The Defence Will State Their Case

[Real justice]

So what evidence collected pointed to Dr Vincent Tabak, that would need a profiler??  As no evidence was at trial, other than a statement on  stand... Why the need for a profiler then??

Hi Nine, you have to remember the profiler was bought in after CJ release, they would have had a number of suspects, known sex offenders in the area, neighbours, associates, last persons who seen her ect. The profiler would have been bought in to go over the evidence they had and to give them a insight into what type or person to look for, remember he’s only their to help, his word isn’t be all and end all, it’s to assist.  In the meantime autopsy results lab results from the body and crime scene would be coming back to the headquarters.  When they first arrested CJ, they would have been all over his flat, all over his car, checking all local road traffic cctv for his car movements and it would have been proved his car never moved.

Now Tabak makes his mistake, like all killers do, Tabak sees an opportunity to either derail the investigation and pin the the blame onto CJ, it was all over the press about CJ arrest, so he phones up and says about CJ’s car moving.  This would have alerted the headquarters, because either it didn’t match up or it was going to help with a case against CJ.  They felt strong on this lead they sent a detective over to Holland.  The Detective isn’t happy about his answers ect and asks for a DNA sample to eliminate him from the inquiry.  It comes back later and it’s a match ect.. 

I would say the profiler wouldn’t have had much imput into Tabak being charged/arrested, maybe the profiler was giving an impression that the attacker lived close by ect.  If you read Tabak I think he said he lost about 7kg from when his DNA sample was taken to being arrested, he knew the game was up, My guess he knew because, he’d masturbated over her bare breasts and didn’t know if he’d cleaned it all off.  He also left DNA behind her knees this was probably sweat, from carrying her and he admitted trying to lift her over a fence/wall, probably left sweat because he would be worried now.  The problem recognising the exact source of DNA would be the weather playing a part and he covered her body with leaves, then the snow fell ect so it might have deteriorated  the dna sample but not enough for a match,  He knew it was going to snow, he was constantly checking the weather on his computer.

Sometimes, it’s luck they get their man, but killers close to home always make mistakes, they try and be in the know with the police inquiry and try to be one step in front.  Once Tabak is arrested and charged it gives them loads of opportunity to look more in depth at him.  There was a lot of detectives/police put into this inquiry don’t think they only looked at CJ and Tabak.

[Real justice]

Losing 7kg over Christamas, at a time people usually put weight on says a lot, he’s worried and not eating for some reason.  He expected being arrested when he came back from Holland but DNA results hadn’t come back.  He’s waiting and worrying for that knock on the door, imagine what’s going through his head, he knows they have found the body, he knows he left his DNA on Joanna, just a matter of time.  This is when he’s done searches for difference between manslaughter/murder on his computer and researched about DNA.

[Caroline]

So what evidence collected pointed to Dr Vincent Tabak, that would need a profiler??  As no evidence was at trial, other than a statement on  stand... Why the need for a profiler then??

The evidence was presented at trial but it's not the kind of evidence you think ..... it's more things like

Was the crime scene (organised or disorganised).
How the victim was killed/how the body was treated after death.
Was there a sexual element?
Did the offender take a souvenir?
Etc.

This helps build up a picture of what the offender may be like which is why it's important for the profiler not to have knowledge of any suspects because it could influence his/her judgement as with Colin Stagg.

[[...]]

The evidence was presented at trial but it's not the kind of evidence you think ..... it's more things like

Was the crime scene (organised or disorganised).
How the victim was killed/how the body was treated after death.
Was there a sexual element?
Did the offender take a souvenir?
Etc.

This helps build up a picture of what the offender may be like which is why it's important for the profiler not to have knowledge of any suspects because it could influence his/her judgement as with Colin Stagg.

(1):  Crime Scene:  That must have been impossible to determine in relation to Dr Vincent Tabak, or anyone else for that matter. Greg had returned home at 8:30pm Sunday 19th December 2010, he had taken to tidying up as he went along, he had had food and drink, he had not noticed the rucksack on the table for several hours, even though he had rung Joanna Yeates mobile phone and it had rung in her pocket at 9:00pm.

The Yeates would have no idea as to how tidy or untidy Greg was, and what he would do in any circumstances, so whatever the flat looked like when The Yeates arrived, could not determine anything.  And as we have the flat tour that show a striped flat with nothing there, it doesn't mirror what the flat looked like at the time, when people lived there and items were in place....

(2): How the killing happened, or body was  treated afterwards:  Can be applied in many ways,  that could , would be based on whether or not the victim was related to said killer, or whether or not the victim was sexually assaulted,  type of murder etc, etc,...

Concealing? Joanna Yeates was out in the open, leaves were placed upon her, and a covering of snow, is said to be on top of said leaves.. That is hardly concealment, (imo) and it is all based on interpretation... And anyones view point based on a possible suspect..(imo)

Joanna Yeates T-shirt for instance was raised above her head, she was in the feotal position, leaves covered her body, she was on a grass verge, where many cars passed and dog walkers etc, she could have been found at anytime..

One could interpret that scenario as a person who knew Joanna Yeates did this, they removed her from her home to distance themselves, they pulled her T- shirt up over her head because they didn't want to look at her, or her stare back at them, they were being caring and covering her with leaves to keep her warm... The fact that she was not sexually assaulted, could also be interpreted as it being someone who knew Joanna Yeates.. Strangulation, could be seen as something personal, which could be a build up of anger, jealousy...

(3): Was there a sexual element: There was no sexual assault, there was nothing to determine as far as we know that any sexual activity had taken place, all we have left is the raising of the T-shirt and Joanna Yeates breast exposed, which could be explained away. The T-shirt I have shown, could have been used to hide Joanna Yeates face, her bra, may have rode up, Or if staged ,could have been to mimic something else..
Unless the said killer admits that he was driven by a sexual impulse, nothing points to a sexual element in this case, with the information we know...

