The Defence Will State Their Case

[[...]]

Back to that clip...... The reporter at 4:48 of video Rhiannon Mills - from sky news says: Video date 23rd December 2010

Now I did ask DCI Brennan earlier about the parents suggestion that she may have been abducted, he didn't want to be drawn on it, but he certainly said that was one area of inquiry that they are looking into. He also was very keen to stress, that christmas may be coming up, certainly going to carry on investigating until they can hopefully find Jo.

So who is DCI Brennan...???? Which Police Force did he work for....

Is it DCI Martin Brennan who specialises in Kidnap from the Midlands Police force
Is It DCI Andy Brennan Who was West Yorkshire then Manchester Police

I can't find any others.... either way it suggest that they were looking at this case as a 'Complexed Crime Case".. And possibly abduction with the two candidates we have... They are from other forces who deal with Serious Crime... Now for them to be involved this early in a "Missing persons Inquiry"... There had to be a lot more too it than Joanna Yeates being a "Missing Person"... (IMO)..

We appear to have so many other Police Forces Involved with this Investigation from very much day one ....!!


I can only find a Martin Brennan's LinkedIn here's what it says ...

Worked in law enforcement for past 26 years, specialising in leading teams proactively investigating serious and organised crime, including demand led kidnaps, covert operations and anti corruption.
Passionate about effective leadership and management of teams and individuals within the outdoors. Successfully led over 30 international expeditions to countries including Nepal, Africa, South America and Dog Sledding within the Arctic Circle in Norway.

Or we have this on the other Policeman: 

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/local/localbrad/8767730.Sharon_Beshenivsky_detective_to_head_murder_team/


Either way why was he involved in "The Joanna Yeates Murder Investigation"????


http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/ex-head-of-police-murder-squad-leaves-county-force-for-new-role-1-6729147


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de4f8OqwJPU

[[...]]

DCI Joe Goff... Interesting Officer I am trying to get a handle on at the moment... He serves in The British Virgin islands (I believe Tortola..)and I am now begining to wonder if he possibly speaks Dutch... Not only that i am starting to wonder if he was the other Officer that went to Holland with DC Karen Thomas ...

Detective Inspector Joe Goff, who was part of the police investigation team, described the Dutchman as a “social inadequate”.

He told reporters: “He is a complex character, I would suggest.

“And going back to Tabak’s time in Holland, people that we spoke to there describe almost a social inadequate.”

So... did Joe Goff travel to Holland to speak to people about Dr Vincent Tabak... This statement tends to support that theory (IMO)...

It also describes DI Joe Goff as part of the Investigation team.... and not from Avon and Somerset Police... Doesn't specify where he is from !!


Edit....If Dr Vincent Tabak is a social inadequate as described by DI Joe Goff... Then why all of a sudden would he feel he had the confidence to engage with his next door neighbour he didn't know??

The descriptions these Police Officers give of Dr Vincent Tabak are very interesting...


http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/280447/Shame-Vincent-Tabak-cannot-hang-for-Jo-Yeates-murder-say-parents

[AerialHunter]

There are many factors to consider in this case, but I want to start at the begining...  The bit when the Police are alerted to Joanna yeates being Missing...

The Police have always maintained that Joanna yeates was killed on Friday 17th December 2010... They never shift from this... The only indication that a different day is possible is when I believe that they wanted CJ in the frame... I believe that it was possibily CJ's car going over Clifton Suspension bridge...  And they used that to put pressure on him to confess to Joann Yeates Murder... That.. and the fact he had keys....

I am not going back over the CJ debarcle... Just refreshing and putting things into context...

So..... why "Friday 17th December 2010"????

Why without a shadow of a doubt, did the Police say that Joanna yeates was "Murdered /Missing" on this particular day???

Put Dr Vincent Tabak aside for one moment..... and lets really ask our selves why.. 17th December 2010??

That date starts very early on....

We can go to the:    https://www.facebook.com/groups/169097479794933/  That page says Missing since 17th December 2010.

