The Defence Will State Their Case

[[...]]

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s.34
Limitations on police detention

 34. - (1) A person arrested for an offence shall not be kept in police detention except in accordance with the provisions of this Part of this Act.

 (2) Subject to subsection (3) below, if at any time a custody officer -

(a) becomes aware, in relation to any person in police detention, that the grounds for the detention of that person have ceased to apply; and
(b) is not aware of any other grounds on which the continued detention of that person could be justified under the provisions of this Part of this Act,

it shall be the duty of the custody officer, subject to subsection (4) below, to order his immediate release from custody.

 (3) No person in police detention shall be released except on the authority of a custody officer at the police station where his detention was authorised or, if it was authorised at more than one station, a custody officer at the station where it was last authorised.

 (4) A person who appears to the custody officer to have been unlawfully at large when he was arrested is not to be released under subsection (2) above.

 (5) A person whose release is ordered under subsection (2) above shall be released without bail unless it appears to the custody officer -

(a) that there is need for further investigation of any matter in connection with which he was detained at any time during the period of his detention; or
(b) that proceedings may be taken against him in respect of any such matter,

and, if it so appears, he shall be released on bail.

 (6) For the purposes of this Part of this Act a person arrested under section 6(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is arrested for an offence.

 (7) For the purposes of this Part of this Act a person who returns to a police station to answer to bail or is arrested under section 46A below shall be treated as arrested for an offence and the offence in connection with which he was granted bail shall be deemed to be that offence.

It is this part of the quote....

(5) A person whose release is ordered under subsection (2) above shall be released without bail unless it appears to the custody officer -

(a) that there is need for further investigation of any matter in connection with which he was detained at any time during the period of his detention; or
(b) that proceedings may be taken against him in respect of any such matter,

CJ was released on Bail....  As the Police assertained that in no way was CJ responsible or involved with the death of Joanna Yeates I conclude it has to be (a) that it is in connection to him being bailed...

So what matter needed further Investigation by the police in relation to CJ??

For me that can only be who CJ saw that weekend.... And if he saw the real perperater at the gate, then that couldn't have been Dr Vincent Tabak, as he was already in custody and if CJ had seen Dr Vincent Tabak, they wouldn't have kept CJ on Bail.....

So I believe the people at the gate are those who are involved with the death of Joanna Yeates and not Dr Vincent Tabak...  And by March 2011.. someone was no longer being investigated... Or they could no longer investigate this person...



https://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/detentio.htm

[[...]]

I want to revisit this quote... from this post :
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg414580#msg414580

Clio said:
05-04-2011 11:17 AM
Courtserve listing for the Old Bailey for tomorrow (5th May) states

Court 2 - sitting at 10:00 am


THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE FIELD

For Mention (Defendant to Attend)
U20110387 Vincent TABAK

Via PVL - Bristol Crown Court Case - T20117031
Wonder why it says "For Mention" rather than "Plea and Case Management"...

http://www.courtserve2.net/courtlist...T110505.01.htm

It's this case number U20110387 ??? what does the "U" denote??

"T" in a case number I assume means trial...  But "U" seems to mean something else....  I went back to the law pages to look for Dr Vincent Tabak's case and came across something that peeked my interest....

  Central Criminal Court List   14/12/2017   
Search:
    LOCATION       COURT       CASE N0.       DEFENDANT/S
   Central Criminal Court   11   T2017024 Tim Varchmin
   
Central Criminal Court   10   T20177322 Emil Asparuhov Hristov
   
Central Criminal Court   8   U20171154 S.74 Socpa
   
Central Criminal Court   7   T20167316 John Buwalda
   
Central Criminal Court   1   T20177345 Paul Akinnuoye

These are todays listings... the case marked with the letter "U" is U20171154 S.74 Socpa, I looked up
Socpa stands for... "The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005" (I believe)

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/socpa_agreements_-_note_for_those_representing_assisting_offenders/


Any case I find that denotes a "U" doesn't have the defendants name.... The quote below is from various dates in December 2017.. images attached...

Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey)   18   U2017114     Po 218/2017 PaceCentral

Criminal Court (Old Bailey)         18            U20171140   Po 184/2017 Poca

Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey)   1   U20171126   Po 39/2017 Ss
   
Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey)   1   U20171127   Po 40/2017 Ss
   
Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey)   17   U20171129   Po 11/2017 Amo
   

I am trying to understand why these cases Do Not have a defendants name when the letter "U" is before a case number....  Is there something significant about the use of the letter "U" in these cases...