(4):Did the Offender take a souvenir: The sock was the apparent souvenir, why? why a sock?  why not a pair of knickers or a bra, if it was sexual.. Why not a piece of jewellery... The sock the apparent souvenir was thrown away, apparently... Hardly a souvenir... We do not even know for a fact whether or not they were a pair, Joanna Yeates could have worn odd socks..

Profiling a tool..... It may look good for a TV program, but it is only opinion based on certain factors, which common sense could be applied to...  The idea that the spouse is the first port of call for instance, is based on a likely hood percentage wise, of who the perpetrator, could be, and a basic elimination of those closest to the victim as suspects.... Dependant of the type of victim..

Having no idea as to the type of victim that Joanna Yeates was in reality, we have just a few peoples opinions as to who she was.. We do not know if she had in anyway partaken in drug use for instance, whether she had an open relationship...  Whether she gambled, or borrowed money... We have no idea of what type of friends she may have had, whether or not she volunteered at any establishment.. Whether she came into contact with unsavoury characters..

Did she have a drink issue, not saying she was alcoholic, but was she a regular drinker... Her personality also is largely unknown, was she too trusting? Was she determined in her work approach, would she find ways in which to apply her knowledge and say contacts to help her achieve her goals?  Peoples work ethic and ethics in general, may differ or contradict each other, so not knowing enough about the victims own character in any sense, makes it difficult to determine what could make her a victim...

She in her working relationships could have upset someone that day, or before, and a person was just waiting for an opportunity to take revenge, knowing that she would be on her own that weekend, it gave many who were aware of this fact the opportunity not to be disturbed..

I say this because, removing a body from a flat is risky, removing a body from a flat on ones own is even more difficult, that why I say the killer needed to know what both Greg and Joanna Yeates plans were for that weekend. And that Joanna Yeates was not expecting any visitors that weekend, or had a friend that may just pop in.... Rebecca Scott for instance... Could quite as easily decided on the off chance to see her friend on her way back home, that could have been a random decision, brought on by a sudden urge..

Rebecca we have been told said that Joanna Yeates wanted to go and see her in wales that weekend... So if the weather was the reason for not going, nothing stopped Rebecca stopping off at Joanna Yeates flat on her way home, to what may be seen as making up for the fact her friend couldn't see her on the Friday 17th December 2010..

Dr Vincent Tabak not knowing Joanna Yeates or her friends would not know if any friends of Joanna yeates may or may not appear on the off chance... He would need to know them and Joanna Yeates, to be sure that didn't happen..(imo)..

This is why him apparently removing Joanna Yeates from her flat seems too risky...

The combinations of circumstances that could or could not apply to Joanna Yeates, and the possible reasons for someone to kill her are endless, based on the information known or Investigated.. If every avenue has not been exhausted and everyone close to Joanna Yeates eliminated, then concluding that a neighbour is the next most likely suspect, appears to me to be slack....

We have been told there was no sexual assault... And that finding i have to take on face value... So how would you jump from that to it having to be a neighbour?

The so called evidence of trying to kiss someone to make it appear it was sexual, is ridiculous to me... It may sort of fit, but fit what? The evidence that was already out in the public domain.... many may have forgotten or may not have seen it, but one of the tabloids had said that DNA was found on Joanna Yeates lip.... That report I cannot find now, but I do remember it and have seen it...

If we are looking at the idea of the kiss... then it would fit with the newspaper report... But if we want to use what a profiler may say, they may attribute that action as someone who cares for Joanna Yeates kissing her goodbye....

As I have said, nothing on the stand hadn't been any different to what had already been in the public domain...

But if Dr Vincent Tabak's reasoning was sexual, then what stopped him?? Nothing really, he had all the time in the world... A whole weekend... But no physical evidence of a sexual assault was presented at trial, just a wishy washy story anyone could cobble together..(imo)

The bringing in of a profiler so soon after Joanna Yeates had been found seems rushed... She was Missing until they found her on the 25th December 2010, she could have run away, had enough of her life, people really do not know...  The only way one would know would be to have a full an frank picture from those that knew her and maybe her doctors opinion...

The profiler is brought in on the 5th January 2011, or should I say that was the date of the media report, that is just 11 days after Joanna Yeates was found, not enough time to exhaust many possiblities of what happened to Joanna Yeates and why.....

Thats 11 days in which to rule out so many possibilities and so many people who knew Joanna Yeates.... 11 days in which to confirm the movements of all of these people... 11 days in which someone  who maybe stated something when Joanna yeates  was Missing, just didn't quite ring true...

11 Days in which, to check all facebook contacts and messages, all social media contact and all messages and phone calls Joanna Yeates may have made within the weekend, or weeks even months before, when she had possibly upset someone with her correspondence...

11 days in which to eliminated so many people before a profiler is brought in...

There needs to be aspects of the case that are similar to other cases to conclude a serial killer is involved, but what aspects one decides is only relative depending on what parts of each case appears to connect them..

Melanie Hall for instance.... wasn't killed at home... Her body being found years later, there was no way to determine whether or not it was a sexually motivated attack, and unless there was a ligature around her neck, no way in which to determine how she was killed.... found on a grass verge....

Glenis Carruthers... No sexual assault, found in the open by the zoo, shoe missing, left a party, for what ever reason...

Joanna Yeates, strangled in her home (apparently) found on a grass verge , no sexual assault....

[[...]]

Continued...

The lack of sexual activity connects, only Joanna Yeates and Glenis Carruthers, as it cannot be determined what happened to Melanie Hall... All found on grass verges....

Well that connects them all in away, apart from Joanna Yeates, whom was supposed to have been killed at home and then moved to a grass verge... The other two victims were already out of their homes..

