing, testing is that sensitive.
I agree... but the DNA.. isn't quite correct (IMO).... There's bigger fish than DNA in this case... There's plenty to be unravelled... ?{)(**
-
Ann Redrrop Interview ... 28th Oct 2011... Part two...
Vincent Tabak was a cunning, dishonest and manipulative man who knew exactly what he was (deali) doing when he killed Joanna Yeates... Today he has been convicted by a jury of her murder last year, despite claiming he meant her know harm.. he was cunning and dishonest towards his girlfriend, with whom he had maintained a normal relatioship.. Even going as far as to text her shortly after jo was dead to say he was bored..
When watching video's I like to look for the slip up's.. The uncontrollable urges to say something you are trying not to reveal... And When Ann says: dishonest and manipulative man who knew exactly what he was (deali) doing .. I believe she was about to say the word "Dealing" but correct herself and goes on to say doing... (IMO)..
He manipulated the Police by virtue of his Indepth research on the internet.. to keep one step ahead of the Investigation, before his arrest, looking up extradition and medical details of decomposition.. he made very selective admissions surrounding the circumstances of Jo's death which sought to cast her in an Unfavourable light... And he kept this up even when he gave Evidence to the Jury...
That statement is "Clearly wrong..(IMO).. How does Indepth research on the internet constitute Manipulating "The Police"?????
How can Internet searches manipulate anyone??? If your not watching and you are not aware, that they exist.. How can these searches be seen as a form of "Manipulation'???
Jo went missing on Friday 17th December last year after meeting with friends for a drink.. For several days the Police mounted a "Missing Person Inquiry", but with the discovery of her body on Christmas Morning, this became a "Murder Investigation...
What does she mean by several days ?? Is after several day a "Twin Track Investigation" came into force?? Several days is 3 or 4 in my book.. But Joanna Yeates was Missing for 8... I find the next bit Interesting...
How can "Just" the discovery of a body give "Grounds" for a "Murder Inquiry to start?? They shouldn't have know that she had been "Murdered at that juncture".. (IMO)..
Was the Condition of Joanna Yeates body not what we have come to believe ??? If it was a few days after the "Post Mortem" examination had taken place.. then surely that only stands to reason that it couldn't have become a "Murder Investigation" But she states as soon as Christmas day! (IMO)..
Late in December the Police ask for assistance and guidance from The Crown Prosecution Service.. That assistance has come from "The South West Case Work Unit" based here in Bristol... I reviewed the Evidence and Advised that Vincet Tabak should be charged with this murder and began preparing this case for trial... In May this year Tabak admitted Jo's Manslaughter....but that was only part of it..
Her admitance to the Lead on the prosecuction of Dr Vincent Tabak... (IMO)..
The Crowns Case is... and always has been that it was a deliberate action on his part.. And "That|is why we refused to accept his plea for Manslaughter"... and he faced trial for "Murder" over the past 4 weeks....
One more time "The South West Case Work Unit" had No Reason to "Persue The Prosecution Of Dr Vincent Tabak as he didn't fit their criteria....And to be so "ACTIVELY" involved in this case goes beyond any rational explanation that they or anyone else can give for their.. Blind, Unreasoned, Badly Executed,Persistant, prosecution of this Dutch National... (IMO)
Edit... you may wish to read this which will add to the last two post of mine: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8051.msg408083#msg408083
-
Just in case you wondered, I am still here, and absolutely delighted over this dissection of the anomalous role played by Anne Reddrop and the Complex Case Unit of the CPS. I had never seriously wondered why it was involved at all, and now we ALMOST know the answer. Why did the press not ask the same questions?
Theoretically speaking, we ought to believe that Vincent Tabak was part of a paedophile ring, which, according to the list, does come under "complex cases" - otherwise he wouldn't have been able to get hold of illegal images of child abuse, of which he was actually convicted. However, the prosecution made no reference to accomplices, sources etc. Once again, the press failed to bark in the night.
If Vincent Tabak had seen something, why did he not tell the court? I am sure he would have told DC Karen Thomas, who, unknown to him at the time, but not to us now, was part of a plan to arrest him for murder.
Even allowing for the behaviour of his lawyer, Vincent Tabak did not behave rationally. He never challenged Brotherton. He never reiterated his scepticism about the DNA. So I can only repeat my belief that he and his lawyers did a deal to carry the can for the killing in return for a secret amnesty and a new identity. I would guess that a few months in Long Lartin would have been sufficient to persuade him that things were serious. You can have no other rational explanation for why he has remained silent in the face of all the "abuses of process" that you have exposed.
-
An Explanation Part One......
Just in case you wondered, I am still here, and absolutely delighted over this dissection of the anomalous role played by Anne Reddrop and the Complex Case Unit of the CPS. I had never seriously wondered why it was involved at all, and now we ALMOST know the answer. Why did the press not ask the same questions?
Theoretically speaking, we ought to believe that Vincent Tabak was part of a paedophile ring, which, according to the list, does come under "complex cases" - otherwise he wouldn't have been able to get hold of illegal images of child abuse, of which he was actually convicted. However, the prosecution made no reference to accomplices, sources etc. Once again, the press failed to bark in the night.
If Vincent Tabak had seen something, why did he not tell the court? I am sure he would have told DC Karen Thomas, who, unknown to him at the time, but not to us now, was part of a plan to arrest him for murder.
Even allowing for the behaviour of his lawyer, Vincent Tabak did not behave rationally. He never challenged Brotherton. He never reiterated his scepticism about the DNA. So I can only repeat my belief that he and his lawyers did a deal to carry the can for the killing in return for a secret amnesty and a new identity. I would guess that a few months in Long Lartin would have been sufficient to persuade him that things were serious. You can have no other rational explanation for why he has remained silent in the face of all the "abuses of process" that you have exposed.
I believe Dr Vincent Tabak told them all exactly what he Knew and Saw....But was in a foreign country trusting it's Judical System... Which had shown him how they could "Twist" and "Put The Knife In".. about any statement he cared to share with them... (IMO)..
I still don't go with your secret identity... But things are slowly unravelling... And maybe with a little more pushing we will find the Answer.... (IMO)...
We still have Paul Vermeij... Dr Vincent Tabak's family spokesman... did he ever come to this country and talk to Dr Vincent Tabak????
Did someone talk to him and explain how "Serious" this case was with having "The "Complex Crime Unit Team" involved with his prosecution... Did Paul Vermeji feel he too couldn't continue with supporting Dr Vincent Tabak's in the face of such "Weight" of "English Law".... And didn't want his "Reputation Put Under The MicroScope' and possibly ruined when he could have been given "The Knowledge"..... That Dr Vincent Tabak was "Apart Of some "International Crime syndicate".... (IMO)...
This Paul Vermeji faded into the background far too fast for my liking... And it's easy to say because of "Funds".. but I do not believe that was the reason.. (IMO)...
You could apply the same reasoning to "Buro Happold"..... Buro Happold... an Internationally Reknowned Company, who were vying for an up and coming "Massively Important Venture" that Dr Vincent Tabak himself had indeed been working on... Are given the "Information" that The "Complex Crime Unit are Investigating Dr Vincent Tabak.. Now as sure as "Eggs is Eggs".. Buro happold "WILL" (IMO) have their own team of lawyers whom would have checked what the The "Complex Crime Unit Team actually Investigate.... And "Buro Happold" would have "NO" idea... that the way in which "Ann Redrrop" used her position to persecute Dr Vincent Tabak.. and what "Evidence " that they may have "Against" Dr Vincent Tabak...(IMO).. They would back off... (IMO)... They would "NOT" want to associate themselves with someone who "Again" could be "Part of some International Crime Syndicate..." (IMO)..
They had No real comprehension of what Charges and other Charges Dr Vincent Tabak "May or May not Face"... How could they... They are only able to respond to The Information passed onto them and how "This Trial" would almost certainly damage "Buro Happold's Reputation... (IMO)...
Think about it... If Dr Vincent Tabak was being Isolated for so long and nobody really had access to him.... "How are "Buro Happold" actually going to be able to "Investigate" that their employee Dr Vincent Tabak was an INNOCENT MAN!!!
Without risking not only "This Up And Coming Venture"... But without seeing what the "Prosecution" actually had as "Evidence"......Companies Head On The Chopping Block!!!.. (IMO) they wouldn't.. couldn't... and utlimateley didn't....
And if you apply this "Logic" with everyone who didn't Get up on Top Of The Roof Tops And Proclaim Dr Vincent Tabak's Innocence,,, then you start to understand why.. No-one "Put There Hands Up".... (Apart From Me... that is) (I am Waving like a loonatic.. I hope they can see my little hands over all this charade...IMO)..
"Slowly Slowly Catchy Monkey"... The emphasis "Needs" to be Squarely Brought back to "Then Head" of The Complex Crime Unit Team".... (IMO)... Who has Allowed For many Influencial People In Dr Vincent Tabak's Life The ability to assist him in what can only be described (IMO) as..... A Complete Inept.. Mis-judged, Time Wasting,Prosecution that could easily and "SHOULD" be brought back to "The Courts" at the very least for an 'Appeal".. (IMO)..
Then we come to WHY.... No Noise From Anyone????? Ita a Damn good question....
-
An Explanation Part Two......
Then we come to WHY.... No Noise From Anyone????? It"s a Damn good question....
If we apply what I have already said... No one... "Paul Vermeji" .. " Buro Happold" are any the wiser as to what I have described as "The Abuse Of Power" of The Then "Head Of The Complex Crime Unit".. (IMO)...
Which will bring us Nicely round to the "Child Porn"..... It took them YEARS... and I mean YEARS... To Finally decide to actually prosecute Dr Vincent Tabak on "Child Porn" charges... Whilst we all sat back waiting... this "IMPORTANT " prosecution which was a speciality of "Ann Redrrop's".. had languished in the backrooms of power waiting for the opportunity for it to raise it "UGLY HEAD"... (IMO)..
And boy did it..... Well I say that... but it was more of a "DAMP SQUIB".... (IMO)... Finally they once again trot out Dr Vincent Tabak to face a Jury about what they "claim" (IMO)... Is his collection of child porn... The Public remembers This Man for "The Murder " of Joanna Yeates... are are NOT going to be very forgiving... (IMO)...
So... he ends up pleading "Guilty" again..... (I think I have been here before)... And this is where I believe it changes "Everything".. "They hold what they call "To Lie on File"...
Two counts of making indecent photographs of children between 2009 and 2011, relating to 23 images found on external hard drives, were ordered to lie on file.
Now "Buro Happold" Paul Vermeji... are still Not going to "Stick their necks out " (IMO).. They're still of the mind set that The Complex Crime Unit Team.. would not be involved with Dr vincent Tabak if he was not "Involved" under the 21 Criteria set out for "SERIOUS CRIME" on their Official Website" In The First Place If "Dr Vincent Tabak" hadn't done something to warrant "THEIR INVOLVEMENT" (IMO)...
And Until it is Proven (IMO)... That The Complex Crime Unit Team had "NO" Business getting Involved In Dr Vincent Tabak's Arrest and Subsequent Prosecution"...
NOT ONE PERSON... Lawyer... Ex Employee... Neighbour ... Landlord... Girlfriend... Up and coming In-Laws... Will Touch him with a "Barge Pole" that is 50 feet long.. In fear of getting caught up and having "Reputations Ruined" Contracts lost... Firms destroyed... And the UK Public's Opinion that "You Are "In Love with a "murderer".....Or that your "Son In- law has been convicted of Murder... ... (IMO) And they may feel they couldn't confidently do this for fear of reprisals.... (IMO)... With The Knowledge "That The world Hates Dr Vincent Tabak... (and who could blame them with everything that has been told) (IMO).. Knowing that The Complex Crime Unit is at the VERY HEART of this Prosecution!!! they all hide their heads in Shame!!(IMO)
That I would say is "Why" There is No SHOUTING FROM ROOF TOPS".... That Is WHY I would say " Dr Vincent Tabak is not Proclaiming his INNOCENCE....
Because Until there is an Inquiry inti The Then.. "Head Of The Complex Crime Unit Team.. .. Dr Vincent Tabak Know's that he "Cannot Fight This... Complex Case On his own.. And it's probably better for him to sit In silence and do his time... "Than Run The risk of Being Moved "To some Other Prison"... whilst he has "No Clue.. On How To Fight A UK Justice System That let him down so badly"... (IMO).... And Probably prevented "Any Other Defence Council.. Ever Bothering To Look At His Case... (IMO)..
And finishing off this post..... In the words that have rung in my" Ears For Years" The whole Truth May Never be Known... .. Well I say to that.... I'll do my utmost To prove that "Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent... and I have always been of The Knowledge That he is... (IMO)
Once The Head Of The Snake Has Been Severed From It's Body.. All the Domino's Will All Fall Around It....... It's a bit like Teeing off in Golf and Getting "A Hole In One" ... There's No Come Back... When The Other fella has a Handicap"....(IMO)
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/vincent-tabak-joanna-yeates-murderer-5260659
-
P:S sorry for my Long posts... But I believe that they are warranted In this case.... ?{)(**
-
An Explanation Part One......
I believe Dr Vincent Tabak told them all exactly what he Knew and Saw....But was in a foreign country trusting it's Judical System...
Several of your posts have revealed your understanding that being in a "foreign country" made Vincent Tabak vulnerable. Unfortunately, no one else who lives in their own country - England or Holland - sees it that way. They perceive the British justice system, and indeed British society, to be superior to those of most other countries'. They cannot picture the UK as a "foreign country". Why else, they would ask, did Vincent Tabak settle in the UK, when he could have stayed "at home"?
We are all brought up to perceive other countries that we might visit as gigantic theme parks, and to attribute distinctions of jurisprudence to "strange foreign customs". Or something like that!
Once he was ensnared by Anne Reddrop, of course, his situation became even more complicated. So where were the Royal Netherlands Embassy when he needed a Dutch-speaking lawyer? (Amanda Knox and Malthe Thomsen were very well served by their respective countries' embassies.)
-
On the other hand if the police did know something that is so sensitive they may be using all means to deflect the inquiry. If DNA belonging to Tabak was found on Yeates' clothing she would only have to brush against something Tabak had touched, use the same door handle then touch her own item of clothing, testing is that sensitive.
Most people don't realise this though. If it is mentioned that DNA has been found, most people assume this automatically means the defendant is guilty. Even jurors probably think this way. Forum posters certainly do (and I am not actually referring to this forum!).
Vincent Tabak himself might have believed the same thing---he was told that they had found his DNA on Joanna's body, and, although he objected at first, he could well have thought later that his situation was hopeless, so he might as well plead guilty to manslaughter and hope that "the real truth " would come out in court, OR that he would be assured of a lesser sentence. Who knows?
-
Several of your posts have revealed your understanding that being in a "foreign country" made Vincent Tabak vulnerable. Unfortunately, no one else who lives in their own country - England or Holland - sees it that way. They perceive the British justice system, and indeed British society, to be superior to those of most other countries'. They cannot picture the UK as a "foreign country". Why else, they would ask, did Vincent Tabak settle in the UK, when he could have stayed "at home"?
We are all brought up to perceive other countries that we might visit as gigantic theme parks, and to attribute distinctions of jurisprudence to "strange foreign customs". Or something like that!
Once he was ensnared by Anne Reddrop, of course, his situation became even more complicated. So where were the Royal Netherlands Embassy when he needed a Dutch-speaking lawyer? (Amanda Knox and Malthe Thomsen were very well served by their respective countries' embassies.)
I believe I have in some part answered and reasoned as "To Why" Dr Vincent Tabak has stayed silent.. And also a plausible reason for "No-One.. rushing in Where Angels Fear To Tread...(IMO)
We know That This "Police Operation was called.. Operation Braid.. And it has been suggested That it was Named after A Computer Game , where there is A Princess being Chased By A Monster"...
Well I can think of A Name for An Operation Too.... It's could be called Operation Nine.. Where a Middle aged woman sits at her commputer screen... Typing away for ever and a day trying to discover .. 'Why" No-one Helped "The Dutchman".... (IMO).. It could be a Story about "Smoke And Mirrors... Where All I need Is The Mirror... To Look Medusa In The Eye and say... I believe I May Have Found Your Achillies Heel..!!. And Let anyone know who has been fooled by "The Prosecution Of "Dr Vincent Tabak"...That Not Everyone In this Fair Land Is as Gullible as you..May think... There are some of "US" Not Many" that have Strived To Get This Case back Into The Fore Front of Public Access... And will continue with the same Conviction as "The Complex Crime Unit Team " had at that time....But I hope "This Time" we will prevail... And Restore some belief In Our Justice System... That Dr Vincent Tabak is not another statistic of "A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE".....
(IMO)
Edit........ You are right... I don't think most people have any comprehension as to "What it Would Be Like To Be A In A Foreigner In A Foreign Land... Facing That Land's Judicial System... And happyily believe That there own Lands Laws.. Are Fair And Transparent... But.... Most of us will never experience this... And Believe that Our Own System to Be The Best And Fair... And wouldn't believe That such an Abuse Of Power has been Used To Incarcerate Dr Vincent Tabak.... (IMO)
-
Part one..... Fishing for CJ....
I will put this link here: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8051.msg408083#msg408083
For people to follow my train of "Thought In regards to Ann Redrrop and "The Complex Crime Unit Team" based In Bristol....
I hadn't finished at my last post on this matter and maybe this post isn't the last on this matter either....
Because I alway like to nit pick if you like.... That Fine Detail...That The devil appears to nestle's himself in....
And I feel I need to differenciate between what could be an "Illusion" from "The Complex Crime Unit Team" and there apparent well Orchestrated "Advice" "Review" and subsequent conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak" for "The Murder of Joanna Yeates...
Do not think for one Moment that I have NOT Considered "The LandLord".... or to clarify.... Christopher Jefferies The "Landlord of The Basement flats at Canygne Road.... whom I always refer to as CJ....
We are more than aquainted with CJ.. and his Vilification in "The National Press" and his subsequent victory in "The Leveson Inquiry" Not forgetting the "Dramatisation" of his experience with The Avon And somerset Constabulary in the "Netflix" showing of The Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies .... where we can in the comfort of our own homes.. relive the horrors bestowed upon This "Interesting" some call "Eccentric"
(nothing wrong with (eccentric).... Well Spoken .. Well Mannered .. Highly Educated Indivdual.....
I bring you back to this... because I know very well that most people always relate unfortunatley "The Death" of Joanna Yeates to what most would call or say... Oh yes I remember... It's the one about "The Landlord"..
Enough fluff... I really need to get down to the barebones of why this post is forthcoming.... If you have read what I have written today (Click on Link)... "The Complex Crime Unit" have become the focus of my Investigations... And I feel I can show ... that it is NOT quite as Straight Forward as that"... They are not called The Complex Crime Unit for Nothing... IMO..