So what does it mean in terms of Dr Vincent Tabak case Number U20110387 at the Old Bailey in May 2011




[attachment deleted by admin]

[[...]]

Every time I look, there are many coincidences and i don't believe that everything can be a coincidence...

We have been told that Joanna Yeates worked for BDP and we have always believed that their Offices were near to The Bristol Ram  ..... BDP is on Hill Street...

KEITH RETIRED FROM BDP IN 2013.

Keith is a main board director and heads our Bristol studio. He directs a range of projects across the educational and commercial sectors.

Keith has been with us since 1973 and helped bring Whicheloe Macfarlane and BDP together to create a new BDP southwest regional capability, based around vibrant studios in Bristol and Winchester.

Now from Companies House... WHICHELOE MACFARLANE PARTNERSHIP LIMITED
Company number 02679625

PAVEY, Keith Clifford

Correspondence address
23 Westgate, Caledonian Road, Bristol, BS1 6JR
Role RESIGNED
Director
Date of birth
April 1948
Appointed on
17 December 2002
Resigned on
30 June 2013
Nationality
British
Occupation

Chartered Architect

So with that in my mind does it makes 2 Offices where Joanna Yeates may have worked... And would make sense of Emma the FLO's speech being on the harbour side, as it is quite possible that was the Office that Joanna Yeates worked in...

And would also make sense of Joanna Yeates walking up the hill to the Ram Pub after being at an ATM with Darragh Bewell....

Is it possible that BDP staff worked at 23 Westgate, Caledonian Road, Bristol, BS1 6JR ?? Is it possible Joanna Yeates worked near the harbour side??


https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02679625/officers

http://www.bdp.com/en/files-not-in-use/retired/Keith-Pavey/?id=55617&epslanguage=en

[[...]]

leonora, this article tells of timeline with the first appeal being on the 20th December 2010

20 December

Avon and Somerset police make their first appeal for information over Yeates's disappearance. Officers say they are concerned for her safety because it is out of character.

Haven't yet found any articles with that actual date ...

What information did the police have on the 20th December 2010 to appeal for information within hours of Greg Reardon reporting Joanna Yeates missing ???  Did the Police know before the 20th December 2010 that Joanna Yeates was Missing??

CJ said at The Leveson that Joanna Yeates was reported missing on the 19th December 2010... And the Police said that Greg rang on the Monday 20th December 2010...

Yeates's boyfriend, Greg Reardon, returned from a weekend away on the evening of Sunday 19 December to find Yeates missing, though her mobile phone, keys, purse and coat were there.

At 12.45am he dialled 999 and less than four hours later a police officer banged on the door of Flat two. Tabak answered and denied all knowledge.

It should follow that 12:45am is the Monday morning.... but is it?? Someone is telling untruths here.... that is for sure.... I think it is about time that Joanna Yeates boyfriend let us know what happened (imo).. He has never said anything apart from that one TV Interview that was pulled...

There were statements made in the papers apparently by him... but we don't know how accurate they are unless he himself talks to us in person....

Why didn't Clegg cross examine Greg Reardon, instead of letting Greg Reardon tell his version of what happened when he arrived home... The Prosecution were happy to cross examine Dr Vincent Tabak.... How could the defence be so certain that Greg Reardon's memory of what he did at a time of what would have been great distress was clearly fixed in his mind... There might have been something that Greg Reardon had noticed in the flat , that could have made a difference to Dr Vincent Tabak's defence.... Something unusual... maybe the night lock on the door, or what Joanna Yeates routine was when she arrived home from a hard days work....

I myself like to change out of the clothes I have been wearing and put something more comfortable on if I am not going anywhere.... 

Slippers for instance... did Joanna Yeates wear her slippers when she got home... there has been no mention of such items...

I would say that you are not going to start cooking until you have made yourself comfortable, especially as it was extremely cold.. No mention of the heating being on...  Did she leave her green fleece on?? that wasn't mentioned either...

So why if she was getting ready to pop a Pizza in the oven did she not take off all her outdoor clothing or put on  something warm and cozy for her apparent night in???

Why didn't Clegg ask Greg what Joanna's routine at home was on returning from a usual day at work?? I'm sure most of us have one... Was the heating switched on?? she had been in the kitchen near the heating control...  Talking of the heating I never noticed the thermostat for it?? how old was the boiler?? did it have a remote control??

If Joanna Yeates was apparently attacked as soon as she entered her home, when did she have time to turn the oven on??? Or open the cider?? They cannot have it both ways....