College, has been mentioned as a connection, but many many women attend college/univercity...  So that is a bit of a stretch...

There has to be something more concrete to connect the victims, an MO and that isn't apparent with those 3 victims... Sexual attacks are what can and has connected a lot of victims and a serial perpetrator, but none of these women were sexually assaulted as far as we know, so that reason is lacking....

They all could be random attacks, as the person responsible for all would need to be of a certain age... That is one of the reasons I believe that they arrested CJ... His age....

But if they are looking for the wrong connection, because someone has directed the Police in a certain way, then the opportunity to catch the real killer is lost.... The concentration is based on someone elses interpretation of the evidence, and that also means that that someone needs to have access to all that evidence....

If someone is looking for a sexual connection, they will find one, dependant on how they wish to interpret said information... Doesn't make it correct...

That's why supporting evidence is essential, for starters the CCTV that DS Mark Saunders viewed of Canygne Road for the weekend of 17th December 2010 to the 19th December 2010, it could have covered even more time I do not know... But this would be evidence to prove when Joanna Yeates arrived home, or whether Joanna Yeates arrived home... important evidence that should not have been ignored....

All CCTV featuring Joanna Yeates journey should have been made available, it would show direction of journey, whether or not she stopped, spoke to anyone, whether she  went directly somewhere or not... The Cafe Nero CCTV was not presented at trial either, I only know of it's existence because of Colin Ports Leveson statement.... Which Direction and which Cafe Nero we don't know... It isn't clear, nor the timing of this CCTV...

Many elements missing from the trial... many elements missing from the investigation, many elements a profiler may not take into account....

A profiler needs to prove themselves, it's all about them..(imo).. you never hear of failures of a profiler, just how successful they are , they use vague references, and pigeon hole people to suit whatever the situation is at the time... (imo) A random set of characteristics that could be applied to many people, is therefore used as an exact apparent science in which to determine who committed said crime and why....

It makes the Police force appear inadaquate, useless, unable to collect evidence to find a killer, by resorting to a profiler... Of course there maybe ideas that the Police hadn't considered... But that should be after all points have been exhausted and maybe fresh eyes could help...

But using a profiler who themselves have a bias as to what type of person commits what crime and why... limits looking at other possibilities... There view may be tainted by their own experiences, or views and no-one questions whether or not, what they have witnessed hasn't had a physiological effect on their views of the world...

We are expected to accept that these people are well rounded and almost none human, unbiased and invincible, to be able to look objectively at crime scene after crime scene.. Not to be effected by their own beliefs or their own standing and reputation...

There are a whole host of profilers and psychologists available on TV giving us their expert opinion, based on what ever evidence available to them, a money making occupation for some... And a compelling TV viewing for others whom are fascinated with crime and what makes people tick...

This also affects juries, many jurors may have seen endless TV programs showing them the success rate of these profilers and putting these profilers in an elevated position of respect, based on a TV's re-enactment of a crime... A re-enactment that may or may not be accurate...


Profilers are fallible like anyone else, they make errors in judgement, they generalise and use language that the ordinary person doesn't know about and because they do not understand the language , based on this person education, they decide they must know what they are talking about....

We could all agree that the basic's are reasons for Murder/Manslaughter... Jealousy... greed... hatred... sexual... opportunity... Compassion... accident...

Basic's that form any starting point of any investigation... For instance someone is terminally ill, assisting someone in taking their life, may be seen as compassion... But it is still a crime...

Without investigating fully why someone has died, exhausting all possible avenues, a profiler, is not going to come up with a solution that determines a complex reason.. especially if they are only expert in one field.....

For instance... (A) was terminally ill...  and (B) agreed to assist.... If (A) committed suicide (A) wouldn't get paid out by (A's) insurance company... So (B) came up with a plan to make it look like (A) had been attacked by a stranger and removed (A) from their home and placed (A) on a verge, covering (A) with leaves and kissing (A) goodbye...

The amount of information that needed sifting through, with the internet and friends etc, should have taken a great deal of time... 200 plus facebook friends, work colleagues, friends from college, friends from school days etc, family members, spouse, many many inquiries needing checking and verifying...

All taking longer than 11 days...(imo)

One train of thought or investigation, when followed, may not bare fruit, but if another train of thought comes forth, any statements or messages, would need to be looked at again, because the context has changed...

All I see is a profiler, helps to add substance to an idea, based on said profilers reputation, but all a profiler is doing is pointing the Police in a direction... It may be the wrong direction... But no-one question this... and I do not understand why...

Yes.. The crime rate, gets cleared up, but don't you need more than someones opinion, more than a story or a confession... Don't you need evidence to support said story, don't you need evidence to support someones opinion.... Especially if someones opinion helps in capturing, arresting and convicting someone of a crime....

I could point the finger at many people whom we have come to know with this crime... And to be honest, I fell into that catergory of stating it could be someone.. But what had I based that on.... What I had heard in the papers, or on forums, social media etc...

I also do not know the full circumstances of this case, I am not privy to the information collected, I am not privy to the CCTV, I am not privy to peoples movements, or any correspondence of any type that happened, before that weekend or during that weekend....

Many aspects that make it impossible for me to point the finger, at anyone.. As I do not know enough about each persons own characteristics, to be able to determine anything... Or any other person opportunities that weekend...

To randomly choose the next door neighbour as a suspect, who didn't know his neighbour, had not met his neighbour, had no idea, if anyone was due at the flat at anytime that weekend, who's movements could be seen by the CCTV on Canygne Road and who's window of opportunity was so minute, that it seems ridiculous to even suggest that it was he....

No-one knew when Joanna Yeates died... No-one knew whether or not she reached home... Nothing put Joanna Yeates at home other than Dr Vincent Tabak, in his statement on the stand, she could have been at home or elsewhere... But the CCTV, should put Joanna Yeates in Canygne Road and arriving home, yet it was omitted from trial....