I do believe that their original suspect was indeed CJ.... I do believe that they had more in mind for this Individual than most of us had even thought Possible... Like I said "Previous" "They do exactly what is said on the Tin"....
"The Complex crime Unit Team... if you remember... where first engaged by "The CPS" for advice and help in pursuing an Individual which.. on thinking about... should be in "The Remit" of "The Complex Crimes Units" department...
And whilst we chew The Chud on That... It makes (IMO)... The Complex Crime Units Team's Involvement In Dr Vincent Tabak's Prosecution all the more abhorant....(IMO)...
We have to question "WHO"... In Late December did The Complex Crime Unit.. have "Safely" probably in their opinion... In their sights...??? And with common sense and logic we can only come to One Conclusion.... And that i'm afraid is CJ.......
Now do not mis- understand my post... I am not accusing CJ... Of anything.....
But rather pointing out the obvious.... because with DC Karen Thomas's testomony at trial safely in the bag.. And her explanation that it was "Indeed The Interview in"HOLLAND".. which happened on The 31st December 2010... that alerted her suspicions to Dr Vincent Tabak's strange behaviour and overly interest of "Forensics" that he apparently acquired in this 6 hour Interview...
And to add to that Evidence and Fact.... Ann Redrrop herself appears on a Documentary entitled "Killers" in which she tries to persuade the audience, that her "Prosecution of Dr Vincent Tabak was justified and he was reluctant to give a DNA sample... helps us all the more... welcome her expert opinion on a "Dutchman" of unsavoury Character.. that she would have us believe...
But just stop right there..... Put the breaks on...... Because this is were "The Devil" becomes my Ally....
If Ann Redropp states.. that it was in late December the CPS alerted her...And we Know from that The Interview inHolland was the 31st December 2010.... "Then she can Not possibly be talking about Dr Vincent Tabak" in that context... (IMO)....
He has "NOT come onto the "RADAR"... because if he had then DC Karen Thomas would have "Had To Caution" Dr Vincent Tabak as A suspect.. before the Interview commenced in "Holland"... giving him the "Opportunity" to "Answer "No comment" and not grace her with "A DNA sample which could incriminated himself... If he was indeed the perpetater of This Crime....
So who does that leave as The Complex Crime Units Prime Suspect..????
Well the only person left is CJ..... (IMO)...Common sense tells us that.... Which again begs the question What possible reason did Ann Redrrop as The Head Of The Complex Crime Unit believe she had on the possible pursuit of CJ under the 21 criteria that The Complex Crime Unit follow on pursuing a "Prosecution"???
-
Part Two... Fishing for CJ.....
And if I rack my Grey Cells and look at what possible motive was presumed that CJ could have under the 21 critera's for The Complex Crime Unit Team to actively take on This case... The only rational conclusion I can come to... Is that they were looking at CJ as a "Serial Killer"...
Now you may scoff... You may think it outrageous.... But looking at the 21 Criteria's for The Complex Crime Unit To be involved with The Joanna Yeates case it is more than likely that they were looking at connections for A Serial Killer ... than any other option from the 21 Criteria's that are available for them to choose from as No Sexual Assault was committed "Multiple Or Otherwise.......(IMO)...
What else brings me to this opinion..??? Could it Be that Gareth Bevan made himself visually available to promote The Pizza in a Police Video.. to be told in the "media" that there was NO contact between the "Two Investigating Teams"... which Gareth Bevan was apart of... he was known for being on "The Melanine Hall Murder team..!!
Or the gentle reminder that the "Similarities" between The "Murder of Joanna Yeates" and the still "Unsolved Murder" of Glenis Caruthers in 1974.. bore such striking resemblance.. That the Poor "Caruthers Family".. were duped into believing that the Police were actively trying to connect "The Two Murders"... and fooling us the public into believing the same to be true.... As we speculated at what connections if any CJ could possibly have between these cases .....
But it was enough... enough for "The General Public" to lap up The Media's appauling vilification of this innocent "Landlord".... CJ.... (IMO)
So we come to stating the obvious..... If as I believe The Complex Crime Unit Team..headed by Ann Redrrop was looking at a "Serial Killer".. as the only viable conclusion from the choices out of the 21 criteria that is on the Government website... Then if CJ was The prime suspect as "Age" for some crimes..... and The Ability to Access the Basement Flats as "Landlord" permits in relation to "Joanna Yeates"..... Giving what we have come to see The Complex Crime Units Role In Any Investigation.... should be for "Multiple people or Multiple Crimes"... to even "Prick there Interest"... (IMO)...
Once Cj was Arrested he was Not going to stand for such Nonsense... and made a hasty retreat with his Lawyer... Leaving the Complex Crime Unit Team.... No Viable Suspect!! (IMO)...
The we come full circle... And this time "I INSIST"...... What Possible Reason did Ann Redrrop.. Head of The Complex Case Unit in Bristol... Possibly have to continue in her "Prosecution and Persecution of "A Placid Dutch National"... (IMO)...That she used her long experience knowledge and resourses in succeding in "The Conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak"...
I question this as I am chatting to my husband as he is being domesticated.... Why .. when she has an Important Role and Position to bring to Justice "Paedophile Rings" or these 21 criteria's
1): Substantial and complex fraud
(2): Large scale human trafficking
(3): Serious drug related offences involving substantial importation, manufacture or supply, particularly with an
international dimension
(4): Major targeted local criminals in organised or international crime
(5): Serial sexual assault where there has been a protracted investigation
(6): Large scale child abuse, abduction or paedophile abuse cases involving multi generational abuse of several
victims
(7): Major large scale public disorder offences of a political, racial or religious nature, or which cause particular local
concern
(8): Complex / serious cases involving professional misconduct
(9): Hate related murders
(10):Mercy killings / aiding and abetting suicide
(11):High profile / multi victim / multi defendant murders
(12):Serious / complex Animal rights extremism cases especially across several police force areas
(13):Complex restraint and confiscation of assetsRape offences involving unusual violence or repeated attacks
(14):Cases involving complicated public interest immunity (PII) issues
(15):Complicated betting / lotteries cases
(16):Sensitive, serious or complex cases of major media interest e.g. allegations involving individuals or
organisations with a high public profile
(17):Cases requiring consideration of gross negligence manslaughter and any case involving a fatality in which the
investigation is being conducted in accordance with the Deaths at Work protocol (but note that cases of
corporate manslaughter are currently dealt with in the Special Crime Division in HQ)
(18):Outgoing European Arrest Warrant cases i.e. where the Area is seeking the return of a suspect from abroad
(19):Mutual Legal Assistance by vetting proposed letters of request (LORs)
(20):Cases where consideration is being given to issues of immunity and restricted use agreements under Serious (21):Organised Crime Act (SOCA) 05 (but not in relation to approving a letter of agreement with a co-operating
defendant)
(21):All cases involving the negotiation of jurisdiction with the USA
Did she use her time to ensure The Conviction of "The Placid Dutchman"... wasting her precious time and resourses entangled in a Simple Prosecution...Of a Straight Forward "Murder Case "... (IMO)
Again on that note... and sorry again for my long posts.... I'd like to gauge CJ's Reaction....Fancy another Inquiry CJ....????
-
CJ And The Bail... Part 1....
Theoretically speaking, we ought to believe that Vincent Tabak was part of a paedophile ring, which, according to the list, does come under "complex cases" - otherwise he wouldn't have been able to get hold of illegal images of child abuse, of which he was actually convicted. However, the prosecution made no reference to accomplices, sources etc. Once again, the press failed to bark in the night.
No they didn't.... It depends on how you view this.... The cunning way in which the "media" was used, Just enough of the right Information was divulged to them... And always by a "Police Source".... So the Police could deny knowledge of said leak...
But again... It's the way you look at this.... CJ, get arrested as we know... Quick flight to Holland.. and 6 hours later they have a DNA sample... Next day 1St January 2011.. CJ is released on bail....
Again an important detail...
The "Media" have a field day with CJ and that went on for ages... Distracting.. "Media" and "Public" alike as to why this "Landlord".. was on Police Bail".. and when they may or may not get more evidence against him..... The " media stories just keep on coming.. The Police Divulge various bit of Information and what essentially is Evidence to a Public, hooked on this unravelling case.....
But the cogs are whiring in the background... The police time these things.. it's not a spur of the moment decisson... It carefully thought out "Planned then Executed"... (IMO).. And whilst we are concentrating on CJ.. They are concentrating on Dr Vincent Tabak....
I'm sorry to say .. but CJ was a pawn in all this once they released him on Police Bail... We have often cast doubt as to why they held him until "March"... But I may also be able to give a reasoned explanation...
They arrest Dr Vincent Tabak... We The Public think they have made another error... The Media speculation is on dodgy ground.. And I don't think that is by coincidence either.... (IMO) It makes any story that is leaked more and more attractive to a public that has lapped up all of these wlid stories about "The LandLord"...
So we are all sat there waiting,... Dr Vincent Tabak is charged... goes to court...no bail application is made ... and he is held on remand.... Virtually everyone has forgotten about CJ.... I'm sure CJ hasn't.... Remember the interview with the Media that CJ. does... And in this Interview CJ says that he was held on Bail Because .... "The Police thought CJ and Dr Vincent Tabak had colluded" And we ...Well I happily took that as a reasonable explanation... But it was "The Police " that had let CJ know this Information... CJ didn't come up with this on his own...
Whilst Interview are taking Place.. we have to think as to why these Interviews are happening and for what purpose.. CJ is merrily telling the country.. "What he knows about his Tennants Joanna Yeates and Dr Vincent Tabak.. but within this he is giving us that explanation which he believes to be accurate...That he was informed?? Under the impression?? That the Police thought that he and Dr Vincent Tabak had colluded...
Ok... this is where my maths kicks in... Counting to two is a piece of cake... And thats the point... Nobody is counting... The Complex Crime Unit Need Multiple Defendants for them to stay within the 21 Criteria... So on paper they have ... One in Prison and One on Bail..... So CJ is None the Wiser...(IMO)
There had to be A "Prosecutorial" reason for CJ being on bail until March and they Obviously were not looking for more Evidence on him... They let him Pootle about whilst we all didn't see that magic trick coming..(IMO)..
The "Media "have gone quiet.. we get to see Tanja visiting Dr Vincent Tabak which also happened to be on The same day as "Joanna Yeates " funeral... I believe that was carefully orchestrated too... Where would "The Public Sympathy" be ??? Well NOT with a "Dutchman" on remand for her "Murder"!! (IMO)
The Complex Crime Unit All this Time Are PreParing Their Case Against Dr Vincent Tabak... whilst CJ dangles in the background... No-one is thinking about the "landlord"... They probably think that he has quietly been given bail.. and the real culprit is getting his just desserts.. Languishing in Long Lartin.... Where The public is happy for him to be....
-
CJ and the Bail .. part 2....
This is where we need to know what the Internal workings of The Complex Case Unit is....
(IMO) There must be Protocols in place for them to "Continue" with an Investigation they have started even if it is not "NOW" fitting the 21 criteria's that they themselves follow...
There must be a length of time in which they need more than one Suspect in their sights as to justify their involvement... (IMO).. Not only Justify but can actively pursue the only suspect they have In custody... And if I am correct in this possibility.. Then there we have The reason For CJ... being held on Bail for quite so long..... Whilst leaving on file, all the information that the have held on CJ... giving them their "Multiple Suspects" they need...
CJ was held as a suspect (IMO)... he was held for The Complex Crime Unit... to on paper at least, cover all the bases they need to in pursuing a case under the 21 Criteria's laid out on the Government website... (IMO).. They I believe need at least a length of time in which they have pursued the other suspect.. this suspect being CJ..... And when the Investigation is sufficent into CJ.. He remains on file....
He is still "Officially" Part of this Investigation.... It is "Not Until CJ goes through The Leveson enquiry and makes a "Song And Dance" that he wants all evidence .. DNA, files Finger Prints and anything pertaining to his Involvment with the Joanna Yeates Case removed from the Polices Data Base... That Officially he is NO LONGER A SUSPECT......... But in the mean time for all intense and purposes... he is "Offically On File as a "Multiple" person in "The Joanna Yeates Murder Investigation"... And Ann Redrropp can confidentley say that she followed "Procedure".....(IMO)...
Once CJ has been released on Bail.... there is little News on this.... Everyone is waiting with bated breath for "The Real Story"... "The Dutchman" and why he killed his next door neighbour for "NO" apparent reason....
The Complex Crime Unit Team Headed By Ann Redrrop.. are feverishly scurring around gathering Evidence on Dr Vincent Tabak to complete this prosecution..... Here come "Brotherton"... apparently a most charming man who has the ability that No-one else did to "ACTUALLY" get Dr Vincent Tabak to Talk..... The Dutchman has kept his mouth closed for all this time and obviously is needing the company of "A Man Of The Cloth" that he doesn't believe in, yet spills the beans too according to "Brotherton...
So with this confession as it was called safely tucked away... They now have the ability to apply pressure on Dr Vincent Tabak and the rest is nearly history....
But NOT quite.... Who would have "The Influence.. Power... And Professional Standing to ask a Judge to move Dr Vincent Tabak's hearing to "The Old Bailey"???? I Believe that person to be "Ann Redrrop.. (IMO).. I may be incorrect on that score.... But it has to be someone on "The Prosecutorial Side"... I wouldn't just Imagine the Judge in question had a lunch appointment at Claridge's and changed the Time And Location for that purpose??
There has to be a purpose and reason for everything.. (IMO) And Dr Vincent Tabak didn't end up at The Old Bailey For Nothing...(IMO)... I always believed that that the case would be heard at "The Old Bailey".... But I believe that what they wanted us to think.... whilst they turned the cogs of justice in our names.... (IMO).... And we were all fooled into believing that The Innocent Landlord had been caught up in this Unforunate Event and had been Vilified and Ridiculded by "The Media" and "Public Alike"
in what seems to be a Mis-Understanding as to why they Arrested him in The First Place.... Thats why we "The Public" entertained all of "The Following Documentaries"... By either CJ or The Police... We warmed to CJ and his unfortunate grazing with 'The Powers That Be".....
But I personally don't believe it was unfortunate.. I believe it was a clever use of Policy for The Purpose of getting A Killer Of "Joanna Yeates behind bars..... (IMO)..
-
.... Virtually everyone has forgotten about CJ.... I'm sure CJ hasn't.... Remember the interview with the Media that CJ. does... And in this Interview CJ says that he was held on Bail Because .... "The Police thought CJ and Dr Vincent Tabak had colluded" And we ...Well I happily took that as a reasonable explanation... But it was "The Police " that had let CJ know this Information... CJ didn't come up with this on his own...
"Since he is currently suing Avon and Somerset police for false imprisonment, breach of his human rights and trespass, the grounds for his arrest can’t be discussed here," wrote Brian Cathcart in his account of the first interview CJ gave to the press, just as the trial of Vincent Tabak opened. I had not even noticed that CJ was alleging that the police suspected him of collusion with VT, until you reported it on this forum. He certainly didn't say this in his Leveson testimony either; he merely remarked to Leveson that his being held on bail for so long after VT's arrest was very unusual. The police must have put it to him later. Apart from that, everything else in your post rings very true!
-
"Since he is currently suing Avon and Somerset police for false imprisonment, breach of his human rights and trespass, the grounds for his arrest can’t be discussed here," wrote Brian Cathcart in his account of the first interview CJ gave to the press, just as the trial of Vincent Tabak opened. I had not even noticed that CJ was alleging that the police suspected him of collusion with VT, until you reported it on this forum. He certainly didn't say this in his Leveson testimony either; he merely remarked to Leveson that his being held on bail for so long after VT's arrest was very unusual. The police must have put it to him later. Apart from that, everything else in your post rings very true!
I think he says it on Judge Rinder----but I'm not sure, I'll have to check. He certainly said it in one interview that he gave.
It could be that he just suspected it----after all, why else (from CJ's point of view) would they keep him on bail once they had charged VT?
-
"Since he is currently suing Avon and Somerset police for false imprisonment, breach of his human rights and trespass, the grounds for his arrest can’t be discussed here," wrote Brian Cathcart in his account of the first interview CJ gave to the press, just as the trial of Vincent Tabak opened. I had not even noticed that CJ was alleging that the police suspected him of collusion with VT, until you reported it on this forum. He certainly didn't say this in his Leveson testimony either; he merely remarked to Leveson that his being held on bail for so long after VT's arrest was very unusual. He must have introduced it later. Apart from that, everything else in your post rings very true!
CJ only ever sued "The Newspapers"... he didn't pursue the Police for damages... he only pursued them for his "Files" to be removed and a "Letter of Apology"...
We all think that this is fair enough... CJ has been Vindicated and damages have been paid.. he became a minor celebrity... But to put the cherry on the cake.. He maybe didn't even ask for it.. But He recieves a "Letter" from The Avon and Somerset Police.. In a backhanded sort of apology That doesn't accuratly state anything....
From the Guardian:....
Christopher Jefferies wins apology over Joanna Yeates murder arrest
Police have insisted they were right to arrest the landlord of the murdered landscape architect Joanna Yeates over her death but have apologised for not making it clear sooner that he was innocent.
Yes... they need to Insist this.... Because if they deny this then it doesn't fit "The 21 Criteria's" that they subsequently Prosecuted Dr Vincent Tabak with The Full Force of The Complex Case Unit...(IMO)..
His arrest prompted lurid headlines and though the real killer, Vincent Tabak, was charged with Yeates's murder three weeks later, Jefferies remained on police bail until March 2011.
Well I believe.... understand "Why" Now ...(IMO)..
The chief constable of Avon and Somerset police, Nick Gargan, said arresting Jefferies was an "integral step" in the inquiry but accepted that once Jefferies was released from bail, the force should have considered making it clear in public he was innocent.
Yes I agree.... For them to have The backing of The Complex Crime Unit.. to pursue Dr Vincent Tabak....
Gargan, who was not in post at the time of the saga, apologised for the suffering Jefferies endured because police did not acknowledge as soon as his bail was cancelled that he had nothing to do with Yeates's death.
Exactly "Saga".. I believe that is Gargan letting everyone know what he think about this whole debarcle...(IMO)....
In a letter to Jefferies, Gargan, who joined the force in March, said: "I accept unequivocally that you played no part in the murder and that you are wholly innocent of the crime."
Well of course he didn't... someone went off half-cocked and thought they would solve "The Crime Of The Century".. by bagging A Serial Killer .... (IMO)..
He added: "I understand the length of time you spent on police bail caused you significant distress and inevitably prolonged the period of time when you remained in the public eye as someone who was still suspected of involvement in an appalling crime.
But whilst he was still a suspect... everyone is content with "The Procedure"... (IMO)..
Now this NEXT quote I believe is Important...
"The police did not make it clear publicly that you were no longer a suspect in the investigation as soon as you were released from bail on 5 March 2011.