She either had time to do all of these things... which then makes it relevant as to her routine on returning home... Or she was attacked immediately on entering her home and therefore couldn't have switched the oven on....

Which makes Dr Vincent Tabak trail statement that he went back to switch the oven off, complete poppy cock, which the prosecution didn't challenge as far as I am aware....

The routine of Joanna Yeates returning home is important..... Because we all have one I believe.... And if she was in a rush not to get comfortable and the first thing she did was to switch the oven on to put the Pizza in.....  Then I believe i was because she was expecting someone, and was rushing to have everything ready on their arrival...

Otherwise I believe that she would have had the time to make herself comfortable, maybe in her dressing gown and slippers and lounged around waiting for her Pizza to cook.....

Dr Vincent Tabak has NO NEED to mention turning the oven off!! So why was it relevant at trial??  Someone turned the oven Off (imo) And I don't believe it was Dr Vincent Tabak! Clegg had to get his information from somewhere... and it wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak, as no-one knew what Dr vincent Tabak was going to say until he arrived at court.... Not even Clegg!! (imo)

So who gave Clegg the information for his opening speech??? Because it sure as hell wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak... (imo)

Defence Counsel, Mr William Clegg, QC’s opening speech:
 ‘If Jo Yeates had stayed for just one more drink she would be alive today. If Vincent
Tabak had gone to Asda as he had planned that same time, he would not be in the dock
today.
She turned on the oven to bake.

And...

He went to his flat and left Joanna’s flat door on the latch.
He returned.
He turned off the oven that she had turned on.

And

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.

It is mentioned 3 times by the defence.... Did The prosecution argue that it wasn't true???

So... she had time to turn the oven on... So did she have time to get herself comfortable or was she expecting a visitor??


Simple questions that should have been asked of the man that lived with Joanna Yeates were not.... That's just basics.. Yet Clegg didn't do any of that... Again I will say he did not defend his client (imo)


https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/30/joanna-yeates-disappearance-murder-timeline

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-case-vincent-tabak

http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf

[[...]]

A missing pizza
Although there's no CCTV to prove it, detectives believed Joanna made it home to her flat because the Tesco receipt for the pizza was later discovered there, along with the coat she had been wearing that night, her mobile phone and keys. But from there, they were at a loss. Where was she? Why did she appear to have vanished into thin air?

What else made the Police believe that Joanna yeates made it home to her Flat on that evening??

I'm scratching my head... We know that there was private CCTV on Canygne Road and The Police saw cars and people milling about, but have never stated that Joanna Yeates was on that CCTV... even Colin Port had stated at The Leveson, that The Hop house pub was the last known images of Joanna Yeates...

It has been mentioned by many that someone could have simply returned Joanna Yeates items back to her home address, to make it appear that she arrived home.... But I would have imagined that the Police would have looked at that possible scenario....

So what are we left with that would make the police believe that she reached home other than her clothing bag etc being there ??

There are two possibilties that would say Joanna Yeates reached her home, that I can think of.....

(1):Alarm system ??

(2):Computer ??

If her computer was used, then it would log a time and date on which she may have view anything...

But I favour that an alarm system could be in place.... 
We have the little box in the kitchen underneath the boiler,where the system could be located... we have various door contacts we can see around the flat ... One which I pointed out above the red bookcase, and other above the doors in the Flat....

So did Joanna Yeates have a system where she also had a fob on a keyring in case of emergencies??

Package Contents
 
1 x Sentry Pro GSM Control Panel
4 x Wireless wide-angle PIR’s
4 x Wireless door/window contacts
4 x Wireless key fobs with built-in panic button
1 x Internal siren
1 x 12v mains powered external strobe siren
Batteries included for all sensors

There's an alarm attached to the building on that side of the building (image attached).. and I see no other alarms around the building..

Is this the reason the Police believe Joanna Yeates reached home ??? Because...

Full alarm history available - see what zone, date and time historic activations occurred.

(I am not saying this is the system installed , but giving an idea of what is available.... )

So with a full history of use they would know when someone entered or exited setting said alarm.....  There is never any mention of this alarm system we can see around Joanna Yeates Flat.. But that would therefore give the 'Police" another reason at the time to suspect "CJ".... And why there Investigation was centred on that house!!!

The Police never went further afield in regards to this Investigation... they focused soley on 44, Canygne Road....

If Joanna Yeates had a working alarm system in her Flat, where are the logs for it???  Was it always switched on when leaving the property??