Me using different scenario's and possibilities through out my posting, only goes to show what possible lines of inquiry could be looked at and what reason they also may have been for this crime....

I find it highly suspicious, that Dr Vincent Tabak, said nothing until trial, yet was held without what appears to be evidence... That Low copy DNA cannot prove guilt, nor a minute drop of blood in a car,prove guilt... both as I have stated being able to be explained away by any competent lawyer...

Admitting guilt, isn't enough, if the reason isn't because you did it, but maybe it's because you were protecting someone else.... Or you were stupid enough to play games with the Police, and  try cause them a problem with their investigation...

If the only evidence is someone stating they did it, is that enough to go to trial, when it must be able to be shown that Joanna yeates did not reach her home on the Friday 17th December 2010, if Colin Ports Leveson statement is anything to go by... If the last sighting was The Hop House pub, then we need to know the date and time of this last sighting.... We need to exhaust every possibility as to what Joanna Yeates movements were....

We need to know for a fact that Joanna Yeates reached home in the first place... And whether she left again at any point that weekend.... There are far to many unanswered questions (imo).. And none of us should be satisfied, with a story on a stand, without supporting evidence... Physical evidence that supports anyones story... (imo)
And if a profiler, pointed them in the direction of Dr Vincent Tabak, should the said profiler have been at trial to explain why he had come to his conclusions....

Everyone should be worried that Dr Vincent Tabak's story was believed and accepted  as the evidence without any physical evidence supporting this tale... That this case wasn't thrown out or the jury directly differently..


It's implied Dr Vincent Tabak lied on the stand, it is implied that a sexual motive was the reasoning behind Dr Vincent Tabak killing Joanna yeates... It is accepted that Dr vincent tabak lied on the stand....

So why is it accepted that when Dr Vincent Tabak said he was responsible for the death of Joanna Yeates, then that must be true??

Why are people happy to accept that he said, he was responsible, yet we at the same time call him a liar...

If he is a liar, then his testimony on the stand should be disregarded, it cannot be trusted... But we seem happy to trust it when it sends someone to prison ,apparently...

So no testimony, no conviction... nothing supports that Dr Vincent Tabak committed this crime..(imo).. No physical evidence and no motive... Only parts of a testimony that supports someones idea of what may or may not have happened to Joanna yeates, spoken by the accused on the stand...

And everyone seems to wonder why I question this case..... 

[Real justice]

I find this piece of evidence very interesting, this is from someone, who’s supporters claim was not thinking straight.  Not only does he correct his Council he’s reliving the events in his head, he had no need to correct his Council he could have just replied yes to each question if he was making it up.

Defence Counsel: Then you took the body out to the street? Tabak: No. I backed the car into the drive.
Defence Counsel: Was the car facing Canynge Road? Tabak: No. The back of the car was facing Canynge Road.

[[...]]

I find this piece of evidence very interesting, this is from someone, who’s supporters claim was not thinking straight.  Not only does he correct his Council he’s reliving the events in his head, he had no need to correct his Council he could have just replied yes to each question if he was making it up.

Defence Counsel: Then you took the body out to the street? Tabak: No. I backed the car into the drive.
Defence Counsel: Was the car facing Canynge Road? Tabak: No. The back of the car was facing Canynge Road.

The only address that this statement would make accurate, is 42, Canygne Road, as there are two gates on 2 different roads for that address,, by backing a car into the gate on the Percival Road side, the back of the car would then be facing Canygne Road..

So did Dr Vincent Tabak live at 42, Caygne Road? that should be a question...

And why Clegg didn't question that statement by Dr Vincent Tabak, is strange.. to say the least.... (imo)

[Real justice]

Here again, he’s reliving the scene, he mentions sweat,

Defence Counsel: How were you feeling then?
Tabak: I was exhausted at carrying the body- my body was in a state of sweat. I took off my black jacket.


Here again he’s re living his experience, this was on the stand.

Tabak: I realised that I still had the bicycle cover in my car and the pizza and sock in my flat.
Defence Counsel: What did you decide to do? Tabak: I decided to dispose of them.
Defence Counsel: What did you do then?
Tabak: I remembered that there were some disposal containers on the road in Clifton.
Defence Counsel: What colour were these containers? Tabak: Green I think.
Defence Counsel: Were they on wheels? Tabak: I can’t remember.
Defence Counsel: Were they private or Council containers? Tabak: I don’t know.
Defence Counsel: Why were you researching about rubbish?
Tabak: I read that police were sifting through rubbish and I was afraid they would find the pizza.

If he was making things up, he would have said Green not I think,  yes or no to where they on wheels, same with private or Council containers.  When he is re living the scene and what happened his brain doesn’t let him tell lies.

[[...]]

Here again, he’s reliving the scene, he mentions sweat,

Defence Counsel: How were you feeling then?
Tabak: I was exhausted at carrying the body- my body was in a state of sweat. I took off my black jacket.


Here again he’s re living his experience, this was on the stand.

Tabak: I realised that I still had the bicycle cover in my car and the pizza and sock in my flat.
Defence Counsel: What did you decide to do? Tabak: I decided to dispose of them.
Defence Counsel: What did you do then?
Tabak: I remembered that there were some disposal containers on the road in Clifton.
Defence Counsel: What colour were these containers? Tabak: Green I think.
Defence Counsel: Were they on wheels? Tabak: I can’t remember.
Defence Counsel: Were they private or Council containers? Tabak: I don’t know.
Defence Counsel: Why were you researching about rubbish?
Tabak: I read that police were sifting through rubbish and I was afraid they would find the pizza.

If he was making things up, he would have said Green not I think,  yes or no to where they on wheels, same with private or Council containers.  When he is re living the scene and what happened his brain doesn’t let him tell lies.