Also:  https://helpfindjo.wordpress.com/page/4/

Every article... every statement says clearly that she was 'Missing".. from Friday 17th December 2010

When she hadn't responded to text.. everyone said it wasn't unusual... So because she didn't reply on Friday 17th December 2010... How does that make her "Missing" on that date ???

Her bed could have been slept in.....as an earring is found under the duvet...

The flat was untidy... Is that enough to indicate that someone was Missing since Friday 17th December 2010???

Greg was away... she hadn't planned to meet anyone as far as we know... So how were the Police positive that it was Friday the 17th December 2010??

They have so much information to process before they can make a claim as to the fact she went Missing on Friday 17th December 2010... The have to interview Greg... They have to establish his alibi.. It's normal procedure.. The will need to check his phone.. Everything about his time and travel will need to be scrutinized..

But that information will only tell them what Greg did over that weekend... It will not tell them what Joanna Yeates did over that weekend...

If Dr Vincent tabak was able to get from Canygne Road to Bedminster and then Longwood lane without being caught on CCTV... what's to say that Joanna Yeates didn't make a similar journey?? I am not saying she did... Just pointing out the possibility that it was easy...apparently to leave Canygne Road undetected...

There nothing in the Flat to indicate a struggle.... There's nothing in the flat to indicate forced entry... there's nothing in the flat to say anything... Yet a lot of time was spent there processing it.... Her clothes... One of the most important pieces of evidence needed when establishing when someone has gone "Missing".. A description, of what they were last seen wearing normally accompanies, 'The Missing Person Poster"....

Yet we find NO DESCRIPTION.... We have instead an image of her in a shop.... An image of her wearing a white coat... But the white coat is in the flat still... This information that the coat is in the flat emerges by the 22nd December 2010...

So what about the rest of her clothing??? Greg and everyone at the pub knew what she was wearing... why not a description of her clothes ??

Even the distinctive watch she was wearing when she was found wasn't used as part of the description of he 'Missing"...

Greg says he went round the flat checking things... He at first thought she was doing fun things... To me that indicates she had changed her clothes... And nothing really was out of the ordinary when he arrived home... He may have felt a little annoyed she wasn't there to see him on his return... But obviously,.. nothing over the weekend had alerted him that anything was wrong at home in Canygne Road....

Her Coat being in the Hallway... didn't un-nerve him... which to me says she must have had other coats to wear besides the white coat... Same with the footwear... Nothing in the flat immediately gave him grounds to panic...

He went around tidy as he goes... He drank beer, he ate tea... he did everything normally that one would expect upon his immediate arrival... Nothing in the FLAT INDICATED ANYTHING WAS WRONG.... at that point...

He must have noticed the clothes.... He never says she was wearing the same clothes as she did on the Friday 17th December 2010... Thats why I believe he at first thought she had gone to do fun things... So you have to question that.... What else had gone from the flat that indicated to Greg that she had gone to do fun things ????

Something else must have been "Missing"... for him to think she was doing 'Fun Things"... I also wonder about the phone.. Now if Joanna Yeates wasn't one for answering texts etc.... Did she always take her phone with her ??? It obviously wasn't her lifeline, like some girls are with their phones, if she didn't always answer texts... Did she regularly leave her phone behind ??

This would make more sense to Greg's initial reaction and why it takes so long for him to alert anyone... Even when he rang the phone at 9:00pm.. It took a while before the penny finally dropped...  So I believe her phone being in the flat possibly wasn't a huge red flag... maybe it was... But it's something to think about...

So we are still on the 17th December 2010... Nothing there to indicate that this is the day she disappeared... So why all the posters and TV interviews saying she went Missing on Friday 17th December 2010??

That's a definate date... nothing to say... sometime over that weekend we believe she was Missing.. we have a sighting of her in... etc etc etc ... No... we have a date... and a date that they stick too no matter what... I am not saying that they are wrong... From the first TV interviews we are told it's the 17th December 2010.... all of the Missing posters says the same .... The Police at this time haven't had time t collect and check every CCTV in Bristol... Who's to say at this time she hasn't been seen in a shop elsewhere...

How did they definatly know that she was going home on Friday 17th December 2010.. when her flat was empty and Greg was away...  Who's to say she didn't take a detour and pop off to someones house she knew.... No-one can forsee what someone is thinking... Until every single avenue had been investigated.. they could not determine that she went "Missing" on that friday...