The alarm system is never mentioned at all... But (imo) there has to be more than just her possesions lying around the Flat for the Police to say that they believe she had arrived home.... And the only logical reason I can think of is the alarm system...

They only say "believe"... they do not state it as fact.... So is that the reason they got excited when CJ said he saw people at the gate ??? Because we have no CCTV footage putting Joanna Yeates on Canygne Road on that evening either arriving or leaving ...  Yet we have her shopping and Clothing and other possessions at her home... And the distinct possibility that an alarm code could be needed to enter said Flat... 

As I said the other day... Joanna Yeates routine on entering her home is important.... Did she turn off the alarm system??? was the alarm system switched on ????

These are the questions that Clegg could have asked Joanna Yeates boyfriend at trial..... because without knowing the basic's we are all left guessing !!


Question....  Is the alarm history the reason the Police give us a time of Joanna Yeates death, and the date of Joanna Yeates death?? They always insisted it had been the 17th December 2010 from the very begining of the "Missing Person Inquiry"...

And again the "Alarm System" (imo) could be the only concrete evidence that would show that the house had not been entered after the 17th December 2010 by Joanna Yeates... Giving the Police a record of the occupants movements..
And making sense of why they always stuck with the 17th December 2010 at a time of around 8-45 pm and 9:00pm
 for her time of Joanna Yeates being attacked....
Because I cannot see any other way in which they could assume a time and date of an attack on Joanna Yeates...

And their believing she arrived at her home.... Because quite frankly she could have gone anywhere at any time over that weekend, even if she didn't reply to texts, they could never have known at such an early stage, when she was last seen and by whom... unless there happened to be another way of proving that she could have entered her Flat.... And an alarm system is the only thing left...(imo)

Edit Is this the reason that "The Yeates" believed and said that Joanna Yeates had been abducted?? because the alarm hadn't been reset at the Flat?????

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/a14432079/joanna-yeates-murder-anniversary-vincent-tabak-christopher-jefferies/

http://www.global-gadgets.co.uk/sentry-pro-wireless-gsm-auto-dial-house-alarm-solution-3-132-p.asp?gclid=CjwKCAiA1O3RBRBHEiwAq5fD_DY69o_0bdPFT2DyUcO5-vsOGvB7f7vKHCxYyO4z-Sdf8ZClGZZCLhoCANYQAvD_BwE


[attachment deleted by admin]

[John]

The last time he appeared in court, in 2014, his instructing solicitor was Nick Kelcey and his defence councel was Dean Armstrong. There are good reasons to assume that he has retained the same law firms.

I think we will e-mail them and see who is now representing him so that we can make contact.  There have been several questions raised on here which I too would like an answer to from Mr Tabak just to set the record straight.

[[...]]

I think we will e-mail them and see who is now representing him so that we can make contact.  There have been several questions raised on here which I too would like an answer to from Mr Tabak just to set the record straight.

That's great John.... 

I just had another thought....  Back to the alarm system....  I presume when using an alarm system you set the date and time on it... (correct).... Was the wrong date set on this alarm system???

Did it have the 16th December 2010 on it ???.... instead of the 17th December 2010??

That would make sense as to why they charged Dr Vincent Tabak from the 16th December 2010 to the 19th December 2010...

There was no reason to say the 16th December 2010 when charging Dr Vincent Tabak with this crime ,when everyone who made a statement made it to prove that Joanna Yeates was alive on the 17th December 2010... Leaving only the possibility of an electronic record giving us the 16th December 2010...

And the alarm system is the only record I can think of that would give the Police a record of when Joanna Yeates last entered Flat 1....

Either that or the alarm system was not set on the 17th December 2010 and the last known entry was the 16th December 2010...

There has to be a reason for the charge date for Dr Vincent Tabak!!.. (imo)  I've been around the houses suggesting she may have died the day before, but I think the key is the alarm system to dating most things in relation to Joanna Yeates movements in and out of Flat 1...

[John]

As there were no witnesses who encountered Joanna after she returned home the police must have accepted that she was killed that same evening and not the following day.   

[[...]]

Was Dr Vincent Tabak arrested on the 19th January 2011??

Police in Bristol investigating the murder of landscape architect Joanna Yeates have arrested the boyfriend of Tanja Morson who works at Dyson in Malmesbury.

Dutchman Vincent Tabak, 32, a neighbour of Miss Yeates, was seized by police in a pre dawn raid on Wednesday and arrested on suspicion of her murder.

Now to get the date wrong by typo is understandable , But... to type the day differently is Interesting... 