You say reliving...

He could be recalling information he was told, therefore explaining why detail is Missing and his inability to answer over 80 questions..

[Real justice]

When someone is telling the truth they use the pronoun “I” to describe their actions.

Defence Counsel: What did you do?
Tabak: I put her on her bed in her bedroom.
Defence Counsel: Where did you go? Tabak: I went back to my flat.
Defence Counsel: How did you leave her door? Tabak: Open.
Defence Counsel: How long were you in your flat? Tabak: Only a couple of minutes maybe.
Defence Counsel: Where did you go then? Tabak: I went back to Joanna’s flat.

Defence Counsel: What did you do next?
Tabak: I decided to put her body in my bicycle cover.
Defence Counsel: Why did you put her body in the bicycle cover?
Tabak: I didn’t want anyone to find out and I put the body in my car.
Defence Counsel: After you put the body in the boot of your car, what did you do next? Tabak: I went back to Joanna’s flat and switched off the TV and the oven; I took away the sock and the pizza.
Defence Counsel: Why did you take the pizza and sock? Tabak: I was not thinking straight.

Defence Counsel: Then what did you do? Tabak: I went back to my flat.
Defence Counsel: Then what did you do? Tabak: I put the body into the car.
Defence Counsel: Was it easy to put the body into the car? Tabak: No.
Defence Counsel: How many attempts did you make at placing the body into the boot of the car?
Tabak: I think two.
Defence Counsel: Then when you put the body into the boot of your car, what did you do? Tabak: I went into the car.
Defence Counsel: Look at our timeline 89. Did you drive with the body in the boot of your car?
Tabak: Yes.
Defence Counsel: Look at our timeline 90-96. Why did you go to the Asda supermarket? Tabak: I was not thinking straight. I think I took upon my original plan to go to Asda.
Defence Counsel: At our timeline 100, you sent a text message to Tanja ‘How are you? I am at Asda. Buying some crisis.’ How did you feel?
Tabak: I just wanted to hear her voice; to get support and comfort.
Defence Counsel: When you left where did you drive then?
Tabak: I drove away from home; I drove in the direction of the airport; and ended up in Longwood lane.
Defence Counsel: Did you know Longwood Lane at all? Tabak: No.
Defence Counsel: Was it a quiet area, did you think? What did you decide to do? Tabak: I did something horrendous. I decided to leave her there.
Defence Counsel: Did you park your car? Tabak: Yes.
Defence Counsel: What did you do then? Tabak: I took the body out of the boot.
Defence Counsel: Having got it out of the boot, what did you do with the cover? Tabak: I put the cover eventually back into the car.
Defence Counsel: Did the cover become inverted? Tabak: I can’t remember.
Defence Counsel: What did you do then?
Tabak: I tried to hide the body. I tried to put the body over the fence.
Defence Counsel: Were you able to? Tabak: No, the body was too heavy.
Defence Counsel: Did the body come into contact with the wall? Tabak: Yes. But she was too heavy.
Defence Counsel: Part of her breast was exposed- how did that happen? Tabak: Perhaps when carrying her body.
Defence Counsel: Your DNA was found on the breast of the body- how did that come about?
Tabak: I think as I was trying to put the body over the wall.
Defence Counsel: There were many marks on the body. How did that happen?
Tabak: I at first left her by the roadside and two or 3 cars went past and I was in a state of complete panic. I’m sorry for doing that. I put her parents though hell. I’m so sorry for that. I can’t believe I did that.
Defence Counsel: How were you feeling then?
Tabak: I was exhausted at carrying the body- my body was in a state of sweat. I took off my black jacket.

[Caroline]

(1):  Crime Scene:  That must have been impossible to determine in relation to Dr Vincent Tabak, or anyone else for that matter. Greg had returned home at 8:30pm Sunday 19th December 2010, he had taken to tidying up as he went along, he had had food and drink, he had not noticed the rucksack on the table for several hours, even though he had rung Joanna Yeates mobile phone and it had rung in her pocket at 9:00pm.

The Yeates would have no idea as to how tidy or untidy Greg was, and what he would do in any circumstances, so whatever the flat looked like when The Yeates arrived, could not determine anything.  And as we have the flat tour that show a striped flat with nothing there, it doesn't mirror what the flat looked like at the time, when people lived there and items were in place....

(2): How the killing happened, or body was  treated afterwards:  Can be applied in many ways,  that could , would be based on whether or not the victim was related to said killer, or whether or not the victim was sexually assaulted,  type of murder etc, etc,...

Concealing? Joanna Yeates was out in the open, leaves were placed upon her, and a covering of snow, is said to be on top of said leaves.. That is hardly concealment, (imo) and it is all based on interpretation... And anyones view point based on a possible suspect..(imo)

Joanna Yeates T-shirt for instance was raised above her head, she was in the feotal position, leaves covered her body, she was on a grass verge, where many cars passed and dog walkers etc, she could have been found at anytime..

One could interpret that scenario as a person who knew Joanna Yeates did this, they removed her from her home to distance themselves, they pulled her T- shirt up over her head because they didn't want to look at her, or her stare back at them, they were being caring and covering her with leaves to keep her warm... The fact that she was not sexually assaulted, could also be interpreted as it being someone who knew Joanna Yeates.. Strangulation, could be seen as something personal, which could be a build up of anger, jealousy...

(3): Was there a sexual element: There was no sexual assault, there was nothing to determine as far as we know that any sexual activity had taken place, all we have left is the raising of the T-shirt and Joanna Yeates breast exposed, which could be explained away. The T-shirt I have shown, could have been used to hide Joanna Yeates face, her bra, may have rode up, Or if staged ,could have been to mimic something else..
Unless the said killer admits that he was driven by a sexual impulse, nothing points to a sexual element in this case, with the information we know...