They could summise that this was a probability... but without proof how would anyone know ....

So we come back to the Polices action... they are at the property in no time... They treat this case very differently from the start... Because what??? what is it that makes them get straight onto this case as a "Missing/Murder inquiry from the very moment Greg calls them...


Lets pretend it's not Greg and Joanna Yeates.. makes it easier for me to explain.... A boyfriend away for the weekend calls the Police because his girlfriend isn't at home when he returns...  He had tried to contact her... But.... and this is where details matter... She didn't reply... But for her that isn't unusual... I at first thought she had gone off to do fun things... The Flat looked no different from when I left... The dishes were still in the sink... Her white coats is on the hook... her bag is here.... There is no sign anyone has been in the flat.... But I don't know where she is and i am starting to worry.....


Now... at what point does the Policeman/woman on the other end of the phone drop everything and rush around to Canygne Road to check everything... Not only that start to do door to door inquiries of the neighbours ???

Are they not at first busy quizzing said boyfriend??? Are they not bombarding said boyfriend of his whereabouts?? Are they not checking this is not some type of domestic?? Are they not checking that the boyfirend and girlfriend fell out and she just left...

No they're not.... The are banging neighbours out of bed to see if they have seen anything of Joanna yeates... Or noticed anything unusual....

That speaks volumes..... Remember the headlines.... 'NOT A SUSPECT"... he's a WITNESS...... when talking about Greg.... The question really has to be , what did Greg witness?? What did Greg see to make him a WITNESS... because he has to have seen something... just like CJ's second witness statement... There has to be something that Greg Reardon actually WITNESSED for him to be a witness.. So what was it?? Did he see someone leaving via the gate also...??? what did he see....

It has to be in the flat.... He didn't notice anything in the flat for nearly 4 hours... So what did he find??? I believe he had to find something that shouldn't have been there... Was it the trainers that were found under the sink... where there other items in the flat that shouldn't have been....??

Joanna Yeates mother from the very start says she has been abducted... There has to be something in that Flat that indicated that she was abducted... It is not the first thing that would pop into someones head.... You have to remember that Greg didn't know Joanna Yeates parents very well...

At this point it's 20 question to the boyfriend you don't really know too well... Not... banging on car doors trying to find her.... Something in that flat or someone was seen, for Greg Reardon to be considered a witness by the Police and for Joanna Yeates mother to insist that her daughter had been abducted .....(IMO)

So was there a note ????? The police said when they got the Pizza packaging and note that was sent to the pub... that they had the killers handwriting.... is this what they had??? Is this what they meant?? A  written note saying that they had Joanna Yeates ?? Was there a note left in the flat??

Because realistically when you look at my "Lets Pretend" paragraph.... there is nothing there that would indicate or warrant the full force of The Avon and Somerset Police to respond in such a way as to fear that Joanna Yeates life was in danger from day one....  Not only respond to it nationally... But, have virtually every cold case detective play his or her part visually on the TV for someone to see that they are working this case .....

It was never a "Missing Persons Inquiry"...(IMO).... The Police had to have evidence that Joanna Yeates was last alive on Friday 17th December 2010... For them to come out from the very minute the phone call was made by Greg Reardon on Monday 20th December 2010 and Investigate this immediately with all of their resources and attention...  Not ever wavering from any other stance and not ever changing the date of her absence being from Friday 17th December 2010!!!

Edit......Was a clue left about the trainers under the sink. behind the kickboard?? These trainers never get mentioned until DCI Phil Jones reveals this information at The Leveson Inquiry!!

You would have thought they were a vital piece of evidence seeing as they had what apparently was a spot of blood on them.... If they were of no evidential value.... DCI Phil Jones does not need to mention this piece of evidence no-one knew about...

So who is he letting know he has got the trainers ??? Who did the trainers belong to??


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8230065/Joanna-Yeates-murder-timeline.html

Must admit Nine, you have a very convincing argument here, with maybe a few points one could argue over but nothing that would detract from the overall picture.

AH

[[...]]