Exactly..... We all could believe it was possible for CJ to be a suspect,.. but the Police didn't have The Evidence On him..... When In reality I believe it was because they needed "Multiple Suspects for The Complex Crime Unit to Be Involved!! (IMO)....
"While it is not normal practice to make such a public statement, in the circumstances of the exceptional media attention your arrest attracted, I acknowledge we should have considered this and I am very sorry for the suffering you experienced as a result."
He also said that all DNA, fingerprints and photographs taken from Jefferies after his arrest had been destroyed.
In a statement Gargan said the force stood by the decision to arrest the landlord.
Here we go........ CJ... Is Insisting for Some kind of Recognition from "The Police".. so his Reputation is finally intact!!! He probably at that point said he would pursue them in court If they didn't "Officially" Relay The Information to The press... So the "Whole Country" could see he was Innocent!!! (IMO)...
Its this part of the above quote that is Interesting.. (IMO)...
In a statement Gargan said the force stood by the decision to arrest the landlord
Well he has too..... he can't deny that publically.... They have after all been in cohoots with The Head of The Complex Crime Unit .... .. he can hardly "Publicly say it was "A Farce".. "Media Circus"... Look at his position.... (IMO)....
"Although I was not chief constable then, I stand by the decision taken at the time to arrest and interview Christopher Jefferies.
"Nevertheless I am happy to accede to his request that we should make it clear that he was completely exonerated in this investigation.
He distances himself "First"... letting us know it was nothing to do with him.... He then goes on to say that... CJ... had put enough pressure on them that they had to give in to his request... (IMO)..."Maybe " CJ... worked out that they used him... And Maybe he could have spilled the beans on The Complex Crime Units.... Involvement with this case..... (IMO) CJ... probably wanted it all to go away as well...
Gargan's letter to Jefferies is part of a legal settlement with the police, which has included Jefferies being paid some compensation for damage caused to his property.
Yes... "The Police.. "HAD NO OPTION" (IMO)...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/16/joanna-yeates-police-apologise-christopher-jefferies
-
I think he says it on Judge Rinder----but I'm not sure, I'll have to check. He certainly said it in one interview that he gave.
It could be that he just suspected it----after all, why else (from CJ's point of view) would they keep him on bail once they had charged VT?
I'd have to find "The Quote" mrswah... But I did Transcribe that Part of CJ's Interview... That why I know CJ siad that!!
-
I'd have to find "The Quote" mrswah... But I did Transcribe that Part of CJ's Interview... That why I know CJ siad that!!
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg368738#msg368738
Here's The Link to the Post I did on the Interview "Where CJ.. Says:
And therefore the police continued to entertain the suspicion that possibly there had been some sort of collusion... Between myself and Vincent Tabak
-
I think he says it on Judge Rinder----but I'm not sure, I'll have to check. He certainly said it in one interview that he gave.
It could be that he just suspected it----after all, why else (from CJ's point of view) would they keep him on bail once they had charged VT?
"Judge Rinder" is apparently from June 2016 - more than FIVE years after CJ was released. This is no bagatelle, mrswah. It means that FIVE years went by before the public heard any explanation for why CJ was kept on bail such a long time AFTER VT was charged. If Judge Rinder were any good at all, HE would have delved into the involvement of the Complex Case Unit, after revealing this amazing allegation of CJ's. Why don't we all make our own TV documentary, to discredit all the others?
-
I think he says it on Judge Rinder----but I'm not sure, I'll have to check. He certainly said it in one interview that he gave.
It could be that he just suspected it----after all, why else (from CJ's point of view) would they keep him on bail once they had charged VT?
You also have... apart from my recent posts... The reason in The "Public's" Mind How Joanna Yeates Body could have been possibly transported...Without leaving Drag marks... Because you have 2 people....
Whilst CJ.. hasn't been vinicated.. The Police can keep saying in "The Media" reports about Killers... being plural of Joanna Yeates... Whilst we can make up our own minds that It could have been CJ... but they didn't have "The Evidence" to prove that it was.... And they KNEW... it wasn't.... But they waited till after the Trial... After Dr vincent tabak was tucked up in a nice Prison Cell and enough time had passed ...(IMO)... That they through pressure gave in to CJ's Request...(IMO)
The Date of the Guardian Article is: Monday 16 September 2013 10.22 BST
You don't think CJ waited till then to ask for this Request do you????
In the mean time we have had "All "The Documentaries' .... "Crime Watch... (don't get me started on that one.. I have a reasoned explanation about that too..)......"Various Police Video's ...all explaining why and How .."Dr Vincent Tabak " committed this Crime"...
CJ.. Is in the background working on 'The Lost Honour Of CJ"... his Lawyer friends are advising him on how to gain his "Reputation" back as it has been Serverly Damaged"... And I'm positive that they would have been In correspondence with The Police The whole time we "The Public"... get to hear of the "Horrors" that was "The Placid Dutchman" Next Door.... Feeding into a public hunger for more juicy details... (IMO)
Whilst reminding us "ALL" That the correct person is behind bars for "The Murder" of Joanna Yeates" and here are the reasons "WHY".... look everyone... we have made "Documentaries To tell you of our Investigation"... And Ann Redrrop... does "The same..... Her Ego And Vanity Hold No Bounds... (IMO)... To believe that "The Public" will gleefully accept this "Intellegent" Well Spoken Educated English Womans"... Version Of Events must be correct....and Places herself in an extremeley Procarious Position as to be filmed... talking about 'The Case"... (IMO)..
And all along the public are satisfied.... 'The Jury" found him "Guilty" so he must have been.... "He Plead "Guilty" to "Manslaughter" so he must have done it..... And now look..... Look how kind "The Police Force are and 'The Head of The Complex Crime Unit is.... for taking time out of their busy schedules to explain to us numpty's how they managed to put "A Dangerous Placid Dutchman behind bars for "LIFE".....
And everyone is happy.... Ann Redrropp... The Police.... The Public and of course CJ.... The yeates family are not happy... but at least they feel that they can move on slowly with their lives.... I think this whole "CASE" is a Travesty!!... (IMO)...
-
"Judge Rinder" is apparently from June 2016 - more than FIVE years after CJ was released. This is no bagatelle, mrswah. It means that FIVE years went by before the public heard any explanation for why CJ was kept on bail such a long time AFTER VT was charged. If Judge Rinder were any good at all, HE would have delved into the involvement of the Complex Case Unit, after revealing this amazing allegation of CJ's. Why don't we all make our own TV documentary, to discredit all the others?
Oh Yes.. leonora... I think a "Documentary on this "Appauling" Miscarriage of Justice"... Is exactly what the Dr ordered....
Dr Vincent Tabak of course... whilst he lies in his Prison cell dreaming of Freedom..
-
CrimeWatch....
Well seeing as I mentioned it.... I thought I had better explain my reasoning on this "CrimeWatch Documentary"...
We all are aware how CrimeWatch works.... Now it is there to help Catch A Killer!! correct.... But again miraculously they caught "THE KILLER" before 'The CrimeWatch Program" was due to air...
A couple of days before Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest we get "An emotional Appeal" from The Poor Yeates family... who are desperate to find out who killed there daughter.... And who can blame them.....
But there are TWO things we need to remember here before I go off half-cocked...
"Ann Redropp stated.."The Planned Arrest" of Dr Vincent Tabak..... in her Government statements made on the government website... (So we are in agreement.. on that at least)....
So all through "January" according to Ann Redrropp"... they are gathering "Evidence" and "Planning " Dr Vincent Tabak's Arrest!!!!!
Can you see that little Devil sat on my shoulder at this point..... he's waving 8()-000(
This all brings us NICELY back to "The Crimewatch Program"..... All the time... The Police used "The media"..And I mean USED THE MEDIA..... (IMO)... for us all to plainly see that they were indeed pursuing "The Killer Of Joanna Yeates.".. .. And we all waited in anticipation for "CRIMEWATCH"... In the vain hope some "EXTRA DETAILS" would be Divulged.....
But the "Police" can't produce "This CRIMEWATCH DOCUMENTARY".... (IMO).... So to deflect from having to show it.... and this is the "Clever bit"... "The Program is scheduled to be "SCREENED" After "The Police Review of "The Joanna Yeates Case".... On thinking about that... They never intended to show it..... The Head of the Complex Case Unit Was Busy "PLANNING" Dr Vincent tabak's Arrest"... (IMO)...
They (IMO)... Never made a "CrimeWatch Documentary".... not of the type we believe that they did... (IMO).... They had at various Times got "The Media" gathered together to "Film... Photograph and report on The said "CRIMEWATCH" Documentary" So in the Public's mind they were doing their bit....(IMO) I believe this is "The More Likely reason That they never used "Mrs Yeates to Play The Role of her daughter".... because they would need to run past her... her appearance in said.."CRIMEWATCH" Program.... (IMO)...
So we see The "Photographs of The Longwood Lane reconstruction.... We see all "The Camera's at Tesco's where The young lady who looks similar to "Joanna Yeates" in appearance... has her starring role....
But the Cunjouror's trick are not complete ...(IMO).. We then have The by now... "Infamous" "Sobbing Girl"... who apparently rings the Police after seeing Joanna Yeates Parents heart felt appeal...to catch the killer of their beloved Daughter... (IMO)...
Now out of "Everyone in the "ENTIRE" country that doesn't even "SMELL" of Distasteful and Unusual Behaviour is...... "Our Placid Dutchman" ...Dr Vincent Tabak"... whom until now has been pulling his hair out...disorientated... unsure why the "Police have made his life a mysery"... But out of The Whole Population... he miraculously becomes there "Prime Suspect",... Or at least that is what they want us to believe.....
Giving them the excuse they need to Promptly Arrest This Placid Dutchman and get him off the street of our Glorious Country and make him never darken our doorsteps again.....
Quick step forward... he is charged ....More Importantly No review from Another Force who could see :StraightThrough" the Trickery... (IMO)... Dr Vincent Tabak is Banged To Right... The world and his sheepdog are now happy.....
But.... we still have "The Crime Watch Program that we started and didn't complete"... (IMO).... What better use than to drag it back out when we have put Dr Vincent Tabak away "FOR LIFE"... where we can all say our piece and not only that... explain to a "PUBLIC"... What we had been doing and How we came to the conclusion 'That Dr Vincent Tabak is INDEED 'THE MAN"....
That's why we never see a lot of The Material that they were supposed to have filmed about "The Joanna Yeates Murder"...Because (IMO).... They never really filmed anything... "They Just did their usual and allowed us "The Public" to fill in the blanks in our OWN MINDS ... as to what they had filmed and WHAT Might have been in 'The CrimeWatch" Program that was due to be aired in January 2011.... (IMO)...
And another reason I can safely say this is because:... Whilst No-one Noticed that The reconstruction in 'The Flat" was NOT at 44 Canygne Road.. No-one paid heed... 'But Of Course I Did".... They (IMO)... Filmed those scenes about the flat and outside the flat.... AFTER They had released .. CJ from Bail....
and they who therefore need CJ permission to use his property to continue with the filming.... As CJ still wasn't getting his named cleared... He probably told the "To Take A Long Walk off A Short Pier'.. (IMO).. Hence why "The Actress is "Never Actually seen "In The Basement Flat of 44 Canygne Road....(IMO)
Go on... check out all the "Documentaries"... And Unless it is "The Lost Honour of CJ".... 44 Canygne Road is never used in The reconstruction.... Unless it was a little nit of taping they had before....
I believe I have reasoned "The CrimeWatch Program Also.... (IMO).....
-
One thing I would like to add... Is if my reasoning and Investigation are correct... I would like to give a heartfelt apology to "The Poor Yeates" family.... Who have beed Duped In my opinion..Into what they were lead to believe, was a through investigation Into "The Murder Of Their Daughter." (IMO)....
If what I have revealed leads to a NEW Trial Or an Investigation By some other means.... Then I am sorry that the pain of what you feel will resurface... And have not done this to cause them any further upset...I can not possibly comprehend.. The Feelings of this family... as I am thank fully not in their position.... But I am sure when I say this... That they would prefer The truth to be out there and get "Proper" closure on this dreadful Crime.... (IMO)..
-
Oh yes I doubt Dr Vincent Tabak's guilt... Every day something comes to light and today I think I have found it.....
And Ann Redrrops involvement with the " Contrived explanation as to what alerted DC Karen Thomas to Dr Vincent Tabak's ... apparent over interest in "Forensics" which made her take his DNA as... the Official story goes...
But I believe I have found the answer that should cast "HUGE" Doubt on the "Polices Unscrupulous use of "The Complex Crimes Units Resources"... And Ann Redrrops own admission that the CPS did infact. approach her in late December 2010..
Yes they did... And I believe that this was whilst CJ was still in custody... And I believe they really "DID" set this poor "Dutchman" up as a scapegoat...(IMO)...
I couldn't work out... but now i think I have... "WHY" in late December 2010 The CPS would need Ann Redrrop's assistance...And subsequently Ann redrrop was happy to publicly state in front of camera's outside Bristol Crown Court And it is now our turn to ask as to "WHY" the CPS needed her assistance at this time....
Yes I've ranted about the 21 criteria's and how Dr vincent Tabak doesn't fit these criteria... But he actually does.... He fit One Criteria and one criteria only...
But not how I have been looking at it.... The criteria she used was for One purpose and One purpose only..... And that was to obtain the supposed witness statement of Dr Vincent tabak in Holland....
She had to do this within the law and she did... It was NEVER a coincidence that DC Karen Thomas's Interview lasted 6 hours.. Again for anyone who doesn't know 6 hours is the length of time "Dutch Law" allows for a "SUSPECT"... to be interviewed for, before they either charge or release them....
And that is the important bit Information that has slipped by us.... And it was meant too (IMO)....
The only possible criteria that they 'Complex Crime Unit could have used is:
"Mutual Legal Assistance by vetting proposed letters of request (LORs).. "
But to use this particular request in the capacity that may be relevant to Dr Vincent Tabak could only be that they had requested assistance from the "Dutch Authorities" so they could Interview Dr Vincent Tabak in an 'Official capacity".... Which makes the 6 hour interview an interview of Dr Vincent Tabak as a "Suspect"..... And what I have believed all along..
And if the CPS did indeed need "The Head of The Complex Case Unit's assistance with obtaining permission to interview Dr Vincent Tabak as a "suspect".. then did the Complex Case Unit abuse there power?? To involve themselves with what can only possibly be the use of the"Mutual Legal Assistance by vetting proposed letters of request (LORs).. " as Dr Vincent Tabak didn't fit any of the other criteria...
Making Karen Thomas's sworn testomony in court very suspect indeed.... and Ann Redrrop carefully watching every move on this case because her Involvement with obtaining a statement of Dr Vincent Tabak was to clearly set him up as 'The Killer" of Joanna Yeates ....(IMO)
And Ann Redrropp's Involvement in this case was purely "Self" Interest (IMO)... So she could safely see The Dutchman locked away for life and she most probably would be dead and buried before any of this came to light.... That she INDEED Abused her position of Power.. to Incarcerate an "Innocent Dutchman for life.....
Why else wouldn't Ann Redrrop be happy with a "Manslaughter Plea" in a all honesty??? They spent months concocting a prosecution that tried to implicated Dr Vincent Tabak and this way for the public so they went with the "Murder Trial"...
And in Ann's own words:
The Crowns Case is... and always has been that it was a deliberate action on his part.. And "That|is why we refused to accept his plea for Manslaughter"... and he faced trial for "Murder" over the past 4 weeks....
Well ANN REDRROP.... I dispute that.... I believe you 'Personally" saw this case through to the "BITTER END" so no-one who uncover the Mutual Legal Assistance by vetting proposed letters of request (LORs) you used to "Legally" obtain a "SUSPECT" statement from Dr Vincent Tabak.... The Placid Dutchman you ALL knew he was and in your words again ANN:..."a cunning, dishonest and manipulative man...which you couldn't honestly believe was true... But it sounds good for a public baying for blood... you'd hardly get away with calling him "The Placid Dutchman of great Intelligence and outstanding education who is not only polite and thoughtful but with his tri- lingual capacity has been helpful in not needing a translator for these proccedings.... (IMO)...
Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't a cunning, dishonest and manipulative man.....
So check out the reflection of yourselves in a mirror... and maybe you won't like what's looking straight back at you.... (IMO)....
Because I believe "The Placid Dutchman is Innocent and I never understood why "UNTIL NOW" you would "NOT" accept a "Manslaugher Plea" in this case.... But as they saying goes "The Obvious is starring you in the face"!!
Was accepting The Manslaughter Plea a problem because he would have served as little as 5 years and would be wandering free now having the freedom to tell the world how he was Mis treated By The English Justice System... And (IMO)... you couldn't afford for that to happened could you!!!
It's about time (IMO)... That this case got reviewed and The paper trial followed for Late December 2010 with the Dutch Authorites giving permission to Interiew Dr Vincent Tabak as a "SUSPECT and not a witness as you have all told untruths about (IMO).....
Edit... Ware was the "CAUTION" given to Dr Vincent Tabak on 31st December 2010 DC Karen Thomas?? I do believe that part must have slipped your mind... (IMO) Oopsie... well I hope this comes full circle and those that deserve cautions "Get There Just Desserts"... (IMO)...
-
What is your source for the Dutch 6 hour limit to a suspect interview? Have you posted a link that I have overlooked, or is it just something you "know"? Isn't the limit "0" hours in the UK? Under any circumstances, the "Letter of Request" that the jury was not told about is the icing you have applied to the "Complex Casework" cake.
-
What is your source for the Dutch 6 hour limit to a suspect interview? Have you posted a link that I have overlooked, or is it just something you "know"? Isn't the limit "0" hours in the UK? Under any circumstances, the "Letter of Request" that the jury was not told about is the icing you have applied to the "Complex Casework" cake.
Leonora... it was on the "Dutch" website... Hang on I'll find it ...
-
Arrest and questioning
You have been arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence.
The police may wish to question you further at the police station. If so, they
are entitled to hold you for up to six ‘working’ hours. The hours between
midnight and 9 am do not count towards this period. For example, if you are
taken to the police station at 9 o’ clock in the evening, the police can detain
you for questioning until 12 noon the following day.
Then.... Police custody
Sometimes, six hours will not be enough time for the police to ascertain all the
facts of the matter. An ‘assistant prosecutor’, usually a senior police officer, can
authorize an extension of this period to allow further investigations. This
decision is not taken lightly and he (or she) will interview you before signing the
necessary order, or ‘warrant’. If the extension is granted, you can be held
without charge for a further 72 hours (including the nighttime hours). You will
be given a copy of the warrant. Note that the 72-hour extension period applies
only in the case of ‘arrestable’ criminal offences for which the law allows
suspects to held on remand prior to trial, such as theft and possession of drugs
with intent to supply.
I believe they used "Dutch Law" to make it look like a "Witness statement" any longer and a caution would have had to be given or an extension applied for .... But they used just enough of the law so they could intimidate Dr Vincent Tabak (IMO).. But most importantly make the "British" public believe that this "Most Important Interview" was all above board...