(4):Did the Offender take a souvenir: The sock was the apparent souvenir, why? why a sock?  why not a pair of knickers or a bra, if it was sexual.. Why not a piece of jewellery... The sock the apparent souvenir was thrown away, apparently... Hardly a souvenir... We do not even know for a fact whether or not they were a pair, Joanna Yeates could have worn odd socks..

Profiling a tool..... It may look good for a TV program, but it is only opinion based on certain factors, which common sense could be applied to...  The idea that the spouse is the first port of call for instance, is based on a likely hood percentage wise, of who the perpetrator, could be, and a basic elimination of those closest to the victim as suspects.... Dependant of the type of victim..

Having no idea as to the type of victim that Joanna Yeates was in reality, we have just a few peoples opinions as to who she was.. We do not know if she had in anyway partaken in drug use for instance, whether she had an open relationship...  Whether she gambled, or borrowed money... We have no idea of what type of friends she may have had, whether or not she volunteered at any establishment.. Whether she came into contact with unsavoury characters..

Did she have a drink issue, not saying she was alcoholic, but was she a regular drinker... Her personality also is largely unknown, was she too trusting? Was she determined in her work approach, would she find ways in which to apply her knowledge and say contacts to help her achieve her goals?  Peoples work ethic and ethics in general, may differ or contradict each other, so not knowing enough about the victims own character in any sense, makes it difficult to determine what could make her a victim...

She in her working relationships could have upset someone that day, or before, and a person was just waiting for an opportunity to take revenge, knowing that she would be on her own that weekend, it gave many who were aware of this fact the opportunity not to be disturbed..

I say this because, removing a body from a flat is risky, removing a body from a flat on ones own is even more difficult, that why I say the killer needed to know what both Greg and Joanna Yeates plans were for that weekend. And that Joanna Yeates was not expecting any visitors that weekend, or had a friend that may just pop in.... Rebecca Scott for instance... Could quite as easily decided on the off chance to see her friend on her way back home, that could have been a random decision, brought on by a sudden urge..

Rebecca we have been told said that Joanna Yeates wanted to go and see her in wales that weekend... So if the weather was the reason for not going, nothing stopped Rebecca stopping off at Joanna Yeates flat on her way home, to what may be seen as making up for the fact her friend couldn't see her on the Friday 17th December 2010..

Dr Vincent Tabak not knowing Joanna Yeates or her friends would not know if any friends of Joanna yeates may or may not appear on the off chance... He would need to know them and Joanna Yeates, to be sure that didn't happen..(imo)..

This is why him apparently removing Joanna Yeates from her flat seems too risky...

The combinations of circumstances that could or could not apply to Joanna Yeates, and the possible reasons for someone to kill her are endless, based on the information known or Investigated.. If every avenue has not been exhausted and everyone close to Joanna Yeates eliminated, then concluding that a neighbour is the next most likely suspect, appears to me to be slack....

We have been told there was no sexual assault... And that finding i have to take on face value... So how would you jump from that to it having to be a neighbour?

The so called evidence of trying to kiss someone to make it appear it was sexual, is ridiculous to me... It may sort of fit, but fit what? The evidence that was already out in the public domain.... many may have forgotten or may not have seen it, but one of the tabloids had said that DNA was found on Joanna Yeates lip.... That report I cannot find now, but I do remember it and have seen it...

If we are looking at the idea of the kiss... then it would fit with the newspaper report... But if we want to use what a profiler may say, they may attribute that action as someone who cares for Joanna Yeates kissing her goodbye....

As I have said, nothing on the stand hadn't been any different to what had already been in the public domain...

But if Dr Vincent Tabak's reasoning was sexual, then what stopped him?? Nothing really, he had all the time in the world... A whole weekend... But no physical evidence of a sexual assault was presented at trial, just a wishy washy story anyone could cobble together..(imo)

The bringing in of a profiler so soon after Joanna Yeates had been found seems rushed... She was Missing until they found her on the 25th December 2010, she could have run away, had enough of her life, people really do not know...  The only way one would know would be to have a full an frank picture from those that knew her and maybe her doctors opinion...

The profiler is brought in on the 5th January 2011, or should I say that was the date of the media report, that is just 11 days after Joanna Yeates was found, not enough time to exhaust many possiblities of what happened to Joanna Yeates and why.....

Thats 11 days in which to rule out so many possibilities and so many people who knew Joanna Yeates.... 11 days in which to confirm the movements of all of these people... 11 days in which someone  who maybe stated something when Joanna yeates  was Missing, just didn't quite ring true...

11 Days in which, to check all facebook contacts and messages, all social media contact and all messages and phone calls Joanna Yeates may have made within the weekend, or weeks even months before, when she had possibly upset someone with her correspondence...

11 days in which to eliminated so many people before a profiler is brought in...

There needs to be aspects of the case that are similar to other cases to conclude a serial killer is involved, but what aspects one decides is only relative depending on what parts of each case appears to connect them..

Melanie Hall for instance.... wasn't killed at home... Her body being found years later, there was no way to determine whether or not it was a sexually motivated attack, and unless there was a ligature around her neck, no way in which to determine how she was killed.... found on a grass verge....

Glenis Carruthers... No sexual assault, found in the open by the zoo, shoe missing, left a party, for what ever reason...

Joanna Yeates, strangled in her home (apparently) found on a grass verge , no sexual assault....

Seriously, I can't be bothered to read all of that Nine but the list I gave was general and not specific. Those are the KIND of things that are considered but each case is different with it's own specific list.

[Caroline]

Continued...

The lack of sexual activity connects, only Joanna Yeates and Glenis Carruthers, as it cannot be determined what happened to Melanie Hall... All found on grass verges....