More from The Police Conference...  Sometimes I wonder if they slip up, and reveal a little more than they meant too...

My post that AH, has quoted above, where I ask if something was Missing, whether Greg noticed something was Missing... 

Here i'll quote from the Police Conference of December 28th 2010 when the press are asking questions of DCI Phil Jones..


At 8:45 on the video..... The guy from the Evening Post asks:..

Is there anything on her mobile phone or laptop that has given any leads

DCI Phil Jones replies:..

Erm... That Invesa... Er... that forensic examination is still on going

Erm Investa.... Was he about to say Investigation?? Was her laptop Missing ???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8noQpXm0HQU

[[...]]

Now... early Indications were always that there was no forced entry... So i find DCI Phil Jones response at Another Police Conference quite puzzling...

3rd January 2011

But I'm not able to speculate, whether she let someone in to the flat, whether someone was already in there, or someone broke into the flat..

Now on the 29th December 2010 we have a report in the news saying:..

Her keys, mobile phone, purse and coat had been left behind at their flat and forensic examiners have said there was no sign of a forced entry or a struggle at the property.

So why on the 3rd January 2011... is DCI Phil Jones even mentioning the possibility of someone breaking into the flat??

Old sash windows are easy to access... If they haven't had time to test all the forensics.. how do they know that no-one entered via a sash window ??

Ah..... forced entry... = Breaking in and damage appears as a result
          Enter via a window  = open sash window without signs of breaking anything..

Maybe thats why we see the forensics on the outside of the sash window ..!!

I have attached an image of them forensically testing the sash window....  They must believe that she wouldn't open the door to a stranger... Having an Intercom to speak to anyone who comes to the door... Image attached..

So what were the results of the forensic's done on the window ??? We never see the other side of the window... bedroom curtain are closed and so are the front room curtains... But I was looking at the Forensics and them testing the window and it confused me...

We see the two forensic people arrive at the front room window of Joanna Yeates and we can see the closed curtain... Yet... when they are applying the forensic liquid... there are no curtains there??  So which flat are they testing the windows on??



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b133XlpYvxc

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-england-bristol-12089150

http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/656442052

[[...]]

This image has taken me an age to capture....... I didn't understand why the Intercom plate was removed.. And even the image I have captured doesn't really tell you why...

But..... Where all the other flats in the main house have a name on the Intercom.... Joanna Yeates Flat doesn't... It only says Flat 1...

I had to put this clip through quick time and pretend to trim it so i could get the frame that i was looking for ...

And all the Intercom plate says is Flat 1... So if a stranger had chanced upon the house... they wouldn't know that Joanna Yeates lived there...

Also knowing that Greg would be away, wouldn't be of use to a stranger if they did not know which Flat the couple lived in ...

You have more possibilities....

(1):...  She was not in her flat and her things were returned...

Now that scenario would need for something with her address on in her bag for a stranger to return her possessions..Does that go with the possibility that she collected something from The Post Office, being Baryah's... That shop, what ever the name, has always been a Post Office as well as a convenience shop..

But again..... why would a stranger bother returning her possessions ???

(2):..  It was someone she knew and they returned her possessions...

No stranger would be waiting in her flat for her, not knowing where she lived!!! No stranger would be breaking in to that Flat if they didn't know who lived there, if it's a sexually motivated attack??

It could have quite easily have been a bachelor pad for a stranger to attempt an attack... why would they???

So having just the Flat Number available to see... who would know who lives there ????

For her to let Dr Vincent Tabak into her flat she would have had to know him...(IMO)... I cannot believe someone who was concerned about being on there own would let anyone in they didn't know ...

Joanna Yeates is described as a sensible woman.... So.. why would she let Dr Vincent Tabak in ???? A man she could barely have seen since moving into 44, Canygne Road... As he was away for a great deal of this time....

You also know have the possibility that someone was watching her from the road side... Well If that was the case ... her curtains would not be closed ... They would need to know she was totally alone to even attempt an entry... And she in turn would have fought back... But she doesn't appear to have fought with her killer...