Had they arrested Dr Vincent Tabak on the Wednesday 19th January 2010 ??  Possible??  That would have given them the time they needed to apply for an extension....

The other curious statements Mr Morson makes...

Her parents, speaking from their Cambridgeshire home, confirmed she had a relationship with with Tabak.

Geoffrey Morson said: ''We are a very close family and I speak to my daughter all the time but she has not told me anything. “I do not know if he is her boyfriend or not.

''He's a boy, she's a girl and they are friendly with each other.

''Obviously this is a murder investigation and the public have the right to know about it but I don't know any more than I have read in the newspapers.

Now I thought that Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson had gone to stay with her parents over Christmas and apparently that DC Karen Thomas had called Dr Vincent Tabak whilst he was visiting with Tanja to clarify a few things....

On Christmas Eve, Detective Constable Karen Thomas, a member of the police's major crime investigation team, spoke to Tabak by telephone about his movements on the night of Yeates's disappearance. He told her he was in all evening before driving in the early hours of the morning to pick up Morson after a work party.

Also lets not forget Gunter Morson and the Tweet about the idiot who was wrong.... How does that stack up with Mr Morson not knowing anything about the case other than what he had read in the papers??? That simply doesn't makes sense....

His daughter apparently lived next door to a Murder victim and he has not asked her a single question whilst her and Dr Vincent Tabak were visiting for the festive period???

Geoffrey Morson said: ''We are a very close family and I speak to my daughter all the time but she has not told me anything. “I do not know if he is her boyfriend or not.

Very close ?? speak all the time... no mention of the visit... why even be Interviewed?? Evasive as to whether they were an item or not... Wouldn't No Comment have been more in keeping... Why agree to an Interview at all??

Geoffrey Morson is NOT A Stupid man.... His response to this Interview is extremely odd (imo) There is NO need for him to comment whatsoever... yet he does... He doesn't need to defend his daughters honour, nothing has been proven, it's just an arrest... His choice to engage with the media at such an early stage of Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest to make light almost of whether his daughter and Dr Vincent Tabak were an official item seems inappropriate...

With his legal knowledge and vast experience I couldn't understand why on earth he made such a statement!

International US Lawyer
Brexit Legal Network Ltd.   Harvard Law School
Cambridge, United Kingdom  500+ 500+ connections
Substantial experience in US international litigation matters, US international tax disputes, Swiss bank secrecy matters, RICO and white collar crime (including representation of numerous European victims of Bernard Madoff and his various offshore "feeder funds".

He's an educated man, whom I believe would steer clear of the media considering his position... yet we apparently have an odd statement not confirming whether his daughter was the girlfriend in an official capacity just after Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest... 

Why would Geoffrey Morson even bother to divulge this information?? It doesn't make sense to me ...

Her parents, speaking from their Cambridgeshire home, confirmed she had a relationship with with Tabak.

Confirmed?? why bother or is it accurate that they were just boy-friend and girl- friend as in the context that is suggested by Geoffrey Morson??

We have nothing to confirm or deny that Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson were partners either.. No-one at trial describing there loving relationship... No-one in the papers telling their story of this romance between them..

Where was the gossip and kiss and tell stories about Dr Vincent Tabak?? We are told he never had a girlfriend before Tanja, so maybe that could account for it.. yet someone could have made comments as to his inappropriate behaviour.... Tanja too... where were the stories of boyfriends or friends worried about her connection to the Dutchman.... They were strangely lacking also....

If Geoffrey Morson could not go on record to state that his daughter Tanja was the live in girlfriend of Dr Vincent Tabak.. that should have us asking questions...(imo)

Why be so evasive as to the nature of your daughters relations ship to The Dutchman??  when....

Not Commenting would have been a better course of action for a man of his education and experience...


https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-case-vincent-tabak

http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/8805420.Dyson_worker_s_boyfriend_arrested_in_murder_case/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/geoffrey-morson-48214a7/

[[...]]

Not one persons confirms that  Dr Vincent Tabak went to Cambridge at Christmas  ....  There was no independent verification of this trip to Tanja Morsons parents home at trial whatsoever... No-one verifies anything that Dr Vincent Tabak says on the stand at trial..

Statements are made and read out but they are not in court to verify anything that is said...

Nothing at trial to verify anything in relation to Dr Vincent Tabak....