Well that connects them all in away, apart from Joanna Yeates, whom was supposed to have been killed at home and then moved to a grass verge... The other two victims were already out of their homes..

College, has been mentioned as a connection, but many many women attend college/univercity...  So that is a bit of a stretch...

There has to be something more concrete to connect the victims, an MO and that isn't apparent with those 3 victims... Sexual attacks are what can and has connected a lot of victims and a serial perpetrator, but none of these women were sexually assaulted as far as we know, so that reason is lacking....

They all could be random attacks, as the person responsible for all would need to be of a certain age... That is one of the reasons I believe that they arrested CJ... His age....

But if they are looking for the wrong connection, because someone has directed the Police in a certain way, then the opportunity to catch the real killer is lost.... The concentration is based on someone elses interpretation of the evidence, and that also means that that someone needs to have access to all that evidence....

If someone is looking for a sexual connection, they will find one, dependant on how they wish to interpret said information... Doesn't make it correct...

That's why supporting evidence is essential, for starters the CCTV that DS Mark Saunders viewed of Canygne Road for the weekend of 17th December 2010 to the 19th December 2010, it could have covered even more time I do not know... But this would be evidence to prove when Joanna Yeates arrived home, or whether Joanna Yeates arrived home... important evidence that should not have been ignored....

All CCTV featuring Joanna Yeates journey should have been made available, it would show direction of journey, whether or not she stopped, spoke to anyone, whether she  went directly somewhere or not... The Cafe Nero CCTV was not presented at trial either, I only know of it's existence because of Colin Ports Leveson statement.... Which Direction and which Cafe Nero we don't know... It isn't clear, nor the timing of this CCTV...

Many elements missing from the trial... many elements missing from the investigation, many elements a profiler may not take into account....

A profiler needs to prove themselves, it's all about them..(imo).. you never hear of failures of a profiler, just how successful they are , they use vague references, and pigeon hole people to suit whatever the situation is at the time... (imo) A random set of characteristics that could be applied to many people, is therefore used as an exact apparent science in which to determine who committed said crime and why....

It makes the Police force appear inadaquate, useless, unable to collect evidence to find a killer, by resorting to a profiler... Of course there maybe ideas that the Police hadn't considered... But that should be after all points have been exhausted and maybe fresh eyes could help...

But using a profiler who themselves have a bias as to what type of person commits what crime and why... limits looking at other possibilities... There view may be tainted by their own experiences, or views and no-one questions whether or not, what they have witnessed hasn't had a physiological effect on their views of the world...

We are expected to accept that these people are well rounded and almost none human, unbiased and invincible, to be able to look objectively at crime scene after crime scene.. Not to be effected by their own beliefs or their own standing and reputation...

There are a whole host of profilers and psychologists available on TV giving us their expert opinion, based on what ever evidence available to them, a money making occupation for some... And a compelling TV viewing for others whom are fascinated with crime and what makes people tick...

This also affects juries, many jurors may have seen endless TV programs showing them the success rate of these profilers and putting these profilers in an elevated position of respect, based on a TV's re-enactment of a crime... A re-enactment that may or may not be accurate...


Profilers are fallible like anyone else, they make errors in judgement, they generalise and use language that the ordinary person doesn't know about and because they do not understand the language , based on this person education, they decide they must know what they are talking about....

We could all agree that the basic's are reasons for Murder/Manslaughter... Jealousy... greed... hatred... sexual... opportunity... Compassion... accident...

Basic's that form any starting point of any investigation... For instance someone is terminally ill, assisting someone in taking their life, may be seen as compassion... But it is still a crime...

Without investigating fully why someone has died, exhausting all possible avenues, a profiler, is not going to come up with a solution that determines a complex reason.. especially if they are only expert in one field.....

For instance... (A) was terminally ill...  and (B) agreed to assist.... If (A) committed suicide (A) wouldn't get paid out by (A's) insurance company... So (B) came up with a plan to make it look like (A) had been attacked by a stranger and removed (A) from their home and placed (A) on a verge, covering (A) with leaves and kissing (A) goodbye...

The amount of information that needed sifting through, with the internet and friends etc, should have taken a great deal of time... 200 plus facebook friends, work colleagues, friends from college, friends from school days etc, family members, spouse, many many inquiries needing checking and verifying...

All taking longer than 11 days...(imo)

One train of thought or investigation, when followed, may not bare fruit, but if another train of thought comes forth, any statements or messages, would need to be looked at again, because the context has changed...

All I see is a profiler, helps to add substance to an idea, based on said profilers reputation, but all a profiler is doing is pointing the Police in a direction... It may be the wrong direction... But no-one question this... and I do not understand why...

Yes.. The crime rate, gets cleared up, but don't you need more than someones opinion, more than a story or a confession... Don't you need evidence to support said story, don't you need evidence to support someones opinion.... Especially if someones opinion helps in capturing, arresting and convicting someone of a crime....

I could point the finger at many people whom we have come to know with this crime... And to be honest, I fell into that catergory of stating it could be someone.. But what had I based that on.... What I had heard in the papers, or on forums, social media etc...

I also do not know the full circumstances of this case, I am not privy to the information collected, I am not privy to the CCTV, I am not privy to peoples movements, or any correspondence of any type that happened, before that weekend or during that weekend....

Many aspects that make it impossible for me to point the finger, at anyone.. As I do not know enough about each persons own characteristics, to be able to determine anything... Or any other person opportunities that weekend...

To randomly choose the next door neighbour as a suspect, who didn't know his neighbour, had not met his neighbour, had no idea, if anyone was due at the flat at anytime that weekend, who's movements could be seen by the CCTV on Canygne Road and who's window of opportunity was so minute, that it seems ridiculous to even suggest that it was he....