(3): She let someone in she knew....  This has to be the case if she was killed in the Flat... No-one else knew where she lived...  It's just a Flat amongst Flats on a Road... She could have lived anywhere... There was nothing visually to indicate that she lived in Flat 1 at 44, Canygne Road... And the Police have already confirmed that she wasn't followed...

So... if someone had broken in and she had disturbed them... there would have been a scene of a struggle.... but there was not... So I believe we can discount that....

Someone she knew had to have gone to the flat or she met them and they returned her possessions later... (IMO)....

Because I cannot see any other reason that the Police felt the need to remove that Intercom Plate from the from of Flat 1 .. 44, canygne Road..... This plate is removed when "Bob The Builder " is working there... And if it was of such evidentiary value they wouldn't want 'Bob The Builder to accidently touch it... when he's busy ripping gaffer tape with his mouth and wiping his nose on his plastic forensic gloves...

The door was removed on the  29th December 2010... the same day as they removed the Intercom plate... And if this Intercom Plate was so important ... I believe it would have been removed a lot sooner, and not when 'bob the  Builder " was about being unsteady on his feet.... Contaminating the Crime Scene....(IMO)...

Edit..... Did the Police talk to other neighbour to find out whether or not Dr Vincent tabak had a habit of popping into peoples flats that he didn't know ??? Did Dr Vincent Tabak have a habit of looking into peoples windows when he past them???

Because he would have had to be actively trying to look into the kitchen window for Joanna Yeates to respond to him... And if his sole purpose was to go to ASDA..... Why especially when he did't know at that time that Joanna Yeates boyfriend may be at home... Did he look into the kitchen window on his way to ASDA?? And not look directly ahead of himself??


http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/685650778

[attachment deleted by admin]

[[...]]

Now... There were other possibilities for a stranger or anyone  to know where the couple lived.... And I will go back to this...

On The 16th October 2010... Greg advertises on Facebook that he is giving away FREE SKI equipment... Then again he advertises on the 28th October 2010... I have blanked out his phone Number....

What else did Greg say on facebook ??? Did someone know that he was attending a Christening on the weekend of  17th- 19th December 2010... Did someone who saw that advert know that Joanna Yeates would be alone... Did someone who saw that advert and went to Flat 1 Canygne Road.. return when Greg was away??? Was it someone who knew the couple ???

Did the Police check this avenue???? Because I do not believe that they did... DCI Phil Jones says that they did DNA tests on everyone that they Interviewed... And we know there were very few DNA tests actually performed on anyone that knew the couple... I believe the papers had said "One" friend had their DNA tested ...!!!


Where he has advertised the Free Ski's is on a facebook page called.... UWE Snowsport Racers who's members appear to have dwindled ...  In Fact as it stands Greg Reardon's post on the 28th October 2010, is the last post on the site.... unless the Police or someone has removed them.... But I would have thought that they would have removed Greg's also if it were the Police ....  Seeing as everything else to do with Greg Reardon is removed from 2010....

https://www.facebook.com/groups/36573472454/

[[...]]

Another image of Dr Vincent Tabak that I never really took much notice of, until the time the image was supposed to have been taken, set alarms bells off with me....

Before arrest: Tabak is captured on CCTV at 6.15pm on the evening before he was held on suspicion of murdering Joanna Yeates. He is seen wearing a black coat and shoes walking past Cotham Stores in Clifton

Now it didn't immediatley make me think anything.... Dr Vincent Tabak in his black coat.... Until you realise that this is at 6:15pm on Wednesday 19th January 2011.... And.........

He's walking..... He isn't riding his bike.... he's pootling around in a long black coat without a bicycle in sight.... Dr Vincent Tabak would have finished work... So... wheres the BICYCLE.. they said he rode to work??????


Because NOW... I don't believe he did!!! he probably always caught the bus to the train station..... (IMO)....

The 32-year-old Dutchman is captured on CCTV walking past Cotham Stores in Abbotsford Road, Clifton, Bristol, at 6.15pm last Wednesday. Within hours he would be arrested over the murder of the architect.

Again they are saying that Dr Vincent Tabak..... WALKS!!!! BECAUSE WHERE IS THE BICYCLE!!!!!!!!!