When In reality it "Never was" in our "English Codes of Practice"... But they needed The Dutch Authorities permission to "Interview him as "A Suspect"... and therefore (IMO)...applied for Official Permission to Interview him... (IMO)... Why else would they need Ann Redropps asssistance and guidance... .. They cannot be seen not to follow "International Laws"...
And they even flouted "Dutch Law" also (IMO).... because..
Arrest and questioning
You have been arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence.
The police may wish to question you further at the police station. If so, they
are entitled to hold you for up to six ‘working’ hours. [
Well they never arrested Dr Vincent Tabak in "Holland" did they... so how many laws did they Actually Flout???
Edit... I think they used Dutch Law To show Dr Vincent Tabak that they had written permission from the "Dutch Authorities".. and commenced their Interview of him under this lie... That more likely why his sister was there concerned what they were doing to her brother....
All they need to do is tell the "Dutch Authorities" why they need to Interview Dr Vincent Tabak and possibly arrest Dr Vincent Tabak"... They just need the Official Paper work to gain access to Dr Vincent Tabak...
They then Mixed And Matched "Dutch Law " with "english Law" for their own gains... (IMO) Instead of waiting and gathering what should have been a straight forward witness statement That could have waited till he returned to England"...
https://www.rechtspraak.nl/SiteCollectionDocuments/If-you-are-suspected-of-a-criminal-offence.pdf
-
There is a statement from the CPS re Vincent Tabak on 28/10/11.
-
If there is a cover up going on here, and as a principle it seriously merits consideration, why do the police persist with it?
Is it possible that they realised some years ago that they have made monumental errors previously and that to apprehend the real perpetrator behind they murders of all these young girls they will in effect shoot themselves in the foot? Could get a bit expensive!
-
There is a statement from the CPS re Vincent Tabak on 28/10/11.
I have read and heard it, Nina------numerous times. Only, I didn't believe it. You are entitled to, of course, and I would never hold that against you. I thank you for your input. Please stay with us-----if you want to, that is!!
-
Can anyone point me at that statement?
-
Can anyone point me at that statement?
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/cps_statement_on_vincent_tabak/
-
Why would this case be covered up?
-
Thanks L.
-
No mrswah I don't believe that rubbish either. I just followed Nine's link and found it and wondered if this was the missing statement.
-
Why would this case be covered up?
Quite simply Nina, if the police used hindsight then they would have realised that they had a rogue killer out there. The problem they are faced with now is that their expertise in deceiving the public will be exposed, and that, in policing eyes, is the biggest no-no that exists. Wrongful convictions abound, and they have been going on for a long time. This guy kills to satisfy his own impulses, and they are many. The police can't touch him and he knows it. If he was to admit to murders others have been convicted of no-one will have any faith in policing at all.
-
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/cps_statement_on_vincent_tabak/
There was another statement as well... it was on their news.. but it has since been removed and only recently ... The statement admits to the CPS going to her for advice in late December 2010... But Just watch any video of her outside the court after the trial... She publicly announces the exact same thing in front of the world... whilst to her left a certain DCI.. looks thoroughly bored...
-
Quite simply Nina, if the police used hindsight then they would have realised that they had a rogue killer out there. The problem they are faced with now is that their expertise in deceiving the public will be exposed, and that, in policing eyes, is the biggest no-no that exists. Wrongful convictions abound, and they have been going on for a long time. This guy kills to satisfy his own impulses, and they are many. The police can't touch him and he knows it. If he was to admit to murders others have been convicted of no-one will have any faith in policing at all.
I do believe the Police used the Media to get across the fact they were looking for a Serial Killer..... The stories alway had at the very least.. double meaning and "Nested Loops" were used in abundance...
3. Nested loops
Nested loops is a storytelling technique where you layer three or more narratives within each other.
There were stories being relayed within "The Joaana Yeates Investigation" to a "Killer"... all the while the Joanna Yeates case was going on and not only that I believe it also was apparent that it was used at trial also...
The Media Circus Surrounding this case was massive... Every detail splashed across every paper... Every movement in court "Tweeted" for all to see...
They manipulated the situation to suit themselves..(IMO).. I do think they were actually looking at three case..
(1): Joanna Yeates
(2): A Serial Killer
(3): Corporate Fraud
Think about it.... If the Police cannot touch these certain people... they can keep letting them know they are getting one step closer.. by repeatedly mentioning in "The Media" certain lines or phrases pertaining to those Individuals... And by having The Figure head at The Helm... once they arrested and convicted Dr Vincent Tabak,... Her appearance alone would be a reminder in itself...And tohether with "The Complex Crime Unit who are here to do... exactly what it says on the Tin...They Investigate.... "Complex Crime".. Here and abroad... With "Multiple People" and "Multiple Crimes".... Of an "Extremely" Serious Nature"
Example of "Nested Loops:" But please read the whole Guardian Article to see what I mean.......
Stratford said he was unaware of anything to connect Yeates's disappearance with the murder of Melanie Hall in Bath in 1996. Hall, a 25-year-old university graduate, disappeared after a night out in Bath. Her remains were found beside the M5 motorway in October last year, but her killer has never been caught.
At this point and this point alone... They are "Looking" for a Missing person... or they should be looking for a "Missing" person... Personally I believe differently... But we'll carry on...
Why are they at this point associating.... Joanna Yeates "Missing" with the death of Melanie Hall??
Stratford said he was not aware of any contact between the teams investigating the two cases.
Openly telling everyone that the cases are NOT being Investigated by the same two teams.... So why do we themn have this ???
However, Detective Chief Inspector Gareth Bevan, who yesterday appealed for information about the Tesco pizza, is part of the Melanie Hall investigation team and has spoken publicly about that inquiry.
Gareth Bevan is involved and is apart of "The Melanie Hall Investigation team".... He really has "NO" business posing with a "Pizza"... For what purpose??
What most people would not be following, especially with DCI Gareth Bevan.. is the constant media reports about "The Melanie Hall case he is working on... And these media reports lead right up to the disappearance of Joanna Yeates ...
A list of Dates Gareth Bevan appeared in Print regards Melanie Hall
* 1st August 2010 .. they arrest a "Bath" man in relation to this case ..
* 31st August....Man held..... same again this is the man from "Wiltshire"
* 1st September 2010... Again they arrest a "Bath" man in relation to the "Melanie Hall case "
* 26th November 2010.... It says these two men are released without charge.. Now I' not sure they had held them
since September
* 24th December... Melanie Hall is mentioned "Featuring" Gareth Bevan in relation to Joanna Yeates..
Even within The Melanie Hall reports I can see that they are using "Nested Loops"... But I don't need to go into that...
It appears to be the "Standard Media Reporting Structure"... (IMO).. When it's in relation to what appears to be "A Serial Killer" and The Corporate Crimes I believe they are looking at.. The stories not only have contraditions within them.. I believe that they are indeed messages to the people they want to know that the "Investigations are still Active "..
But what about Joanna Yeates... ? (IMO).. I believe they suddenly had money, extra manpower and "A Media" willing to report daily on every aspect of this poor unfortunate girl's disappearance...
And used this poor families misfortune to keep in the media that these "Cold Cases".. were ongoing and active ...(IMO).. I believe every story released about "Joanna Yeates" hinted to someone that they were still indeed watching them.. An took every opportunity to remind them...
What appears to be an Innocent report in a newspaper... has been carefully crafted as to tell their three stories within the print... Which... us as the public have read and taken no notice whatsoever of these stories, because we skim.... We read the most relevant information and when we believe that it is an "ERROR" on the "newspapers" part for what appears to be an inaccuracy we cast it from our minds ....But... It is indeed a deliberate purposeful act.. The Error isn't there for you or me... It's there for someone else to see and read.. Someone/somebody whom they obviously cannot pin anything on just yet... To keep them informed that they are not going away anytime soon...(IMO)
Back to poor Joanna Yeates and her Family... I believe that the family were also used in this media trickery... Remember that the statements they read out are "Prepared" for them by the police... So they may unknowingly be divulging information to "Somebody Out There"... (IMO)...
This is why I believe "The Review" due around the 24th January 2011... could not take place... I believe that if another "Police Force" from another area had come in to take over... they would see with their own eyes, just how much "Man Power" and resources were actually used on 'The Joanna Yeates Inquiry" and how much resources were used for Investigating other Complexed Crimes....(IMO)...
And there you have "The Dutchman"... "Placid" "Polite" and very easily to deal with... A Dutchman who had No concept of what was actually taking place in our country... And I can say that with confidence.... Because we didn't either'... (IMO).. And if it's taken this long for someone to even suggest that "Nested loops" were used and 3 investigations were taking place at the same time... How was "The Placid Dutchman" every going to work that out??... (IMO)..
I posted about Ann Redrrop and what I believe was her abuse of power... In this case... And if fundamentally she was protecting herself... and those around her by not only allowing, but actively helping to obtain a statement from 'The Dutchman in Holland with her International connections.... (IMO)... then you really need to question her motives....
How does they saying go..... When In A hole Stop Digging..... But Ann went to the "PLANT HIRE" company and got herself a JCB... and was neck deep in all of this case...which she shouldn't have been (IMO).. was so deep into this case ... she needed to follow it through to the bitter end... Hence her starring Role outside "Bristol Crown Court".... for what essentially...(without being disrespectful)... was a common or garden murder...
And one last thing that bother me about the day they found Joanna Yeates ..... Was in the couple of days leading up to her discovery... Many papers had the expression..."Bring Jo Home For Christmas".... When I have re-read these phrases I look at them in a different light now... I think the Police already knew she was dead...(IMO)... because it cannot just be a coincidence that Joanna Yeates Body turns up on Christmas Morning for all the world to see....
These "Nested Loops" I believe need careful scrutiny..... Because I am sure I can show how they were even used in "The Trial Of Dr Vincent Tabak"....
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/24/ukcrime
http://www.sparkol.com/engage/8-classic-storytelling-techniques-for-engaging-presentations/
-
I saw this on Twitter ages ago.... And the link doesn't work now... But the subject matter will raise a few eyebrows ....
F e a r T u b e
@TubeFear
Follow
More
Vincent Tabak ~ Crime Documentary - http://feartube.com/vincent-tabak-crime-documentary/ … #SecretServiceDocumentary
4:45 PM - 13 Sep 2016
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
-
iiii
-
What is the significance of telling us that Joanna Yeates was found "Fully Clothed"?
"Fully Clothed" is used all the time... and I really do not understand why they need to enforce this image.. Normally when a body has been found.. They don't mention fully clothed ... so why in this case ??
I found an explanation here of what fully clothed can also mean...
Now here’s a concept to conjure with: to go about in public fully clothed as far as your outer clothing is concerned, but without any underpants.
And i remember the report saying that Greg found some knickers on the table in the hallway...
Is this what they have been trying to tell us all along?
Mr Birch handed Roxy's lead to his wife before turning back to inspect the body. In his statement, Mr Birch remembered the top of Miss Yeates's white knickers and part of her bare back being exposed through the snow.
Mr Birch see's more and more of Joanna Yeates as he goes along... thought all he originally saw was a bit of jeans pocket peeking out....
He added: “Although the body was almost covered in snow there was a small section with not covered. I could see what appeared to be a rear jeans pocket.
“Although also riding up above this the top edge of what appeared to be white coloured knickers and that made me think it was a female.”
The court drawing shows her Jeans very high up... as if they are jeggings... not Jeans as we know them... How would Daniel Birch see so much... especially as she was supposed to be covered in snow??
Daniel Birch.. did not appear in court... With all that information he should have...
The thing about Daniel Birch saying he saw Joanna Yeates white Knickers .. I find not likely to be honest...Most young woman tend to wear very small low slung knickers.... And With her Jeans being wasit high as depicted in the court drawing... Her knickers would have had to be extremely big to have been visible...
Anyone can say anything in a statement... doesn't make it correct...
“Although also riding up above this the top edge of what appeared to be white coloured knickers and that made me think it was a female.”
The only way this is even likely is if someone had actually pulled her knickers up so they could be seen... I don't see this as possible... knickers don't tend to ride up like that... He doesn't actally say that
He saw her knickers.. it could have been anything... seeing as she was covered in snow and he wasn't inspecting her body....
So I believe the "White" knickers description... which was not confirmed ... was mentioned purely to cover the fact that they had been saying all along That Joanna Yeates was "Fully Clothed"... which for all intense and purposes meant that she did not have any knickers on...(IMO)
I still believe she was over the wall... And I think it's a possibility that when they kept saying she was "Fully Clothed".. they meant she wore "No" Knickers...(IMO)...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/14/joanna-yeates-body-dog-walker
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/couple-opened-xmas-presents-then-found-joanna-dead-by-path-6453464.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/language/uptodate/2010/11/101109_kyeutdf_go_commando_page.shtml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8826662/Joanna-Yeates-trial-snow-covered-body-found-by-dog-walker.html
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/21/article-2051786-0E7973F600000578-245_634x437.jpg
-
What is the significance of telling us that Joanna Yeates was found "Fully Clothed"?
"Fully Clothed" is used all the time... and I really do not understand why they need to enforce this image.. Normally when a body has been found.. They don't mention fully clothed ... so why in this case ??
I found an explanation here of what fully clothed can also mean...
And i remember the report saying that Greg found some knickers on the table in the hallway...
Is this what they have been trying to tell us all along?
Mr Birch see's more and more of Joanna Yeates as he goes along... thought all he originally saw was a bit of jeans pocket peeking out....
The court drawing shows her Jeans very high up... as if they are jeggings... not Jeans as we know them... How would Daniel Birch see so much... especially as she was supposed to be covered in snow??
Daniel Birch.. did not appear in court... With all that information he should have...
The thing about Daniel Birch saying he saw Joanna Yeates white Knickers .. I find not likely to be honest...Most young woman tend to wear very small low slung knickers.... And With her Jeans being wasit high as depicted in the court drawing... Her knickers would have had to be extremely big to have been visible...
Anyone can say anything in a statement... doesn't make it correct...
The only way this is even likely is if someone had actually pulled her knickers up so they could be seen... I don't see this as possible... knickers don't tend to ride up like that... He doesn't actally say that
He saw her knickers.. it could have been anything... seeing as she was covered in snow and he wasn't inspecting her body....
So I believe the "White" knickers description... which was not confirmed ... was mentioned purely to cover the fact that they had been saying all along That Joanna Yeates was "Fully Clothed"... which for all intense and purposes meant that she did not have any knickers on...(IMO)
I still believe she was over the wall... And I think it's a possibility that when they kept saying she was "Fully Clothed".. they meant she wore "No" Knickers...(IMO)...
This is important. The Home Office pathologist Dr Russell Delaney told the court, "Her knickers had not been disturbed". Does this mean that someone from the team at Longwood Lane dressed her body before she was seen by Dr Delaney and photographed for the court? Or has Dr Delaney avoided perjuring himself while at the same time reinforcing the jury's belief put into their heads by Mr Birch that she was wearing knickers when she was found?
Shades of Peter Brotherton's assertion at the same trial: "It was not a religious confession".
-
This is important. The Home Office pathologist Dr Russell Delaney told the court, "Her knickers had not been disturbed". Does this mean that someone from the team at Longwood Lane dressed her body before she was seen by Dr Delaney and photographed for the court? Or has Dr Delaney avoided perjuring himself while at the same time reinforcing the jury's belief put into their heads by Mr Birch that she was wearing knickers when she was found?
Shades of Peter Brotherton's assertion at the same trial: "It was not a religious confession".
I am obviously being a bit thick here, but why would the police want the jury and public to think that Jo was wearing knickers when she may not have been?
I wonder whether the police ever examined the knickers found in the hallway-----were these clean knickers, or not? Now, that would matter, wouldn't it??
-
Because it would lend to her change of clothing.. Greg was not questioned about her under garments and if they were the as what she had wore that day.. maybe the underwear in the hallway were significant..
-
Because it would lend to her change of clothing.. Greg was not questioned about her under garments and if they were the as what she had wore that day.. maybe the underwear in the hallway were significant..
When anyone changes their clothes, they normally either keep the same underwear on, or put clean underwear on. If Joanna were wearing no knickers under her jeans, then this suggests several possible scenarios that the police didn't want us to speculate about.
(1) She may have been deliberately re-clothed after her death, to mislead the police or frame someone else.
(2) She may have dressed in great haste in order to flee. This could explain the briefs found by Greg in the hallway.
(3) She may deliberately have omitted to wear knickers under her jeans.
None of these would have been consistent with Vincent Tabak's enhanced statement, whose scenario neither the jury nor any of us believes.
-
When anyone changes their clothes, they normally either keep the same underwear on, or put clean underwear on. If Joanna were wearing no knickers under her jeans, then this suggests several possible scenarios that the police didn't want us to speculate about.
(1) She may have been deliberately re-clothed after her death, to mislead the police or frame someone else.
(2) She may have dressed in great haste in order to flee. This could explain the briefs found by Greg in the hallway.
(3) She may deliberately have omitted to wear knickers under her jeans.
Both the first two scenarios are plausible: the third? Well, some young ladies do choose not to wear knickers, so I'm told, but probably not on such a cold day!
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Greg couldn't remember what underwear she was wearing, to be honest . However, the knickers found in the hallway would be very significant if they were the ones she had been wearing that day.
Who first talked of knickers in the hallway? Greg? Jo's parents? Or the police?
None of these would have been consistent with Vincent Tabak's enhanced statement, whose scenario neither the jury nor any of us believes.
-
The all Important statement of CJ's that we never have seen or heard much about.... Again "The Leveson Inquiry, just keeps on giving....
Mr Colin Port
Well, we did not give Mr Jefferies' identity to anyone. He did say that he saw three people on two occasions that I recall. In his evidence to this Inquiry, he said that -- and I think I quote accurately -- he told no more than three people about his sightings. That's incorrect, and I completely understand why Mr Jefferies can't recollect that, but I've counted eight people, including some people who were paid by the media for information, and I've also seen evidence that he told people that they should also tell members of the Neighbourhood Watch. So his recollection is flawed, unfortunately.
So here "Colin Port" clearly admits to CJ seeing: 3 People..... It doesn't confirm where ...
But CJ.. saw 3 people.... Also what where the "2 Occasions" that CJ repeated that he had seen 3 People"???
Who are the 8 people that Colin Port is refering too????
The second witness statement is also a short statement ..... Does CJ identify any of the "3 People "???
I've also seen evidence that he told people that they should also tell members of the Neighbourhood Watch. So his recollection is flawed, unfortunately.
I believe this to be in CJ's second witness statement... for "Colin Port " to have seen "evidence " of this information...(IMO)... Unless it is a statement from another witness he is refering too??
What is this evidence "Colin Port" is refering too????
So Colin Port... Is happy to state that CJ's evidence is "FLAWED"... because he says his recollection is inaccurate due to "The Evidence" he has seen...