No-one knew when Joanna Yeates died... No-one knew whether or not she reached home... Nothing put Joanna Yeates at home other than Dr Vincent Tabak, in his statement on the stand, she could have been at home or elsewhere... But the CCTV, should put Joanna Yeates in Canygne Road and arriving home, yet it was omitted from trial....

Me using different scenario's and possibilities through out my posting, only goes to show what possible lines of inquiry could be looked at and what reason they also may have been for this crime....

I find it highly suspicious, that Dr Vincent Tabak, said nothing until trial, yet was held without what appears to be evidence... That Low copy DNA cannot prove guilt, nor a minute drop of blood in a car,prove guilt... both as I have stated being able to be explained away by any competent lawyer...

Admitting guilt, isn't enough, if the reason isn't because you did it, but maybe it's because you were protecting someone else.... Or you were stupid enough to play games with the Police, and  try cause them a problem with their investigation...

If the only evidence is someone stating they did it, is that enough to go to trial, when it must be able to be shown that Joanna yeates did not reach her home on the Friday 17th December 2010, if Colin Ports Leveson statement is anything to go by... If the last sighting was The Hop House pub, then we need to know the date and time of this last sighting.... We need to exhaust every possibility as to what Joanna Yeates movements were....

We need to know for a fact that Joanna Yeates reached home in the first place... And whether she left again at any point that weekend.... There are far to many unanswered questions (imo).. And none of us should be satisfied, with a story on a stand, without supporting evidence... Physical evidence that supports anyones story... (imo)
And if a profiler, pointed them in the direction of Dr Vincent Tabak, should the said profiler have been at trial to explain why he had come to his conclusions....

Everyone should be worried that Dr Vincent Tabak's story was believed and accepted  as the evidence without any physical evidence supporting this tale... That this case wasn't thrown out or the jury directly differently..


It's implied Dr Vincent Tabak lied on the stand, it is implied that a sexual motive was the reasoning behind Dr Vincent Tabak killing Joanna yeates... It is accepted that Dr vincent tabak lied on the stand....

So why is it accepted that when Dr Vincent Tabak said he was responsible for the death of Joanna Yeates, then that must be true??

Why are people happy to accept that he said, he was responsible, yet we at the same time call him a liar...

If he is a liar, then his testimony on the stand should be disregarded, it cannot be trusted... But we seem happy to trust it when it sends someone to prison ,apparently...

So no testimony, no conviction... nothing supports that Dr Vincent Tabak committed this crime..(imo).. No physical evidence and no motive... Only parts of a testimony that supports someones idea of what may or may not have happened to Joanna yeates, spoken by the accused on the stand...

And everyone seems to wonder why I question this case.....

What on earth are you talking about? Her keys put her at home, her handbag, her phone! How can you not see this? And his motive was SEXUAL, his DNA was on her exposed breast for gods sake!  Yes, she did leave the flat again, her dead body was carried out by one Vincent Tabak after he killed her because he couldn't control his sexual urges. He doesn't deserve the title of 'Dr' which you keep furnishing him with. Doctors preserve life where they can and respect it when they can't. Tabak is simply a filthy pervert who took the life of a young woman because he was an inadequate human being! I have no idea why you have a fascination for this man but it is clouding you ability to see and understand the basic facts.

Someone comes home expecting to see their partner there, initially they aren't worried but as time goes on, they become concerned and call said person - they hear the familiar sound of said persons phone. The worry deepens and only escalates as they find said persons bag and keys! Then they don't come home! Where do you imagine was the last place said person might have been and where the investigation to find said person should start? Don't think inside or outside of a box - just apply some common sense! I'll give you a clue, it wouldn't start with what they 'don't know'!

[Myster]

One of the great unfathomable mysteries of the Universe is... who keeps giving nine a like for everything she posts?   

[Real justice]

Who forced him to say this if he was innocent
Defence Counsel: You and Tanja continued living at Flat 2. How did you manage? Tabak: I was drinking a lot of alcohol and doing a lot of Internet research.
Defence Counsel: What did you think would happen?
Tabak: I was sure I would be arrested. Tanya kept me going. Can I say that I am really sorry for being responsible for her death. I am really sorry for putting her parents through all that worry that week before she was found.


He’s admitting again that he is responsible, he had no need to say this if he was innocent, why mention her parents?  This isn’t rehearsed it’s spontaneous statement by him.

  All this theory about Joanna being alive for the weekend  crap, the pathology indicated the last melal she ever ate was Cheesey chips with her boyfriend at lunch time, sadly she never got to eat the Pizza she bought home.

[Real justice]

What on earth are you talking about? Her keys put her at home, her handbag, her phone! How can you not see this? And his motive was SEXUAL, his DNA was on her exposed breast for gods sake!  Yes, she did leave the flat again, her dead body was carried out by one Vincent Tabak after he killed her because he couldn't control his sexual urges. He doesn't deserve the title of 'Dr' which you keep furnishing him with. Doctors preserve life where they can and respect it when they can't. Tabak is simply a filthy pervert who took the life of a young woman because he was an inadequate human being! I have no idea why you have a fascination for this man but it is clouding you ability to see and understand the basic facts.

Someone comes home expecting to see their partner there, initially they aren't worried but as time goes on, they become concerned and call said person - they hear the familiar sound of said persons phone. The worry deepens and only escalates as they find said persons bag and keys! Then they don't come home! Where do you imagine was the last place said person might have been and where the investigation to find said person should start? Don't think inside or outside of a box - just apply some common sense! I'll give you a clue, it wouldn't start with what they 'don't know'!

Nine is defendeding the undefendable and using the same tactic we’ve seen in the Bamber case, attacking anyone involved, police, Jefferies, Joanna’s parents, boyfriend, profilers ect.  It’s called deflecting any blame of Tabak, Nine claims to have a problem with this conviction, I don’t think Nine has a problem with the conviction, Nine’s problem lies with the fact Tabak got caught!