 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349615/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Vincent-Tabak-charged-murder-court-Monday.html#ixzz4q706Sze5

[[...]]

Another image of Dr Vincent Tabak that I never really took much notice of, until the time the image was supposed to have been taken, set alarms bells off with me....




Now it didn't immediatley make me think anything.... Dr Vincent Tabak in his black coat.... Until you realise that this is at 6:15pm on Wednesday 19th January 2011.... And.........

He's walking..... He isn't riding his bike.... he's pootling around in a long black coat without a bicycle in sight.... Dr Vincent Tabak would have finished work... So... wheres the BICYCLE.. they said he rode to work??????


Because NOW... I don't believe he did!!! he probably always caught the bus to the train station..... (IMO)....
 Again they are saying that Dr Vincent Tabak..... WALKS!!!! BECAUSE WHERE IS THE BICYCLE!!!!!!!!!


 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349615/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Vincent-Tabak-charged-murder-court-Monday.html#ixzz4q706Sze5

Next question..... Is this really an image of Dr Vincent Tabak????

I'll ask the question because we have already seen the forensic people take a Black Coat from Canygne Road long before Dr Vincent Tabak was even a suspect.....

Images 1 & 2....  These were taken on 4th January 2011...

So is the CCTV Image really Dr Vincent Tabak??

And if it is.... who's Black Coat did they take from Flat 1 Canygne Road on 4th January 2011??
Did someone else leave Their Black coat at Joanna Yeates Flat at Canygne Road ???? Because I'm struggling for an answer as to why the Forensics have a "Black Coat' in their arms !!!!!

Is this why Dr Vincent Tabak mentions that he put his coat on the coat stand in his testimony.... ??? No-one else would know about the "Black Coat".. In the flat apart from the Police.... It's an odd detail...(IMO)... Not the sort of thing an 'Socially Inadequate Placid Dutchman would do.... (IMO).... (Descriptions of him made by Dc Joe Goff and DCI Phil Jones combined )...!! If he was socially awkward... why feel comfortable to pop your coat on a coat stand of someone you don't know ???

So which one is it???

(1): The CCTV is really Dr Vincent Tabak without a bicycle!!(Therefore he doesn't cycle to work).. Or.....

(2): Someone else left a "Black Coat on the Coat Stand at Flat 1  44, Canygne Road !!!

It has to be (2)...(IMO).. Because we still have the forensics taking the Black Coat away from Flat 1 Canygne Road on the 4th January 2011... (Unless someone else has a better idea !)

Because.. if the image isn't Dr Vincent Tabak on the 19th January 2011... You still have to question how they could have possibly got a hold of Dr Vincent Tabak's "Black Coat" before he was arrested ???

looking at my other post about "Lets Pretend"...  when I suggested that something must have been left in the flat.... Was it the black coat???

Does this mean we need to check the trial transcript again and see what is within this transcript that is true.... and not necessary what Dr Vincent Tabak did.... But maybe what someone else did ????

It's just a strange detail for him to mention (IMO)... when so many other things about the flat he could have said, to show everyone that he had been inside ....!!(IMO)...

Who's Black Coat is it?????????


Edit... The Police obviously want someone to see that Black Coat... It's just slung across the Forensic womans arm... No forensic bag... No Nothing!!

http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/event/key-scenes-from-jo-yeates-murder-case-107861085#police-remove-property-to-examine-from-the-flat-of-joanna-yeates-the-picture-id107862662

[nina]

Another image of Dr Vincent Tabak that I never really took much notice of, until the time the image was supposed to have been taken, set alarms bells off with me....




Now it didn't immediatley make me think anything.... Dr Vincent Tabak in his black coat.... Until you realise that this is at 6:15pm on Wednesday 19th January 2011.... And.........

He's walking..... He isn't riding his bike.... he's pootling around in a long black coat without a bicycle in sight.... Dr Vincent Tabak would have finished work... So... wheres the BICYCLE.. they said he rode to work??????


Because NOW... I don't believe he did!!! he probably always caught the bus to the train station..... (IMO)....
 Again they are saying that Dr Vincent Tabak..... WALKS!!!! BECAUSE WHERE IS THE BICYCLE!!!!!!!!!