For Colin Port to be 100% sure that CJ's account is "FLAWED"... That information has to be in CJ's 2nd witness statement...
Otherwise... if it was in anybody elses statement... he should have been questioning how they "Knew" that there were 3 people .... And confirmed with CJ... if he did indeed tell them this information !!! Or was it the person who made a statement one of the 3 people who CJ saw ???.... "The possibilities" are endless.... (IMO).....
http://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-27-march-2012/mr-colin-port
-
I wasn't sure where to put this ... And as I have been talking about the Leveson..Inquiry... I thought I would put it here :
26/10/2011
Joint CPS and MPS submission to the Leveson Inquiry
The Leveson Inquiry has today made public a joint submission it received from the Crown Prosecution Service and Metropolitan Police Service. Please see the Inquiry website for the submission.
A CPS spokesperson said:
“A joint submission from the Crown Prosecution Service and Metropolitan Police Service was submitted to the Leveson Inquiry this morning (Wednesday 26 October). This clearly sets out how we intend to assist the Inquiry to balance its aspiration that Part 1 should be thorough, without inadvertently making it difficult for a criminal trial to take place. The CPS, MPS and the Inquiry are all working together to achieve this common goal and the CPS will do all it can to assist the Inquiry as it progresses.”
I'm trying to locate "The CPS's" response to The Leveson Inquiry"... but haven't as yet... be extremely interesting to read as it was submitted on The 26th October 2011.... before the end of Dr Vincent Tabak's trial ...!!!
EDIT...... Found the report... doesn't say a great deal...
http://hackinginquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/MPS-and-CPS-Leveson-Submission.pdf
http://blog.cps.gov.uk/2011/10/
-
Some of the neighbours did come forward to say that CJ had told them about seeing and hearing people on his front path. Apparently, he then told those neighbours not to repeat what he had said!
Whether or not VT and TM were included in those neighbours, we do not know.
-
I remeber ages ago almost laughing at a Mrs Nosey whom had asked Avon and Somerset Police for The witness statements of Dr Vincent Tabak .....
Factors favouring non disclosure
As this information was obtained as part of an investigation for the
purpose of ascertaining whether he should be charged with an offence and
whether he was guilty of that charge, section 30 is engaged. Should Mr
Tabak ever appeal his conviction, release of his statement may prejudice
any appeal. This exemption is valid for (currently) 29 years which
restarts every time the case is annotated or reopened.
But I'm confused... tryng to find out about exemptions .. I thought it was "Historical"
Historical investigation records
A historical record is one over 30 years old (from the last addition to the record) and it cannot be exempt under FOIA section 30(1). The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 is reducing this time period to 20 years using a phased approach. Over 10 years from the end of 2013, the time limit is 29 years reducing one year every year, until it reaches 20 years at the end of 2022.
Well here's what they say about section 30...
Section 30 is a qualified and class based exemption which means that there
is no requirement to identify and evidence the harm that would be caused
by disclosure, however there is a requirement to consider the public
interest.
So basically how could any "Harm" be caused if It was disclosed... The only harm I can see is The harm to The Police themselves... And of course the Yeates Family...
This exemption is valid for (currently) 29 years which
restarts every time the case is annotated or reopened.
WOW I say to that !!!!! That reminds me of Dr David Kelly and his files being sealed for Years....
Basically... The truth lies within those statements they won't disclose ....(IMO)
Please note:
1. Requests and responses may be published on Avon and Somerset
Constabulary’s website (within 24 hours), some of which may contain a link
to additional information, which may provide you with further
clarification.
The reason I ended up back at Mrs Nosey request was I had gone to Avon and somerset request Page about Joanna Yeates and it wasn't there ....
https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/search/
https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/about-us/freedom-of-information/previous-foi-requests/joanna-yeates/
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/30
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/vincent_tabak_statements
-
I'm going to start with this link... And hopefully you will read not only that post... But The 6 part post on the same page to understand what I am about to write...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg415309#msg415309
The searches
Those pathetic searches as I see them... The searches "I" do NOT believe belong to Dr Vincent Tabak.....
The searches I am going to look at again.... The 1300 page Document that the Jury were given a copy of had all of The timelines of the 4 occupants of Flats 1 and 2 of 44 Canygne Road... These timeline included phone calls.. mobile/landline... emails... shopping... And of course.. The supposed Internet searches of Dr Vincent Tabak... There were 566 timelines in total.. covering all these aspects...
I have to start with my favourite search... It is one of the earliest searches that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently does....
At Line 118 of the prosecution chart
Tabak accessed the Internet and performed some Google searches
On 18 Dec 2010, Tabak searched at
1.26 am- ‘BBC news’ and ‘weather forecast’
1.46 am- ‘weather forecast’
1.47 am- ‘BBC Bristol news’
For those who haven't read this topic and all the threads within it .. which are many.. I will explain...
This search looks Innocuous enough and to many it is... But to me it isn't... It is The search.. That casts doubt on all the supposed searches of Dr Vincent Tabak... And this search is just one of the reason I do not believe that the searches belong to Dr Vincent Tabak.....
Defence Counsel: You were on the Internet later. Why did you do that? Constant contact
with Tanja by phone. At I.38 am, 18 December, you were leaving again in the hatchback.
Is this to collect Tanja from the Coach?
Tabak: Yes.
As you can see... Dr Vincent Tabak was leaving to collect Tanja... Now Dr Vincent Tabak has to be on CCTV for The Defence to be able to support him leaving to collect Tanja... And the only footage I know of Dr Vincent Tabak is the image of him driving on Park Street on the 18th December 2010... which is were I believe Dr Vincent Tabak takes a wrong turn...
Now if Dr Vincent Tabak is on Park Street or seen leaving at 1:38am on Saturday 18th December 2010.. Then it doesn't take a member of mensa to deduce that he could not have possibly made two searches on his laptop at 1:46am and 1:47am on the 18th December 2010..
And really that is the CRUX... according to 'The Prosecution" everything was in order by May 2011.. So the 1300 page document must have been ready by May 2011...
They were NOT worried about what story Dr Vincent Tabak would say.... He has apparently 'ALREADY" admitted to "Manslaughter"... And the searches are really Innocuous anyway... They are more to do with how The Prosecution presents The Searches at trial... Rather than if they really belonged to Dr Vincent Tabak ...(IMO)...
I keep saying... Put any name to the list of searches that Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have done and they would fit 1000's of people... 1000's of people who had followed this case from start to finish.... It is NOT the content of the Searches that really is of IMPORTANCE to this case But the way in which "The Prosecution" used them...
And I will say "STUPIDLY"!!!!! Yes it was stupid... they thought that they had Dr Vincent Tabak banged to rights in the way that they treated him... But their own arrogance has been their downfall... (IMO)...
Because that one particular search is "INNOCUOUS" and has No real value to "The Prosecution" It is just a "BUILD UP" of what is to come... I believe they though that it would just pass people by... Or never really considered the "IMPACT" that this search could have ...
And this Search "SHOULD HAVE AN IMPACT.".. (IMO)... Because quite simply.. Dr Vincent Tabak could not have made such searches on his laptop if he is seen leaving his house at 1:38am on Saturday 18th December 2010 and the two searches are at 1:46am and 1:47 am on 18th December 2010... Which makes it an IMPOSSIBILITY for him to do..... That is unless he borrowed DCI Phil Jones Tardis!!!
Come on people... put it into perspective... He didn't make the searches.... (IMO).. Ok... I'll ask you a question... If you look at the seaches and I'll put a link to Sally Ramages paper... start at page 38... And this is especially for people who followed this case... But anyone can try it.... Instead of Dr Vincent Tabak's name before the search... put your own name before the search .. and see how they could easily apply to you or anyone else...
There may be a couple of searches that wouldn't apply to you like 'Longwood lane"... unless you were attending a party around that area.... Or salt supplies in The Netherlands,.... which wouldn't have helped Dr Vincent Tabak either.. But imply what you want them to imply when married with "A Guilty Plea"..
I have said this for a long time 'I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THOSE WERE THE SEARCHES OF DR VINCENT TABAK... THE PLACID DUTCHMAN!!! (IMO)...
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
Continuing from my above post....
The searches....
I did do a post along time ago saying apply the searches to CJ.... Because although I do not believe CJ... did the searches they basically fit him better....
And if they were working at building a case against CJ right up until March 2011... They must have had some material that they believed connected him to this case.... Personally I believe these searches are a work of 'FICTION"..... (IMO)... They do look plausible... but when you look at them closely they do not "Fit" Dr Vincent Tabak...
One of the main reason apart from the post above... Is the lack of detail....Not forgetting ... "The Lack of Dutch"!!! The lack of detail that should be there for "A Cunning and manipulative Person who followed this case to keep one step ahead of The Police ....."According to Ann Reddrop.."
Well Ann ...Tell me... why doesn't Dr Vincent tabak do a search on.....
(A): CJ's Arrest??
(B): Any Newspaper report on the Interview he had in Holland??
(C): The Blue Door being removed
(D): Clifton Suspension Bridge??
(E): Asda Supermarket
(F): Traffic CCTV Camera's
(G): 4x4 car
(H): Forensic Officers at Canygne Road
(I): CJ's reported previous behaviour
(J): Greg leaving for Sheffield
(K): Peter Stanley... his neighbour
(L): Neighbours reported hearing a car engine running
(M): Joanna Yeates Parents.... (seeing as he talked to them on the Monday morning according to mrs Yeates
Interview)
(N): Dutch Law on Extradition... Instead of "Extradition of Dutchman"
(O): Police release CJ on Bail
(P): MP calls for males to be DNA tested.. (which I'll come back too)...
(Q): Yeates Family give appeal
(R): Crime Watch reconstruction
(S): "Crime Watch to be Aired"
(T): Police to test work colleges
(U): CCTV of him taking photo's
(V): Media snap photo's of neighbours
(W): Police are getting closer
(X): Police Practices
(Y): Mitigating Circumstances
(Z): Do these searches belong to me.... NO!!!
Because Ann... I do not believe that these searches are indeed Dr Vincent Tabak's ... How could they be.... The laptops were never independently tested... We had "Lyndsey Farmery .. Power Point Pointer Expert).. (IMO)... Doing what she did best and "pointed" to a screen with the searches were shown to the Jury... No explanation given on how she recovered The Searches from Dr Vincent Tabak's laptop... No proof that anything that apparently was found on his work laptops.. had not been accessed by any work colleague.... No.....
... The perfect Pointer Of Power Point... Pointing away at Points In Searches....
Maybe I should have taken that NVQ in Power Point Pointing... think it was on the shelf next to 'The Law On Manslaughter" NVQ....
-
Question..... If you take away The Searches from Dr Vincent Tabak's trial.... What have you got left????
Think about it for a moment.....
-
Question..... If you take away The Searches from Dr Vincent Tabak's trial.... What have you got left????
Think about it for a moment.....
Unfortunately, a guilty plea----which most of the world believes in.
Enhanced DNA------which most of the world believes in.
VT is on the sex offenders' register-------and most of the world will believe in that too.
If he IS innocent, and HAS been stitched up, a very thorough job has been done.
-
Unfortunately, a guilty plea----which most of the world believes in.
Enhanced DNA------which most of the world believes in.
VT is on the sex offenders' register-------and most of the world will believe in that too.
If he IS innocent, and HAS been stitched up, a very thorough job has been done.
Firstly mrswah.... The "Sex Register" didn't come until after the trial... and as we known it wasn't straight after .... It was years after!!!
I believe he is Innocent mrswah as you know
Yes I believe he has been stitched up... And they thought that they did a very good job.... But I am here to prove that they didn't... And so far... we have more questions than most of us may have had to start with.... Look at 'The One Hundred Questions" thread.... There are over 1000 questions on it so far... and who knows where it may lead too....
-
Did you think about it????/
Well they have nothing as far as I can see.... A Big Fat NOTHING
You have nothing to suggest that:
(A) Dr Vincent Tabak was following this case
(B): You have nothing to Imply he was Checking Long Wood Lane before Joanna Yeates was Found
(C): You have Nothing to IMPLY that Dr Vincent Tabak was looking at 'Body Decomposition"... Body Decomposition
for "A FROZEN BODY THAT IS NOT GOING TO DECOMPOSE".....
(D): You Have nothing to Imply he was trying to stay One step ahead of the Police investigation
(E): You have Nothing to Imply that Dr Vincent Tabak need Salt for something
(F): You Have nothing to IMPLY that Dr Vincent Tabak was checking out about rubbish
(G): You have nothing to IMPLY that Dr Vincent Tabak was checking on Forensics
(I): You have nothing to IMPLY that Dr Vincent Tabak was checking out Law on Manslaughter
(J): You Have Nothing to IMPLY That Dr Vincent Tabak was checking 'Extradition"
(K): You have nothing to Imply that Dr Vincent Tabak has an obsession with 'Murder Cases"..
(L): You Hvae Nothing to Imply Dr Vincent Tabak was checking for "Trace Evidence"
(M): You have nothing to Imply Dr Vincent Tabak was checking for "Murder In English Law"
(N): You Have nothing to Imply that Dr Vincent Tabak was checking for ‘what takes place from hour to hour after
death’
(O): You have nothing to Imply that Dr Vincent Tabak was checking for what happens to human body after death
(P): You have nothing to Imply that Dr Vincent Tabak "Checked the weather on A DAY AND TIME he wasn't even at
HOME!!!
(Q): You would have nothing to Imply that Dr Vincent Tabak was checking for ‘Murder of Melanie Hall’
(R): You would have Nothing to Imply that Dr Vincent Tabak was checking for ‘Avon and Somerset police home
page’
(S): You would have nothing to Imply that Dr Vincent Tabak was checking for ‘Missing persons’.
(T): You would have nothing to Imply that Dr Vincent Tabak was checking for previous offenders’
(U): You would have nothing to Imply that Dr Vincent Tabak was checking for ‘Crown Prosecution Service’
(W): You would have nothing to Imply that Dr Vincent Tabak was checking for ‘manslaughter in English law murder
in English law’
(X): You would have nothing to Imply that Dr Vincent Tabak was checking for ‘% of grey cars in UK’
(Y): you would have nothing to Imply that Dr Vincent Tabak was checking for ‘Renault Megan cars in UK’
(Z): You would have nothing to Imply that DR VINCENT TABAK was checking for "ANYTHING"!!!!!
You see... without the searches The Prosecution really have "NOTHING"...
And again... Without "The Manslaughter Plea"....There is NO CASE!!! (IMO)...
So I will ask you Again Ann Reddrop.... "What Type of "Manslaughter Plea" did Dr Vincent Tabak enter Into???
(1): "Voluntary Manslaughter" Where you need to show Intent... where you may have difficulty in explaining to the Jury "Oblique Intent" or Direct Intent.... Unless they took my advice and did that NVQ on "Manslaughter Law" before they were sworn in....
Or
(2): "Involuntary Manslaughter" with diminished Responsibilities requiring Two Medical Professionals I believe to give Dr Vincent Tabak a "Medical Evaluation"
So Ann... which one is it.... (1) Or (2) ????
Or was it Pot Luck Manslaughter Where the Defendant is left wide open without a Cat in Hell's chance of getting out of "A Murder" charge you will put against the Defendant in October 2011 backed up by these "Fictional searches" (IMO)..!!!
Go on Ann... It's a simple question... I really need to understand....
So really for "The Prosecution"... These Searches are 'Paramount"... They are "Paramount" to convicting Dr Vincent Tabak on "A Murder Charge"... The only option "The Jury were given....
Let's face it... What on Earth would "Judge Field" have done if ...."The Jury" found Dr Vincent Tabak... "Not Guilty Of Murder".... Now that's something else I need to post about.....
-
After my above post and last sentence I thought:....
OMG... What would have happened if "The Jury" had found Dr Vincent Tabak.. "Not Guilty of Murder"
It is more than an OMG moment.... But is it a Eureka Moment ???
It could be ... quite honestly it could be .....
We do not know "What type' of Manslaughter Plea".. Dr Vincent Tabak entered into... which come under as far as I know...
"Voluntary Manslaughter
Or
Involuntary Manslaughter.....
So... which Manslaughter Plea did Dr Vincent Tabak enter into???? He really needed to enter into one of the two Manslaughter Pleas....
And that is the exact point....
If the jury had found Dr Vincent Tabak "Not Guilty" of "Murder" where would that have left "The Judge"????
Where In Law would that have left this trial ???.. No-one has questioned the possibility... That Dr Vincent Tabak may have been found "NOT GUILTY OF MURDER"....
But I am questioning it "NOW"!!!!
So we will go with the Jury came back with "A NOT GUILTY VERDICT".... Now what... what does Judge Field do Now???
The Type of Manslaughter Plea was not entered.... As far as I can tell... "No Medical Professional gave any statements to The Defence on Dr Vincent Tabak's Psychological fitness.... Even though we were told he was on 'Suicide Watch..
You have to conclude that this is true... or else this trial would have lasted a great deal longer than 4 weeks...
or 40 days... Bringing into play the need to apply for "VHCC"..
Bringing with it... More people checking this case.... And once VHCC was applied for it continues... You can't just stop it!!! So many more people checking the evidence and Case in General....
You would have needed so many more witness's at trial.... You would have needed "statements from Dr Vincent Tabak's Family and Friends ..You would have needed a statement or an appearance from Tanja Morson Dr Vincent Tabak's girlfriend to confirm or deny any Mental Issues she was aware of that Dr Vincent Tabak exhibited.....
You would need Buro Happold Bosses Employee's to appear in person.. To confirm or deny Dr Vincent Tabak mental state they had noticed....
There are so many aspects that would have been needed if the JURY found Dr Vincent Tabak "NOT GUILTY"...
So where does that leave this Case ??? with even "MORE Questions.... And every day I surprise myself that I keep finding out NEW THINGS about this Case NEW THINGS That I would never have thought possible... And NEW THINGS I believe everyone should NOW Start to Question.....
How could The Prosecution.. Defence.. and I'll even throw the Judge into the POT... be so confident that 'The Jury " would find Dr Vincent Tabak Guilty Of Murder... That as far as I can work out they had no Contingency Plan (IMO)... For an alternate outcome.... And I say this with confidence.... Because the Jury should have had the "Option" to find Dr Vincent Tabak Guilt of "MANSLAUGHTER".... But how could they when firstly it was not Offered...
And Secondly... There was "NO" Evidence Presented to show that "Manslaughter" was either 'Voluntary or Involuntary... Leaving me with only one possible conclusion....
Edit.... I bet if someone contacted The Tabak Family They never were Interviewed Or gave any statements to "The Defence" which would have supported A Involuntary Manslaughter Plea.... In fact I would be surprised if The Defence even spoke to The Tabak Family.... (IMO)
And what about talking to Tanja Morson???
