The Defence Will State Their Case

[Real justice]

That's right Justice, they now only assist.

They bring them in to assist like you said Caroline, with a view they must make sure the experts are not allowed to skew the inquiry.

[[...]]

Point being that nowhere does it state that he is a paedophile or that he will go to court, in fact the passage states that the source believed a court hearing would be unlikely. If newspaper reports informed of the contents of his HD etc. they are well with in their rights to repeat what has been reported. Once again, there is NOTHING remotely sinister about it!

Point being people reading said website would automatically believe that this data base is accurate, and maybe only look to see if they recognise a face.. Said website is dangerous, said website is informing people that said people can be perceived as paedophiles, most people don't read the small or large print...!

[[...]]

That's right Justice, they now only assist.

In what capacity when they already have talked to the CPs about a suspect in late December 2010??
How can a profiler be of use??

Or was the profiler looking for a sex angle??  Instead of an architectural angle... Most profilers wouldn't even look at that possibility now would they... They have there theories and stick with that... 

I might have been impressed by a profiler if the same old same old motive hadn't surfaced.... Think it's time they thought outside the box...(imo) of course...

[jixy]

Point being people reading said website would automatically believe that this data base is accurate, and maybe only look to see if they recognise a face.. Said website is dangerous, said website is informing people that said people can be perceived as paedophiles, most people don't read the small or large print...!

No more than any news article available online or in print

[jixy]

In what capacity when they already have talked to the CPs about a suspect in late December 2010??
How can a profiler be of use??

Or was the profiler looking for a sex angle??  Instead of an architectural angle... Most profilers wouldn't even look at that possibility now would they... They have there theories and stick with that... 

I might have been impressed by a profiler if the same old same old motive hadn't surfaced.... Think it's time they thought outside the box...(imo) of course...

outside your perceived box but that doesnt make it incorrect

[[...]]

outside your perceived box but that doesnt make it incorrect

Lots of space and options outside the box.....

people murder for various reasons.... not all covered by profilers..... (imo)

Edit.... If said profiler was needed to seal the fate of Dr Vincent Tabak seeing as the CPS had Dr Vincent Tabak in their sights since late December, where was this profiler when said trial took place??

Double Edit.. Why hasn't said profiler made himself known??

[jixy]

People also lie about why where and when they killed someone....doesnt make them innocent.

[[...]]

People also lie about why where and when they killed someone....doesnt make them innocent.

That is true Jixy.... But the lie has to fit the evidence... And the CCTV of Canygne Road was never produced to prove that Joanna yeates actually reached home on the 17th December 2010...  Makes me question why the jury never saw it... omitted evidence again... 

If it's only a story on the stand that is obviously a lie is taken into account, the jury cannot be blamed for coming to a conclusion.... but all the evidence should have been there and maybe the jury would have questioned why Dr Vincent Tabak plead guilty to Manslaughter in May 2011, never mind the story on the stand that was not sustanciated at Dr Vincent Tabak's trial for Murder in October 2011..

[Caroline]

Point being people reading said website would automatically believe that this data base is accurate, and maybe only look to see if they recognise a face.. Said website is dangerous, said website is informing people that said people can be perceived as paedophiles, most people don't read the small or large print...!

Such as said poster! The site was accurate in that it reported what was in the press WHICH turned out to be accurate also. However, you seem more concerned about defending a perverted killer or finding an excuse for him!

[jixy]

That is true Jixy.... But the lie has to fit the evidence... And the CCTV of Canygne Road was never produced to prove that Joanna yeates actually reached home on the 17th December 2010...  Makes me question why the jury never saw it... omitted evidence again... 

If it's only a story on the stand that is obviously a lie is taken into account, the jury cannot be blamed for coming to a conclusion.... but all the evidence should have been there and maybe the jury would have questioned why Dr Vincent Tabak plead guilty to Manslaughter in May 2011, never mind the story on the stand that was not sustanciated at Dr Vincent Tabak's trial for Murder in October 2011..

The lies the story the murder ....all from one man!

[Caroline]

In what capacity when they already have talked to the CPs about a suspect in late December 2010??
How can a profiler be of use??

Or was the profiler looking for a sex angle??  Instead of an architectural angle... Most profilers wouldn't even look at that possibility now would they... They have there theories and stick with that... 

I might have been impressed by a profiler if the same old same old motive hadn't surfaced.... Think it's time they thought outside the box...(imo) of course...

What architectural angle?

Thought outside the box? What? So they should put forward an absurd motive just to please you?

[Caroline]

That is true Jixy.... But the lie has to fit the evidence... And the CCTV of Canygne Road was never produced to prove that Joanna yeates actually reached home on the 17th December 2010...  Makes me question why the jury never saw it... omitted evidence again... 

If it's only a story on the stand that is obviously a lie is taken into account, the jury cannot be blamed for coming to a conclusion.... but all the evidence should have been there and maybe the jury would have questioned why Dr Vincent Tabak plead guilty to Manslaughter in May 2011, never mind the story on the stand that was not sustanciated at Dr Vincent Tabak's trial for Murder in October 2011..

They didn't need to produce the CCTV footage because Tabak admitted he killed her in her flat - hence she arrived home! It was never an issue!

[[...]]

Such as said poster! The site was accurate in that it reported what was in the press WHICH turned out to be accurate also. However, you seem more concerned about defending a perverted killer or finding an excuse for him!

Les make things clear here Caroline.... I never believed that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates,  the trial itself made me wonder why even more, as years passed, my doubts never wavered.....

The fact that someone eventually went to court some years later on a charge that should have been dealt with after the trial in October 2011 , has me questioning the validity of said information... If Dr Vincent Tabak is on a minimum of 20 years he won't rock any boat, neither will his family or friends...

I am questioning the validity of what has been presented to the court...

I do not support child abusers...

If in reality the computer evidence is independently assessed and shows that Dr vincent Tabak had images of children he shouldn't have on his computer, then do him for that... But you cannot accept a man is imprisoned for Murder , if it can be shown, he didn't murder said person.... Whether you like it or not....

It means a Murderer has escaped punishment....

So I am not trying to find an excuse for him... I am trying to show I do not believe Dr vincent Tabak killed Joanna yeates....  that is all....!!

[[...]]

What architectural angle?

Thought outside the box? What? So they should put forward an absurd motive just to please you?

It is not just to please me.... I'm attempting to show that there were other possible angles that could have been investigated at the time... That is all....

[jixy]

You know better than the man himself....that is some box you  are thinking outside of!