 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349615/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Vincent-Tabak-charged-murder-court-Monday.html#ixzz4q706Sze5

Abbotsford Rd is in Cotham not Clifton, so this photo would have been taken when he was staying in Aberdeen Rd. The Cotham Stores are just round the corner from Aberdeen Rd.

[[...]]

Abbotsford Rd is in Cotham not Clifton, so this photo would have been taken when he was staying in Aberdeen Rd. The Cotham Stores are just round the corner from Aberdeen Rd.

Yes it was when he was staying at Aberdeen Road... Because it was the day before he was arrested....

Still no bike visible.... What do you think to the Forensic Officer with The Black Coat in her arms... Or Bob The Builder and his Cross Contamination????


Looking at that image of him walking it appears he has a folder under his right arm.... Did he just come from the station?????  Where he doesn't use a bike doesn't need a bike and probably never cycled to work!!! (IMO)...

Edit.... Or is it a laptop??? And if he takes his laptop to work... then why would he have the need to use Buro Happolds Computers to do searches on the Internet?

[nina]

Yes it was when he was staying at Aberdeen Road... Because it was the day before he was arrested....

Still no bike visible.... What do you think to the Forensic Officer with The Black Coat in her arms... Or Bob The Builder and his Cross Contamination????


Looking at that image of him walking it appears he has a folder under his right arm.... Did he just come from the station?????  Where he doesn't use a bike doesn't need a bike and probably never cycled to work!!! (IMO)...

Edit.... Or is it a laptop??? And if he takes his laptop to work... then why would he have the need to use Buro Happolds Computers to do searches on the Internet?

Just because VT rode a bike to work doesn't mean he didn't use his legs and walk at times, especially when the weather was treacherous.

To me it looks as though that image was captured at night time, so he wouldn't be going to work, maybe coming home. IMO.

If you look at the angle of VT's right shoulder and then where the white bit, gloves I think are, I think it's obvious he is carrying something under his arm. What, I couldn't say.

I haven't found the links to the images of Forensic woman or as you rather rudely call him "Bob the Builder". This company may have a proven record of keeping quiet, which is probably worth it's weight in gold! We'll never know.

[nina]

Yes it was when he was staying at Aberdeen Road... Because it was the day before he was arrested....

Still no bike visible.... What do you think to the Forensic Officer with The Black Coat in her arms... Or Bob The Builder and his Cross Contamination????


Looking at that image of him walking it appears he has a folder under his right arm.... Did he just come from the station?????  Where he doesn't use a bike doesn't need a bike and probably never cycled to work!!! (IMO)...

Edit.... Or is it a laptop??? And if he takes his laptop to work... then why would he have the need to use Buro Happolds Computers to do searches on the Internet?

Well don't know where my post went!! So I'll start again.

Just because VT was known to bike it whenever possible, does not mean that he didn't use his legs as well, especially when the weather was treacherous.

To me the picture looks as though is was captured at night. If you look at VT's right shoulder and arm, then where the white bit, gloves I think, end up, it's obvious he has something under his arm. What I couldn't say.

He also may take work home, though the weather in 2010 did not IMO lend itself to just having folders. Both IMO laptop and folders would have to be inside a soft case? Otherwise he has been sent to the shops and they are just carrier bags!!

[[...]]

Well don't know where my post went!! So I'll start again.

Just because VT was known to bike it whenever possible, does not mean that he didn't use his legs as well, especially when the weather was treacherous.

To me the picture looks as though is was captured at night. If you look at VT's right shoulder and arm, then where the white bit, gloves I think, end up, it's obvious he has something under his arm. What I couldn't say.

He also may take work home, though the weather in 2010 did not IMO lend itself to just having folders. Both IMO laptop and folders would have to be inside a soft case? Otherwise he has been sent to the shops and they are just carrier bags!!

The time capture of the CCTV image was 6:15pm on Wednesday 19th January 2011... Of course it would be dark at this time ....

[nina]

Nine can you point me in the direction of Forensic Woman & "Bob" can't put the rest of what you've named him because I find that a bit disrespectful. I would like to see those.