-
This needs to be "Appealed".. A Re-Trial to take place..... And Dr Vincent Tabak freed with immediate effect whilst this complete Travesty of a Case is Reviewed... And ALL THE EVIDENCE is thoroughly TESTED.... (IMO)....
-
Nine you have been getting nearer and nearer to pointing the finger a Chris Jefferies, please don't. A kind man that was always ready to help with advice and the like and one I knew, Chris I am sure had nothing to do with the murder of Joanna Yeates.
I'm going to ask you if you could PLEASE make your posts shorter, I see part 1 and my heart sinks. I just can't read all of these. They seem to be mostly repetition of what you posted about one thousand pages or so ago.
None of us have seen this 1300 page document with all of VT's timelines on it, though I must admit I would love to read a copy myself.
Sally R ..... I don't think that I believe in all she has written. As I said she had VT at the bottom of Constitution Hill with his bike and snow and ice around. There is no way anyone could walk up that hill let alone ride up it in those conditions. Besides that is well out of his way home.
Maybe the fact that it is opposite the Hope & Anchor where Greg and Joanna had their lunch together added a bit more `spice' to her 'blog'?
-
This needs to be "Appealed".. A Re-Trial to take place..... And Dr Vincent Tabak freed with immediate effect whilst this complete Travesty of a Case is Reviewed... And ALL THE EVIDENCE is thoroughly TESTED.... (IMO)....
Well why don't you get in touch with the powers that be plus VT and get the ball rolling.
To be honest there is not much point in just saying this sort of thing on a forum, the people that matter wouldn't be wasting their spare time on a forum (IMO).
-
Nine you have been getting nearer and nearer to pointing the finger a Chris Jefferies, please don't. A kind man that was always ready to help with advice and the like and one I knew, Chris I am sure had nothing to do with the murder of Joanna Yeates.
I'm going to ask you if you could PLEASE make your posts shorter, I see part 1 and my heart sinks. I just can't read all of these. They seem to be mostly repetition of what you posted about one thousand pages or so ago.
None of us have seen this 1300 page document with all of VT's timelines on it, though I must admit I would love to read a copy myself.
Sally R ..... I don't think that I believe in all she has written. As I said she had VT at the bottom of Constitution Hill with his bike and snow and ice around. There is no way anyone could walk up that hill let alone ride up it in those conditions. Besides that is well out of his way home.
Maybe the fact that it is opposite the Hope & Anchor where Greg and Joanna had their lunch together added a bit more `spice' to her 'blog'?
Nina... You misunderstand.... I have Never and would Never Point The finger at CJ.... I have used CJ as an example... And if you have followed my postings from the begining you would be aware that I in fact... Apologise To CJ for Using him as an example....
I really think that The searches Are a work of Fiction... Meaning (IMO)... The Police could and probably would ... Have used them in "The Prosecution" of CJ.. If CJ hadn't had people who knew that the Polices case was absolute Tosh... (IMO)...
So "NO" Nina.... I have NEVER or DO I EVER... mean that these searches have anything to do with CJ whatsoever....
I mean.. that these searches need to be Investigated... Tested... They need to be Examined by a qualified professional to determine whether or not the searches belonged to Anyone.... (IMO)...
-
Well why don't you get in touch with the powers that be plus VT and get the ball rolling.
To be honest there is not much point in just saying this sort of thing on a forum, the people that matter wouldn't be wasting their spare time on a forum (IMO).
well.. Nina.... As we already know.... No-one can locate Dr Vincent Tabak to even get This ball rolling
And maybe niavely... I hope that there are people that Matter looking at the typings of a Concerned Citizen... Which if they are... would not be wasting any of their time as I believe that I have cast...
Not only "Reasonable Doubt"... But "MASSIVE DOUBT"... On the safety of the conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak... The Placid Dutchman!!!!
-
Nine you have been getting nearer and nearer to pointing the finger a Chris Jefferies, please don't. A kind man that was always ready to help with advice and the like and one I knew, Chris I am sure had nothing to do with the murder of Joanna Yeates.
I'm going to ask you if you could PLEASE make your posts shorter, I see part 1 and my heart sinks. I just can't read all of these. They seem to be mostly repetition of what you posted about one thousand pages or so ago.
None of us have seen this 1300 page document with all of VT's timelines on it, though I must admit I would love to read a copy myself.
Sally R ..... I don't think that I believe in all she has written. As I said she had VT at the bottom of Constitution Hill with his bike and snow and ice around. There is no way anyone could walk up that hill let alone ride up it in those conditions. Besides that is well out of his way home.
Maybe the fact that it is opposite the Hope & Anchor where Greg and Joanna had their lunch together added a bit more `spice' to her 'blog'?
Point me to the blog please Nina .... Oh yes as well... I believe I need to post long posts... Because I need to support my arguments with 'Links" and Quotes from Individuals or Official Sources to prove where I have come up with my conclusions...
So In a way "sorry for the length of posts... But Not Sorry... Because if people who read these posts can see that I have researched and can back up what I am saying... Then I'm afraid i need to write "LONG POSTS"....
Sorry
-
Have you had a read of the CPS (got it right this time!) Retrials of Serious Offences? That tells a lot of what is needed for this to happen. I gotta admit I haven't read it all.
-
Well it wasn't exactly a blog, hence the `blog'? but I obviously didn't make myself clear. It was from a link you put up which I have saved as a pdf file. Sorry it wasn't actually a blog but I just didn't know what to call it.
-
Have you had a read of the CPS (got it right this time!) Retrials of Serious Offences? That tells a lot of what is needed for this to happen. I gotta admit I haven't read it all.
I will read this Nina... And get back to you on it.... But I must admit I have things I need to be getting on with... So I'll get back to you on that one.... Very soon... Oh yes... The post may be long!!!!
Edit... Will I need an NVQ to understand this ?????
-
Oh no!! I'm losing the will to live with your long posts!!
I too have things to do, the sun shines and work awaits talk to you maybe sometime later.
-
What the hell is a NVQ?
-
What the hell is a NVQ?
A National Vocational Qualification, as far as I know!!!
-
Thanks mrswah, I have just answered a post to you on the other thread.
-
Oh no!! I'm losing the will to live with your long posts!!
I too have things to do, the sun shines and work awaits talk to you maybe sometime later.
I was thinking about you "Pointing" me in directions Nina.... And you reminded me of JIXY and PaulTheRed...
Wanting me to answer their question on the spot.... I answer them normally when I get to them because I am normally Cross Referencing something else whilst I post....
So I know you hate my long posts... Can I suggest that you take a bit of time out when your not busy... And please read up on that type of information yourself...
Maybe then... You could give a more concise conclusion than I obviously can... ?{)(**
-
Oh come on Nine, what have I said to upset you? Do I need to start every post with a `pc' notice? I thought that you would have learnt a little more about me over the last few days, and upsetting or getting you or anyone else angry is just not me.
I have read from the beginning and as I have said it's only because this happened on my doorstep that I have got involved with this topic. As you rightly pointed out after my first post I joined in 2014 and hadn't written a word, until now.
Your posts, can you not just give the `bottom' line and the links?
-
I don't think that I have been "Pointing you in Directions" Nine. If so where?
-
I am not JIXY or Paul the Red, just as in the beginning they were accusing you and mrswah of being the same people, I must point out that I have never had contact with these posters and I don't know them, in the real world as well as online.
-
Firstly mrswah.... The "Sex Register" didn't come until after the trial... and as we known it wasn't straight after .... It was years after!!!
I believe he is Innocent mrswah as you know
Yes I believe he has been stitched up... And they thought that they did a very good job.... But I am here to prove that they didn't... And so far... we have more questions than most of us may have had to start with.... Look at 'The One Hundred Questions" thread.... There are over 1000 questions on it so far... and who knows where it may lead too....
I agree with you basically, and in my opinion, the "sex offender" trial had to happen just in case the stitches started to unravel-----but, I repeat, that is just my opinion.
It is difficult for me to believe that VT is either a killer or a sex offender, BUT I could be wrong. I don't actually know him, of course, and even if I did, I still wouldn't be able to be sure of what he was/wasn't capable of.
IF he was stitched up, they DID do a very good job in that the vast majority of people believe in his guilt-----or else they haven't thought about it much one way or the other, or have forgotten about it long ago. Somebody would have to come forward with some very credible new evidence for anyone to take much notice of what we say on
here-----IMO, of course!!
And, it COULD happen.
-
I am not JIXY or Paul the Red, just as in the beginning they were accusing you and mrswah of being the same people, I must point out that I have never had contact with these posters and I don't know them, in the real world as well as online.
It doesn't matter who any of us are----that is the whole point of a forum: what matters is what we think!
-
Oh come on Nine, what have I said to upset you? Do I need to start every post with a `pc' notice? I thought that you would have learnt a little more about me over the last few days, and upsetting or getting you or anyone else angry is just not me.
I have read from the beginning and as I have said it's only because this happened on my doorstep that I have got involved with this topic. As you rightly pointed out after my first post I joined in 2014 and hadn't written a word, until now.
Your posts, can you not just give the `bottom' line and the links?
Nina... I was not getting upset... I was hoping not to offend your sensibilities... And not knowing your age... tire you out with all the reading of my Extremely Long Posts....
But you have to admit... I cannot be the only contributor on here .... And others should have an opportunity to add to what they may or may nor believe about this case ....
It has been a tough struggle for me doing this... I am putting my neck out... I am saying what few would dare to say, even if they thought it.... So I like to take time to read and sometimes come back to idea's that have been suggested to me...
Because quite often and for a very long time ... In fact Years... people have just skimmed over The Information available... Not really Comprehending what has taken place regarding this Case...
They expect to hear certain words... like Pink T-Shirt... without bothering to read anymore... Just as I did... Until we discovered that The Pink T-Shirt was actually A Flower Patterned Pink Top that Dr delaney describes Joanna Yeates in when he examines her...
But we ignore that part... We have 'The Ram" CCTV footage to show us Joanna Yeates in what could be a Pink Plain T-Shirt... But that footage only goes into "Proving" That Joanna Yeates must have changed her clothing after arriving home on Friday 17th December 2010... Also casting Doubt... On Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction... (IMO)....
So No Nina I am not upset with you... why would I be upset with you.. knowing you have been a member since 2014 and therefore must have read an incredible amount of posts... That are not as long as mine are... And mine must play havoc... when people just like a quick question and answer session... 8)--))
-
Okay Nine so I guess I took it wrong sorry.
I was for your information a teen in the '60's so I guess that makes me pretty old now (you do the maths) ...... but I ain't anywhere near loosing my marbles, nor do I get tired reading long posts. It's just ....... sigh can't explain, maybe John can help here.
Aargh these words like "tire you out with long posts" are as bad as the politicians telling us that we are all living to long to me!! Rant over.
Perhaps you should watch Catching a Killer where Thames Valley police let the cameras in. It's about Natalie Hemming, it's very interesting the way the police work, heavily edited I know but still I learnt a few things.
-
Okay Nine so I guess I took it wrong sorry.
I was for your information a teen in the '60's so I guess that makes me pretty old now (you do the maths) ...... but I ain't anywhere near loosing my marbles, nor do I get tired reading long posts. It's just ....... sigh can't explain, maybe John can help here.
Aargh these words like "tire you out with long posts" are as bad as the politicians telling us that we are all living to long to me!! Rant over.
Perhaps you should watch Catching a Killer where Thames Valley police let the cameras in. It's about Natalie Hemming, it's very interesting the way the police work, heavily edited I know but still I learnt a few things.
Ok Nina... I'm sure John will help out here .. And I will get a warning.... But I'm sorry if I offended.. My writing style is such that it leans towards Long Posts.... And if it's short posts that people require... I can no longer promise that or maybe contribute... Because I will not make a statement unless I have a way of proving where I gained the information from... Or who said....said Information...as in Transcripts from video's etc...
And I will look at the Catching a Killer program... But may not be able to comment as the length of my post may offend....
So... maybe John has had enough of giving warnings and will go with a straight "Ban" again....
Oh Well.... You cannot Unring 'The Bell".... Or shut the gate after the horse has bolted.... What I have said I have said... And let them who were involved in The Case against Dr Vincent Tabak... prove me wrong... I would love to get an opportunity to see Ann Reddrop in a witness box explaining why 'The Head of The Complex Crime Unit was involved with 'A Simple Murder Case".... From start to finish.... And why we were never given the opportunity to know what type of "Manslaughter" Dr Vincent Tabak plead Guilty to in May 2011...
-
NO I did NOT mean for John to give you a warning or 'owt like that. He just has a way with words that I don't and could probably tell you without a warning, just what long posts do to the mortal soul!!
Don't mean to drop you in it Nine.
-
To get back to the murder of Joanna Yeates, does anyone have a sort of timeline for VT on that day the 17th?
I think that to clear my mind, I at least, need to start at the beginning of that day (he cycled to the station and caught the train to Bath and went to work.) It would be a help if we knew what time he arrived back at Temple Meads station. Did he take his bike to work or leave it at Temple Meads? Little things like that.
As Nine is the `font of VT knowledge' as I have christened this poster, I have high hopes of receiving a starting point.
-
To get back to the murder of Joanna Yeates, does anyone have a sort of timeline for VT on that day the 17th?
I think that to clear my mind, I at least, need to start at the beginning of that day (he cycled to the station and caught the train to Bath and went to work.) It would be a help if we knew what time he arrived back at Temple Meads station. Did he take his bike to work or leave it at Temple Meads? Little things like that.
As Nine is the `font of VT knowledge' as I have christened this poster, I have high hopes of receiving a starting point.
I did one at one time, and also one for Joanna---hers was more detailed, as we had CCTV giving times, which we did not have for VT.
I will see if I can find it. Actually, I have wondered the same as you: whether he left his bike at the station, or took it on the train, and I have not been able to find an answer!
-
I agree with you basically, and in my opinion, the "sex offender" trial had to happen just in case the stitches started to unravel-----but, I repeat, that is just my opinion.
It is difficult for me to believe that VT is either a killer or a sex offender, BUT I could be wrong. I don't actually know him, of course, and even if I did, I still wouldn't be able to be sure of what he was/wasn't capable of.
IF he was stitched up, they DID do a very good job in that the vast majority of people believe in his guilt-----or else they haven't thought about it much one way or the other, or have forgotten about it long ago. Somebody would have to come forward with some very credible new evidence for anyone to take much notice of what we say on
here-----IMO, of course!!
And, it COULD happen.
Do you Not think that we have come up with credible Evidence Mrswah... Which is new ???
(A): Irregular use of Court Room 2 At The Old Bailey
(B): 2 Court Room appearance at 2 different Court Rooms at the Old Bailey on the same day
(C): The very same two appearance at the same time of 10:00am
(D): For two different Types of hearings
(E) "For Mention Hearing and "A Plea and Case managemnet Hearing
(F): Dr Vincent Tabak not entering the Type of Manslaughter Plea
(G):A trial date for 4 weeks long before anyone new what Dr Vincent Tabak's side of The story was... Making a trial possibly longer
(H): Dr Vincent Tabak not signing his statement until September 2011... making a"Prosecution" and A Defence team .. unready for a trial in October 2011... not having The full version of apparent events in May 2011 when the trial date and time was set....
(I):Ann Reddropp's unorthodox approach and unyielding quest to Prosecute "A Simple Murder Case"... when she was The head of The Complex Case Unit!!!
(J): Joanna Yeates obvious change of Clothing..
(K): No VHCC applied for as far as I can tell... or that would be more people for the high jump...
(L): Searches that could not be Dr Vincent Tabak's
(M): The Lack of Dutch in the searches..
(N): The only option a Jury had was MURDER... when The Manslaughter Plea type was never established
(O): The Jury being told to write the word ‘definition’ in their copy of the 1300 page Document changing the definition of a search
(P): Dr Vincent Tabak's Rights having been violated
(Q): Dr Vincent Tabak not being cautioned in Holland on 31st December 2010
(R): Dr Vincent Tabak not having any sort of Psychological Evaluation for mitigating circumstances
(S): Dr Vincent Tabak's council's not representing him to the best of their ability
(T): DSI Phil Jones admission of the DNA sample not being Ready till 20th January 2011 giving him 6 hours to Investigate Dr Vincent Tabak before he applied for a warrant and arresting him on the 20th January 2011
(U): Ann Reddrops Insistence that this was "ALWAYS" a Murder Inquiry... when she couldn't possibly know How, When, Why or Who killed Joanna Yeates .. In late December 2010
(V): Dr Vincent Tabak being at his home until 9:29pm on Friday 17th December 2010.. when The Prosecution have Insisted Joanna Yeates died within minutes of getting home..
(W): Joanna Yeates clothes differing when she was found ... from what she was wearing in The Ram Pub on 17th December 2010
(X): A prison Officer posing as A Chaplain
(Y): The Outside lights being off on 17th December 2010 making it impossible for Joanna Yeates to see anyone outside...
(Z): The two elements that 'The Head of The Crown Prosecution used to Charge Dr Vincent Tabak in the first place.. Because the DNA was partial... And they had no other evidence against Dr vincent tabak at the time of his ARREST.....
So mrswah... Do you not think we have gone along way in showing new evidence?? And will it help Dr Vincent Tabak..
Or Maybe there is actually someone out there who has something extra to add to the mix..... I hope so... I really really hope so....
EDIT.... Oh yes I nearly forgot.... Bernard being another cat... All of the photoshopped photo's of not only Dr Vincent Tabak... But Photo's of Flat 1 which clearly have had objects moved... when this property was supposed to be a time capsule from the day of her disapperance....
-
Just had a look online at APCOA parking which seems to be the parking company for Temple Meads it says:
Our car parks may provide parking for motorbikes and push bikes. Which doesn't tell us a lot about 2010. If I can think up a suitable story I may phone them up tomorrow and ask what people did with bikes in 2010.
-
We have asked many questions and raised many doubts, but as far as the police and the lawyers are concerned, the suspect pleaded guilty, and therefore it's done and dusted. Many of the questions that would have been asked in court, had VT pleaded "not guilty" were not asked, and many of the people who might have testified in court did not testify. There was no need to have a "did he do it or didn't he?" trial, because (apparently), he said he had done it!
Now, I don't think that was very satisfactory in this case, however, it is the way our legal system works.
If someone else was to confess to having killed Jo, or if her DNA (and not the "enhanced" stuff) or her fingerprints were found in the home of somebody whom we have never heard about, and who, perhaps has "form", or if a witness was to come forward with information about a potential suspect, or had well-founded suspicions that somebody had been with Jo during that weekend------that kind of thing is the "new evidence" that would be needed-----in my opinion, of course.
Such things do happen in this world from time to time. Forums such as this one are important because they just might prick somebody's conscience. All depends on who reads it-----and I expect more people read it than we think.
-
Just had a look online at APCOA parking which seems to be the parking company for Temple Meads it says:
Our car parks may provide parking for motorbikes and push bikes. Which doesn't tell us a lot about 2010. If I can think up a suitable story I may phone them up tomorrow and ask what people did with bikes in 2010.
Dr Vincent Tabak didn't ride to work as far as I am aware... I believe that it was mentioned in one of the newspapers that one of his work colleagues commented on his "Tasseled" Jacket he wore to work... Now he Is hardly likely going to arrive at work in A tassled jacket if riding a Bicycle.... That isn't happening anytime soon.... (IMO)
And if he walked to the station and back from the station ... or cycled as they want us to believe... What time would he arrive home????
-
That's exactly what I'm asking what time would VT have got home?
I've always remembered him as riding his bike to Temple Meads, didn't Chris Jefferies say this in the Countdown to Murder thingy?
-
Mind you the weather at that time didn't lend itself to cycling anywhere.
-
As far as we know from the media, and from what VT said in court, he did cycle to the station and back every day. I think he got home around 7-7.15. Apparently, by the time he got home, Tanja had already left for her works party.
Tanja worked in Malmesbury, and she used the car for work. There is no reason to think Vincent didn't cycle on that day-----it is too far to walk to Bristol Temple Meads from Canynge Road. In Holland, people cycle a lot, and I expect he was well used to it, even in bad weather.
As far as I recall, he spent some time on his computer before going out to ASDA, also he went out to take some photographs of the snow to send to a friend back in Holland, but the snow was "too dirty". He also spoke to CJ at some point, about mildew in his flat. Oh, and he had a pizza and a beer!
He made various calls and texts to Tanja during the evening, which I would imagine were scrutinized by the police.
He visited ASDA, but we do not know at exactly what time, as the CCTV did not show any time stamps.
He apparently picked Tanja up at about 1.38am. They were seen on CCTV buying burgers after that-----I think I can recall seeing that CCTV, but it seems to have disappeared from public view now.
The prosecution's case was that he spent part of the evening killing Jo and dumping her body, and his evidence in court says that he did this-----if one can believe him, and most people seem to.
Frankly, I would have thought it more likely that he spent part of the evening sleeping------he had returned from California a few days before, and had gone straight back to work afterwards. He must have been jetlagged!!!
-
As far as we know from the media, and from what VT said in court, he did cycle to the station and back every day. I think he got home around 7-7.15. Apparently, by the time he got home, Tanja had already left for her works party.
Tanja worked in Malmesbury, and she used the car for work. There is no reason to think Vincent didn't cycle on that day-----it is too far to walk to Bristol Temple Meads from Canynge Road. In Holland, people cycle a lot, and I expect he was well used to it, even in bad weather.
As far as I recall, he spent some time on his computer before going out to ASDA, also he went out to take some photographs of the snow to send to a friend back in Holland, but the snow was "too dirty". He also spoke to CJ at some point, about mildew in his flat. Oh, and he had a pizza and a beer!
He made various calls and texts to Tanja during the evening, which I would imagine were scrutinized by the police.
He visited ASDA, but we do not know at exactly what time, as the CCTV did not show any time stamps.
He apparently picked Tanja up at about 1.38am. They were seen on CCTV buying burgers after that-----I think I can recall seeing that CCTV, but it seems to have disappeared from public view now.
The prosecution's case was that he spent part of the evening killing Jo and dumping her body, and his evidence in court says that he did this-----if one can believe him, and most people seem to.
Frankly, I would have thought it more likely that he spent part of the evening sleeping------he had returned from California a few days before, and had gone straight back to work afterwards. He must have been jetlagged!!!
Did Tanja use 'HER" Car for work.... I think I remember she car shared !!!
-
Thanks mrswah, will go through it all soon.
A friend has just been and gone, he says that if you go through the front doors of Temple Meads station turn left, there is a shed where people can chain their bikes up for the day and its been like that for as long as he can remember, definitely before 2010. So that answers the question of where he could have left his bike.
-
I do vaguely remember something about Tanja car sharing, but will have to trawl internet to see if there is anything about it. Bet Nine knows!
Mrswah Holland is flat and Bristol is full of hills, many of them. If I was VT on that day I think I would have walked, because you can walk as the crow flies, in a straight line. Can't really do that with a bike. Still the main streets he would have gone by would have been clear of ice so he could have cycled I suppose.
But we don't know what time he reached home do we? Do any of his workmates say what time he left work, because once on the train it takes 11 minutes to get to Temple Meads.
-
I do vaguely remember something about Tanja car sharing, but will have to trawl internet to see if there is anything about it. Bet Nine knows!
Mrswah Holland is flat and Bristol is full of hills, many of them. If I was VT on that day I think I would have walked, because you can walk as the crow flies, in a straight line. Can't really do that with a bike. Still the main streets he would have gone by would have been clear of ice so he could have cycled I suppose.
But we don't know what time he reached home do we? Do any of his workmates say what time he left work, because once on the train it takes 11 minutes to get to Temple Meads.
According to Sally Ramage's account, VT arrived home at about 7pm, and was at Constitution Hill at 6.54pm. Whether or not he was seen on CCTV there, I have no idea.
-
According to Sally Ramage's account, VT arrived home at about 7pm, and was at Constitution Hill at 6.54pm. Whether or not he was seen on CCTV there, I have no idea.
Would it take 15 mins to walk???
-
I'm just reading an article about Dr Vincent Tabak with regards The Child Porn charges....
Now I believe they persisted with this charge for one simple reason and one simple reason only...
It took them years to take him to court for this charge... which in itself should raise eyebrows.... The amount of supposed images had been 30... It was 30 for years until suddenly when they get him to court it changes to 145 images... Why has no-one questioned this ???
With all the other irregularities that appear to have taken place in this case... why has this not been challenged also??
Anyway.... Someone replied to this article on a Law Blog... And indicated that the extra charge laid against Dr Vincent Tabak would affect his parole hearing and license... So maybe it was more to do with them trying to make sure that Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't get released other than anything else in relation to this case...
The minimum tariff Dr Vincent Tabak received was 20 years because of the "Sexual Element" that wasn't proven... coupled with this charge...someone has gone to great lengths (IMO)... to make sure that Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't get out of prison.... To go back home to his native Holland... and maybe then... be able to tell the true side of the story and what was done to him at the hands of the British Judicial System...
Many of them will have retired by then...
-
I'm just reading an article about Dr Vincent Tabak with regards The Child Porn charges....
Now I believe they persisted with this charge for one simple reason and one simple reason only...
It took them years to take him to court for this charge... which in itself should raise eyebrows.... The amount of supposed images had been 30... It was 30 for years until suddenly when they get him to court it changes to 145 images... Why has no-one questioned this ???
With all the other irregularities that appear to have taken place in this case... why has this not been challenged also??
Anyway.... Someone replied to this article on a Law Blog... And indicated that the extra charge laid against Dr Vincent Tabak would affect his parole hearing and license... So maybe it was more to do with them trying to make sure that Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't get released other than anything else in relation to this case...
The minimum tariff Dr Vincent Tabak received was 20 years because of the "Sexual Element" that wasn't proven... coupled with this charge...someone has gone to great lengths (IMO)... to make sure that Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't get out of prison.... To go back home to his native Holland... and maybe then... be able to tell the true side of the story and what was done to him at the hands of the British Judicial System...
Many of them will have retired by then...
Now... after this post I find an article about another guy and Child Porn....
An IT worker for home appliance giant Siemens was spared jail after he was caught with more than 40,000 indecent images of children. Oleg Isakov, 48, frantically tried to delete the sickening photographs when police knocked on his door at 6:25am on 1 September last year. A police officer seized the laptop from his hands before Isakov could remove the files. Isakov downloaded footage of girls and boys as young as four being sexually abused by men, Kingston Crown Court…
Now... The supposed images that Dr Vincent Tabak had on "A" laptop were pseudo porn... It was never established if Dr Vincent Tabak had downloaded these images or.... As I have discovered ... had the ability with a program such as "Paint" to change an image on his laptop...
How can you compare the the two crimes?? Why does it appear that someone somewhere is trying their hardest to make sure Dr Vincent Tabak does not get an opportunity to even serve his sentence in Holland??
What has been hidden.. covered up... with regards Dr Vincent Tabak???
And why was the charge of the supposed Child Porn .. brought to court years later ....
http://courtnewsuk.co.uk/worker-caught-40000-indecent-images-walks-free/
-
According to Sally Ramage's account, VT arrived home at about 7pm, and was at Constitution Hill at 6.54pm. Whether or not he was seen on CCTV there, I have no idea.
Blimey so VT used to cycle home via Constitution Hill !! Today's generation would, I expect say, RESPECT, well I give him that, but just for the Constitution Hill ride.
He could have cycled the same way home that Joanna used, via the main roads Park St and then the triangle, past the students union and Victoria Park in Clifton, but where Joanna turned left into Regent St to go to bargain booze, he would have turned right, continued straight up Regent St to Christchurch and Canynge Rd is opposite.
But it appears VT liked a challenge and at the top of Park St he turned left into Jacobs Wells Rd and avoided the triangle. That is the only bit of this journey that's downhill. Then he gets to Constitution Hill, which was originally built for horse and carts, it is/was used as the hill stop in car tests because it's so steep and windey, its purely residential so on the pavement there would still have been lumps of snow and ice, we also had black ice the night of the 17th. At the top he would have been at the beginning of Regent St which again is residential apart from the Chesterfield Hospital (private).
IMO mrswah from there this obviously very fit man could have got home in 15 minutes probably 10.
-
Well, according to Ann Reddrop, they had not "forgotten" about VT and the child images, but getting him to court was not an immediate priority, since he was already in prison.
At least, that is what was said, and it SOUNDS sensible-------but-----but------but--------------
-
Well, according to Ann Reddrop, they had not "forgotten" about VT and the child images, but getting him to court was not an immediate priority, since he was already in prison.
At least, that is what was said, and it SOUNDS sensible-------but-----but------but--------------
Complex Case Crown Prosecutor Ann Reddrop's explanation doesn't even SOUND sensible - quite the contrary. Her own prosecuting barrister in court, Nigel Lickley, had made not two, not three, but FOUR applications in court to Judge Field for permission to lead evidence of "bad character", which the judge rejected on the basis that it was not sufficiently bad, when Mr Lickley could have saved the murder jury at least one day of deliberation by applying to show them the illegal images of child abuse, which, if REALLY found in the defendant's possession, would have left the jury in no doubt as to his BAD character.
-
Complex Case Crown Prosecutor Ann Reddrop's explanation doesn't even SOUND sensible - quite the contrary. Her own prosecuting barrister in court, Nigel Lickley, had made not two, not three, but FOUR applications in court to Judge Field for permission to lead evidence of "bad character", which the judge rejected on the basis that it was not sufficiently bad, when Mr Lickley could have saved the murder jury at least one day of deliberation by applying to show them the illegal images of child abuse, which, if REALLY found in the defendant's possession, would have left the jury in no doubt as to his BAD character.
Yes, I always wondered why they didn't try VT for possession of indecent images at the same time as they were trying him for the murder of Jo. After all, the former is a crime. Watching porn isn't!
The police and the lawyers must have known, well before the trial began, that VT had indecent images of children on his computer------that is, if he really did have them! The fact that they did not try him for this too, suggests that he didn't have them--------IMO, of course.
By the way, Nina, I believe, from reading back, that VT left work at around 6pm on Friday 17th, arriving at Bristol Temple Meads shortly after 6.30, from where he cycled home.
-
I could have put this on old old reports of the case ... But the information come from the end of trial really...
The case began as a missing-person inquiry, made more poignant and newsworthy because the young woman had disappeared during the festive period.
Just a reminder........ Then
On Christmas Eve, Detective Constable Karen Thomas, a member of the police's major crime investigation team, spoke to Tabak by telephone about his movements on the night of Yeates's disappearance. He told her he was in all evening before driving in the early hours of the morning to pick up Morson after a work party.
Now it was the.... MCIT team member bit that got my attention.... Which when you put that into google for Avon and somerset Police you don't get a result... check attached Image....
But then I got this instead .....
Our Major Crime Review Team (MCRT) started out as a cold case unit in about 2006, and was set-up to see if advancements in DNA techniques and a fresh set of eyes could solve some of the Force’s unsolved cases.
Which really is the name for the MICT I believe.... So that slight change in A letter... completely changes the context of what was going on early in The Investigation into Joanna Yeates disappearance....(IMO)
We remember that it was DS Mark Saunders whom first popped his head above the wall to tell us in a "Police Conference/Interview .. that they were looking for "A Missing Person" Joanna Yeates... But I am now wondering if they really believe she was "Missing" or they knew she was already dead !!!
Because... DS Mark Saunders gives a videoed Interview about the MCRT (Det Supt Mark Saunders explains the role of the Major Crime Review Team) Image attached... He explains the role of the MCRT...
Now that got me thinking.... If DS mark Saunders is the head of or runs MCRT... Then what on earth was he doing hold a "Press Conference " on A Missing Persons Inquiry???
We only see him once if I remember correctly...
So did Mark Saunders send Karen Thomas to Holland??? I know DCI Phil Jones says it was himself on a video years later... But I'm asking the question again????
Was it D/Supt Mark Saunders who went to Holland with DS Karen Thomas ??
I find this Interesting... because “We influence policies on how cases should be reviewed, we review standards of crime investigations and we examine current cases of rape, murder and homicide where there isn’t a suspect within a set time period, to see if we can come up with new leads.
The role is to solve Rapes, Murder, and Old Cold Cases .... which leaves you with what..... ???
A big FAT QUESTION... as to why D/Supt Mark Saunders was involved with the Joanna Yeates Case in the first place ... As at the time of the Press Conference ...she was simple a supposed "Missing Person"....
Certain Interviews are starting to make sense to me.... Did the Police already know that Joanna Yeates was dead???
Edit.... BUT when you search for MCRT you get image 4
Watch these video go missing!! As the third image states that it is not listed on youtube...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-case-vincent-tabak
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3rYBv_gApM
https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/newsroom/features/teams-bid-to-unravel-forces-unsolved-rape-and-murder-cases/
-
Until today, I had believed that D/Supt Mark Saunders was made the spokesman for "Operation Braid" solely on account of his reassuring manner and his West Country brogue, but now I learn that he was already a major player in the investigation of serious crimes. Well might one ask - why was he involved at all in the disappearance of a young newly qualified landscape architect? Anyone could work out that she could merely have got bored after her boyfriend had so inconsiderately gone gallivanting without her for the weekend. She evidently said as much to her colleagues at the Ram. He thought she was "doing fun things" when she didn't show up.
I set much greater store than the rest of you ladies and gentlemen by the secret contents of Christopher Jefferies's 2nd witness statement. This cannot, however, have been the catalyst that precipitated Mark Saunders into the hot seat - it was the other way round. Mr Jefferies saw the appeal from the parents, chaired by D/Supt Saunders, and then reached for his telephone. Why is it still secret? Well might one ask.
I myself never saw the video of Greg Reardon that evidently was removed from the internet - after Mark Saunders had read Mr Jefferies's 2nd witness statement. However, Greg Reardon's words and feelings were reproduced vebatim in many of the news media that day, and were still there last time I looked. So they are not really lost.
-
Until today, I had believed that D/Supt Mark Saunders was made the spokesman for "Operation Braid" solely on account of his reassuring manner and his West Country brogue, but now I learn that he was already a major player in the investigation of serious crimes. Well might one ask - why was he involved at all in the disappearance of a young newly qualified landscape architect? Anyone could work out that she could merely have got bored after her boyfriend had so inconsiderately gone gallivanting without her for the weekend. She evidently said as much to her colleagues at the Ram. He thought she was "doing fun things" when she didn't show up.
I set much greater store than the rest of you ladies and gentlemen by the secret contents of Christopher Jefferies's 2nd witness statement. This cannot, however, have been the catalyst that precipitated Mark Saunders into the hot seat - it was the other way round. Mr Jefferies saw the appeal from the parents, chaired by D/Supt Saunders, and then reached for his telephone. Why is it still secret? Well might one ask.
I myself never saw the video of Greg Reardon that evidently was removed from the internet - after Mark Saunders had read Mr Jefferies's 2nd witness statement. However, Greg Reardon's words and feelings were reproduced vebatim in many of the news media that day, and were still there last time I looked. So they are not really lost.
I'm alway wondering if they really knew she was kidnapped... That's the other possibility for MCRT's involvement I would imagine...
Joanna Yeates parents always believed she had been abducted.... well... did they know this for sure ??
The video has been edited ... But still everyones reactions are telling....(IMO)
Do "Missing Person's Enquiries get given "Police" Operation names less than 48 hours after a Missing Person report..
By the 22nd December 2010 ...
Anyone with information is urged to contact police on 0845456 7000 quoting Operation Braid or Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111.
I can't find his words verbatim...leonora
http://swns.com/news/last-person-to-speak-to-joanna-yeates-tells-of-missing-bristol-womans-christmas-plans-12636/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/8219528/Family-appeal-for-missing-Bristol-woman.html
-
In June 2010... According to this request D/Supt Mark Saunders was: Head of Crime Standards.. what ever that is????
Crown Prosecution Service
- The force legal department
- Head of Crime Standards DS Mark Saunders
Of course this guy got his request denied also... Funny That..
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/brian_brady_correspondence
-
I can't find his words verbatim...leonora
The boyfriend of missing architect Jo Yeates fought back tears yesterday as he said: ‘I desperately want her back – I thought we would be together for ever.’ Greg Reardon, 27, told of his despair after returning to their flat on Sunday evening following a weekend away and finding her gone. ‘She was my future,’ he said. ‘This Christmas was going to be our first together. I was going to stay with her family, which is always a big deal for a boyfriend.’
‘On Sunday night I came home at about 8pm after staying with my family in Sheffield, but Jo wasn’t home.
‘Over the weekend I had tried calling and texting her and didn’t have a reply, but Jo didn’t always reply so it wasn’t completely out of character.
‘Then when I arrived home it was obvious our cat had been left on his own and was going mad. I waited up for her until about midnight and then when she didn’t return I started to get really worried.
‘I went through her bag, which she had left on the table and found it had all the stuff she would need to take with her, things like her purse and her keys.
‘I called the police and reported her missing and also phoned her parents. Since then I haven’t slept much.
‘I’m constantly on the internet trying to raise awareness on Facebook and some of her friends from Hampshire have even come up to Bristol to put up missing posters.’
He continued: ‘She was the first ever girlfriend I moved in with. Recently we moved in to a really nice flat together in probably the best area of Bristol.
‘It’s our second place together and things felt like they were really falling into place. We were both really happy in our jobs – we worked together and that’s how we met.
‘We’ve had our cat, Bernard, for about a year, since he was a kitten, and he means the world to us. Things were set for us.
‘We were going to stay with her parents for about a week over Christmas then head up to Scotland for Hogmanay.
‘She was really looking forward to Christmas. We had put up a tree and she was due to bake some mince pies.
‘We celebrated our second anniversary on December 11 and I took her out for dinner – it was perfect.’
‘A big moment in our relationship was early on when the two of us went to the Isle of Wight music festival. It went so well that we knew it was something special.
‘This summer we borrowed Jo’s mum’s campervan and went on a week-long tour of Cornwall and had an absolutely amazing holiday, surfing on the beaches together.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340586/Boyfriend-missing-architect-Jo-Yeates-sobs-I-want-Christmas.html
-
The boyfriend of missing architect Jo Yeates fought back tears yesterday as he said: ‘I desperately want her back – I thought we would be together for ever.’ Greg Reardon, 27, told of his despair after returning to their flat on Sunday evening following a weekend away and finding her gone. ‘She was my future,’ he said. ‘This Christmas was going to be our first together. I was going to stay with her family, which is always a big deal for a boyfriend.’
‘On Sunday night I came home at about 8pm after staying with my family in Sheffield, but Jo wasn’t home.
‘Over the weekend I had tried calling and texting her and didn’t have a reply, but Jo didn’t always reply so it wasn’t completely out of character.
‘Then when I arrived home it was obvious our cat had been left on his own and was going mad. I waited up for her until about midnight and then when she didn’t return I started to get really worried.
‘I went through her bag, which she had left on the table and found it had all the stuff she would need to take with her, things like her purse and her keys.
‘I called the police and reported her missing and also phoned her parents. Since then I haven’t slept much.
‘I’m constantly on the internet trying to raise awareness on Facebook and some of her friends from Hampshire have even come up to Bristol to put up missing posters.’
He continued: ‘She was the first ever girlfriend I moved in with. Recently we moved in to a really nice flat together in probably the best area of Bristol.
‘It’s our second place together and things felt like they were really falling into place. We were both really happy in our jobs – we worked together and that’s how we met.
‘We’ve had our cat, Bernard, for about a year, since he was a kitten, and he means the world to us. Things were set for us.
‘We were going to stay with her parents for about a week over Christmas then head up to Scotland for Hogmanay.
‘She was really looking forward to Christmas. We had put up a tree and she was due to bake some mince pies.
‘We celebrated our second anniversary on December 11 and I took her out for dinner – it was perfect.’
‘A big moment in our relationship was early on when the two of us went to the Isle of Wight music festival. It went so well that we knew it was something special.
‘This summer we borrowed Jo’s mum’s campervan and went on a week-long tour of Cornwall and had an absolutely amazing holiday, surfing on the beaches together.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340586/Boyfriend-missing-architect-Jo-Yeates-sobs-I-want-Christmas.html
Cheers for that leonora.... There are things I would like to comment on, but won't at the moment... I'm about to go back to the "Manslughter"!!!
-
I've just realised I made a great error... Too much information going around my head...
Tanja Nickson.. is The Forensic Scientist and Not The Power Point Expert.... who is Lyndsey Farmery ...
So I have tried to find my posts to edit my error... I will continue to edit the posts I have made this error with... See If I can find them.....
Apologies!!
Think a break may suit me.... !!
-
Lyndsey Farmery is an`internet use analyst' who assisted the police with the investigation..... apparently.
-
Given the amount of thread cleaning which has been required recently, posters should ensure that their comments are relevant to the thread they intend to post on. A single comment can take a thread off at a tangent so please bear this in mind.
Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.
-
Lyndsey Farmery is an`internet use analyst' who assisted the police with the investigation..... apparently.
Nina... I don't really understand your comment... I have learnt that this is a forum and forums in general have people who are not on the same page...
You have appeared to have waited years to post... Having joined in 2014.. And have only posted on this thread and topics on Dr Vincent Tabak...
I find that strange...
I am not progressing here... I feel that something odd is going on... Makes me feel uncomfortable...
My view will not change... I believe Dr Vincent Tabak is innocent... And 9 times out of 10... I just talk to myself on these threads..
I am of the belief that someone is pulling my donkeys.... Don't know why but... Various things that have happened over the months of posting bring me to that conclusion....
Many people on forums have their own agenda... Mine was simple... Show the discrepencies in the Case against Dr Vincent Tabak... I believe I have gone a long way to show that...
Think unless I find something new.. there is not a lot else I can say......
-
What don't you understand about my comment? All I did was to google Lyndsey Farmery and keyed in what I saw, apart from the word apparently.
I have already told you that the only reason I got involved, was that this happened on my doorstep and so I was interested in what you all thought and how much you were all getting wrong about the topography. I thought that I could give you all some help with that, i.e. Park St is not marked as a hill but is and all of that sort of stuff. Obviously you are not interested, so be it.
Nine I do not have my own agenda and I am not taking the Michael out of you. You have your own opinion VT is innocent I tend to believe VT when he said he was guilty of killing Joanna Yeates.
If you are so convinced why not get in touch with one of the investigators who do programmes for Ch4 and the beeb?
I'm sorry you have found me to be somewhat lacking in the `innocent' department, but as I have said I believe VT, why would he cry and say he was sorry to Mr and Mrs Yeates in court if he didn't do it?
Ah well more questions than answers (good song)
-
What don't you understand about my comment? All I did was to google Lyndsey Farmery and keyed in what I saw, apart from the word apparently.
I have already told you that the only reason I got involved, was that this happened on my doorstep and so I was interested in what you all thought and how much you were all getting wrong about the topography. I thought that I could give you all some help with that, i.e. Park St is not marked as a hill but is and all of that sort of stuff. Obviously you are not interested, so be it.
Nine I do not have my own agenda and I am not taking the Michael out of you. You have your own opinion VT is innocent I tend to believe VT when he said he was guilty of killing Joanna Yeates.
If you are so convinced why not get in touch with one of the investigators who do programmes for Ch4 and the beeb?
I'm sorry you have found me to be somewhat lacking in the `innocent' department, but as I have said I believe VT, why would he cry and say he was sorry to Mr and Mrs Yeates in court if he didn't do it?
Ah well more questions than answers (good song)
Sorry if I offended you Nina... You right ... I should just ask you questions relating to the area...
As for getting into with the Investigator program.... I did at one point believe that was what this forum was about..... But wherever it is or not doesn't really matter....
I did contact Mark Williams Thomas... He asked me if I was Drew Ashman....
So I asked him if he was PaulatheRed... He did follow me for 2 ticks and when I asked him other questions... He stopped following me... Maybe even blocked me...
I would have hoped for a little more from him... But as I say someone is always pulling my donkeys..... If a TV program takes this up great... But I am not holding my breath.... Didn't understand Mark William Thomas's reaction and I believed in the early part of the case it was he who questioned the Police...
Apart from contacting MWT whom I thought would have been my best bet.. I have not contacted any other program.... I don't really know how to go about that sort of thing... And unless any of the media are really interested in this case.. They will not consider such a venture....
Maybe all of my writings will do some good... Someone out there will take what I say seriously.... My over riding problem of what I appear to have uncovered.... Whether or not you believe in Dr Vincent Tabaks Innocence or not.... Is the misuse..(IMO)... Of the judicial system.... Which is not good...
But for me it's what I came here for... And that was to put the information back on the Internet that was removed.... And stand by what I believe to be an Innocent Dutchman....
I'm sure I will make more enemies than friends with my writings.... But That is life as they say..... I don't know... I suppose I get disheartened sometimes and cannot believe the info I find... As I say to my husband.... After all this time I shouldn't be able to find new things....
My family and friends think I shouldn't waste my time.... Which in one respect is a fair comment.... But I hate Injustice... And very few people seem to care about The Placid Dutchman....
So Nina..... Unless someone from the media / TV Program... Even looks at this case... Dr Vincent Tabak will be where he is.... Which is anyone's guess....
Too many odd things have happened to put This Dutch National Away.... The question is why?.
I just can hope that somewhere down the line... This Case will be looked at.... And those that behaved in an appalling way to put The Dutchman in Prison.... Will get their just desserts....
Edit.... When AH mentioned a possible Serial Killer It was the first time I thought There may be a chance for The Placid Dutchman... But I don't know.... I go through too many emotions about this case... And I am not taking anything away from The Yeates Family... But surely they would want to know who really killed their daughter...
Again.... i sit here.. typing... wondering if i am actually getting anywhere... `and my family and friends don't need to hear me talk about it anymore... My daughter had banned me mentioning Dr Vincent tabak name... which is not surprising really... everytime I find something out I tell her... she knows things don't add up about this case but.. She's a young woman that is not really Interested...
So... I have here to write what I find... And hope that it will have an impact.... And someone with some power will do something to help The Dutchman....
-
At the police station and for the first three of his preliminary appearances in court, VT was represented by lawyers from Crossman & Co of Radstock and Albion Chambers. The most important thing about this team is that they told the magistrate that he would be applying for bail the next day, only to change their minds the following day at the Crown Court. Why did they do this? The only probable explanation is that the lady from the CPS (who as we know had been planning this for some time) chose her moment to notify VT's lawyers of something that convinced them that bail would not be granted and that their client was therefore guilty.
This is enormously important. I believe that the crying girl ruse was intended to deceive primarily Crossman & Co. You may have other explanations. The CPS may have told VT's lawyers about the 43 injuries to the body (which they would otherwise not have learnt about until their own pathologist examined it later). These had not been made public. They may have alleged that VT attempted to incriminate the landlord, which Crossman & Co wouldn't have known as their client certainly wouldn't have told them.
Did the CPS at this stage reveal to VT's lawyers the contents of CJ's 2nd witness statement, which is STILL to this day a closely guarded secret? Did the CPS at this state reveal what was really talked about during the long, expensive interview at Schiphol, which, again, we can only guess at? Did the CPS reveal that VT already knew Joanna well, as an unattributed press report claimed at the time, though it was never even hinted at in court? The CPS knew that VT would sack his lawyers, and this meant that the new lawyers who took over his defence would not have access to whatever secrets the CPS had revealed to Crossman & Co.
This is all far more important than a naive faith in any so-called confession that anyone who reads what was actually said in court can see for themselves wasn't a confession at all.
Very astute of you Leonora, certainly adds to my proposition that the CPS has something much more important to hide. If they knew they had a serial killer on the loose and could not identify him, it would make more sense to try and bring closure to cases like this if they thought such a murder could be attributed to a series continuing over 30 years or more. Using standard policing philosophy of never looking further than the front door, once Tabak had been identified as living in the immediate vicinity the CPS are on the home run in terms of securing a conviction.
-
Very astute of you Leonora, certainly adds to my proposition that the CPS has something much more important to hide. If they knew they had a serial killer on the loose and could not identify him, it would make more sense to try and bring closure to cases like this if they thought such a murder could be attributed to a series continuing over 30 years or more. Using standard policing philosophy of never looking further than the front door, once Tabak had been identified as living in the immediate vicinity the CPS are on the home run in terms of securing a conviction.
leonora is extremely astute.... Whilst I behave like an extra from The Young Ones.... What was it Alexi Sayles says about Kippers!!!
ALEXEI: I've not always been mad, you know. But, um, I was actually driven mad by the indifference of architectual and council planning.
You see, I live in a tower block, and um, the thing about those is there is terrible noise problems because there's no noise insulation at all, you know,
and eight floors below you there's always some b........ with a Yamaha home organ, you know. You're just about to go to sleep and you hear this [makes organ noises]
'ROLL OUT THE BARREL' [makes organ noises]. And, like, the people upstairs, I can't understand what they're doing, you know.
I listen, and all I can hear is this weird noise and goes, 'VROOM! VROOM! BLAM-BLAM! VROOM! VROOM! BLAM-BLAM!'
It sounds, right, it sounds like two elephants on a motorbike riding round and round, while a seal bangs a kipper on the table.
I went upstairs to complain, and the door was answered by this elephant in a crash helmet! Standing behind him is this seal going [miming hitting something repeatedly]
'What is it now, Ralph?' I don't know, something just cracked inside and I starting thinking I was a piece of sponge. I jsut started to get very depressed..
Oh well.... I suppose my writings are that of an Elephant riding a motorbike !!! Whilst A seal named Anne Bangs a kipper on the table....
Oh MY God... You know my name is Ralph!!!
Edit.... Can't find the full clip but here's a taste ...
"The Young Ones... excellent Program.... loved it!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7bvy4iBFAs
-
leonora is extremely astute.... Whilst I behave like an extra from The Young Ones.... What was it Alexi Sayles says about Kippers!!!
Oh well.... I suppose my writings are that of an Elephant riding a motorbike !!! Whilst A seal named Anne Bangs a kipper on the table....
Oh MY God... You know my name is Ralph!!!
Edit.... Can't find the full clip but here's a taste ...
"The Young Ones... excellent Program.... loved it!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7bvy4iBFAs
First the elephant was in the room, but now she's riding a motorbike. No wonder she is a threatened species. I just hope the tower block wasn't refurbished by the same firm that put the cladding on Grenfell Tower.
-
Are you a victim of a genuine miscarriage of justice?
In recent months, I have been working with the multi award winning investigative reporter, Mark Williams-Thomas, best known for his extraordinary investigative work leading to the exposure of Jimmy Savile. He has investigated, reviewed and reported on many of the biggest crime stories including: The Alps murders, Tia Sharp murder, Claudia Lawrence murder and the murder of Alice Gross, together with his work on the Oscar Pistorius trial in South Africa. His work has led to numerous awards, including two Royal Television Society Awards, a Broadcasting Press Guild Award and an International Peabody Award. He is also BAFTA nominated.
Although much of Mark’s worked has focused on detecting crime, he has also reviewed many miscarriages of justice and is currently actively involved in some high-profile reviews with a view to reversing wrongful convictions and establishing the truth.
Well I hope your looking at The Joanna Yeates case... I believe I have produced many posts that cast doubt on Dr Vincent Tabk's guilt !! And it's about time The truth was known... !!!
https://insidetime.org/are-you-a-victim-of-a-genuine-miscarriage-of-justice/
-
I want to start with simple questions..
Why would Joanna Yeates let Dr Vincent Tabak into her flat???
-
I want to start with simple questions..
Why would Joanna Yeates let Dr Vincent Tabak into her flat???
Absolutely no evidence that she did----except for his story.
But then, I suppose I would let my next door neighbour in. I think people feel safe with their next door neighbours, unless there is something openly odd about them, particularly if they are of a similar age, similar situation, etc. I can imagine Joanna wanting to meet her neighbours: she was, by all accounts, a sociable person.
I actually find it more surprising that VT approached her-----if he did.
-
I want to start with simple questions..
Why would Joanna Yeates let Dr Vincent Tabak into her flat???
It is not a "simple" question - it is a metaphysical or rhetorical question. The real $64,000 question is - "Why do the citizens of Bristol BELIEVE she let him into her flat?" Why is it apparently so easy for unscrupulous lawyers and journalists to deceive juries and the public so thoroughly that they come on to forums like this and persist in arguing that he must have killed her because he said he did it? Even the extraordinary behaviour of defence counsel Mr Clegg in court is easier to understand than that of the general public over this case.
There is a small possibility that Joanna did let him into her flat on this or other occasions, as indeed she let other people into her flat, including IKEA employees and friends celebrating halloween. There is a possibility that Joanna and Vincent already knew each other through joint architectural projects. A single unattributed report in a single tabloid newspaper said as much at the time of his arrest. This could explain why Paul Cook abruptly abandoned his client without any explanation.
-
Does Dr Vincent Tabak exist??
I have spent so much time on this I am begining to wonder if he exists at all....
* Tabak = (Translated)=Tobacco
* Vincent =??
Is that someones middle name ??
I now get
* First name ?
* middle name = vincent
* Tobacco = Smoking man
Does Dr Vincent Tabak smoke?? Probably not.... It's all like code... Code for one person..... Thats how it appears to me....
It's like a Pantomime if it wasn't so serious....
So me talking about acting is true..... It's who is the actor....
I honestly don't know what to think at the mo..... Joanna Yeates killer is walking around free and should be locked up, that is for sure....
Someone had to have friends in high places.... Everyone seems to know who killed Poor Joanna Yeates ... I hope they don't sleep at night... The public have been truly deceived.. And all this to save their own skin....
Lily Livered Coward... Yes.. "Cold Play.... Yellow for cowardice.... I hope Joanna Yeates haunts them in their sleep I hope she haunts them daily... I hope that the truth will come forth....
I do not think there are enough words to describe, the pitiful people who have perpetrated this act, Disgusting, disgraceful, self centered, self interested, self absorbed, unscrupulous, individuals....
Who have carried on like nothing has happened... Well I believe Joanna Yeates case should feature daily on all the Newspapers... I think Billboards with her picture slapped across them all over the nation.... Every bus and every train advertising what happened to this poor girl.... Motorways flashing signs..... Everywhere you look Joanna Yeates will be there.... As a reminder that people haven't forgotten what was done to her... How the perpetreters discarded this young woman as if she meant nothing at all....
Who in their right mind would dump someone on the roadside... Who in their right mind would want the nation to believe the rubbish that was spewed...
It's time the public stand up and demand to know the truth....
Where is the moral compass for these people?? What possessed them to think no-one would care about an imaginary Dutch National?? Did they believe that the porn and everything that was said about Dr Vincent Tabak would make everyone hate him enough not to question what had happened...
* Were the searches yours Mr Killer ?
* Was The Porn yours too Mr Killer??
* Was everything that was used in this trial about you??
* Did you see yourself every day getting away with this as every detail was read out across the media... Were you
pleased that you had gotten away with this crime..??
* Do you look in the mirror in the morning and see a killer staring back at you??
* Are your accomplices proud??
An abomination, a scrapping off someones shoe.... A sorry excuse for a human being....
People will not forget... People will remember...If only to make sure future generations do not forget.... What you believe you have gotten away with today, will be passed on to your children and your children's children and they will have to bare the burden of your selfish act... They will have to live with the fact that the man/woman they believed to be good and true, was nothing but a snivelling little coward... Because I believe in time there will be people like me, who show an interest in the case because it never added up.... And they will also want of expose the truth that lies behind the lies.... And at that point you can be proud of your legacy... That the one thing you left behind on this mortal soil, is that your children and your children's children will bare the shame of your lies....
And when they look at you think on.... Think on that this is always here.... And their innocence and belief in you will be destroyed...
It may have been easier to admit your guilt... Maybe you did... Well its time for you to come forward and tell everyone the truth... And take the consequences like a man... In the vain hope your children's children will have some pride in you... Instead of them hiding away wondering when this will explode.... The truth will out.... And it should...
Is the Renault Megane Car yours?? Or do you drive a Volvo?? Was it you on Park Street??
I wonder what Joanna Yeates thinks about her killers?? I wonder what she would say to them today?? If she had a voice would she scream from the roof tops... That the killer is you!!
The circles I have been in at times I couldn't understand.... The why's and the wherefores... pecking at my head.. Always them not letting go.... I may be a slight different sort of person.... The Killer certainly is... But you will go down in history and for all the wrong reasons..... A legacy truly to behold!!
Edit...... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueulF29EwX8