(1): Nothing to verify his job

(2): Nothing to verify his relationship to Tanja Morson

(3): Nothing to verify his mobile phone records

(4): Nothing to verify his computer use

(5): Nothing to verify which computers had what searches done upon them

(6): Nothing to verify his mental state at any given time

(7): Nothing to verify that he did not know Joanna Yeates in any capacity

(8): Nothing to verify his visit to Asda at a said time

(9): Nothing to verify he didn't know Greg Reardon

(10): Nothing to verify that he had been away working for 6 weeks in America

(11): Nothing to verify his visit to Cambridge for Christmas

(12): Nothing to verify he was a social person

(13): Nothing to verify he entered Flat 1 on 17th December 2010

(14): Nothing to verify that he actually did kill Joanna Yeates

(15): Nothing to verify that he was actually at Canygne Road on Friday 17th December 2010

(16): Nothing to verify that he and Tanja were an item

(17): Nothing to verify which Flat Number he lived in

(18): Nothing to verify any car journey that night

(19): Nothing to verify he drove the car Reg Number RY51 RDU

(20): Nothing to verify that he was seen by anyone

(21): Nothing to verify his Police Interviews on Video tape

(22): Nothing to verify his phone call from Holland

(23): Nothing to verify the text messages between them

(24): Nothing to verify the landline calls

(25): Nothing to Verify the Timeline of events for Dr Vincent Tabak

(26): Nothing to verify he went to work on Friday 17th December 2010

(27): Nothing to verify that he caught the train to Bath

(28): Nothing to verify he cycled

(29): Nothing to verify he arrived home at a certain time

(30): Nothing to verify he drove around looking for somewhere to dump a body

(31): Nothing to verify witness's credentials


There no Official verification of anything really in relation to Dr Vincent Tabak.... We have a Dutchman sat at trial spilling his beans, and everyone around him in this room is content to accept everything that has been said without any verification of anything...

A media happy to report daily on what must be an agonising trial for The Yeates and never once stop to question why the Defence hasn't spent time cross examining witness's..

A Master of Defending who for me... Sat back and watched it all happen, A Defence who did not clarify what credentials the Prosecutions witness's had... They were all allowed to tell their tale as far as i can see ... And, then the next witness was moved onto..

How have the media sat back and allowed this travesty to go ahead??  How were the media just content with an approximate story of what may or may not have happened to Joanna Yeates that weekend, without any concrete evidence to back it up??

The confession idea I am not sold completely on... Hard concrete facts are needed...To substantiate a claim of an action... And they were lacking... Or should I say none existent..

The Prosecution cannot have it both ways.... Either Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates in the manner that they were happy to go along with or he did not.....

And this supposed struggle he had with Joanna Yeates should have left some evidence in The Flat of said struggle... Dr Vincent Tabak should have transfered something from the crime scene and something from the crime scene should have gone with Dr Vincent Tabak to his Flat...

Just to say that your happy he's admitted it.. Isn't good enough... The evidence should also back this claim that he has made.... If we haven't been able to establish as fact that "Tanja Morson" was Dr Vincent Tabaks girl-friend...  as her father has shown he had a little problem with it.... Then how can we accept as fact that she is indeed the girl-friend of Dr Vincent Tabak...

The media told us this info... The media have told us lots of info and the media were fed info by the Police...

How does a Defence Lawyer accept a witness statement from a nurse, about an injury that Dr Vincent Tabak had on his person when she apparently examined him?? What relevance to this actual trail did this Injury have...??
An Injury that could have happened a day or two before his arrest... And an Injury he certainly did not receive on the 17th December 2010.... An Injury he could not have had for 5 weeks!!

What was the point of Nurse Ruth Booth- Pearsons statement, when it bore no factual relevant evidence to the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak.. Why would a renowned Defence Lawyer even accept this statement into evidence?? That evidence should have been laughed out of court!!

Evidence is brought to trial to support the events that took place on any given occasion... And I cannot see where any evidence was brought to prove what Dr Vincent Tabak laid claim to, when he took the stand at Bristol crown court...

There was nothing at court to prove any of the statements made by Dr Vincent Tabak.... And Nothing to verify anything that was claimed about what he supposedly did...

And at the end they bury him up to his neck in doo- doo and leave him to rot in jail.... And the media continue the circus and do nothing to Investigate why even the basic's appear not to have been followed in court...(imo) And why a renowned lawyer did not defend his client, but instead insulted him on many many occasions...

Here is the list of witness's that couldn't substanciate anything as they were not at trial to be cross examined by anyone...

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg417648#msg417648

We only know that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently attended a party, because apparently invisible witness's said so... They were not there at trial to confirm anything.. They made a statement, which is hearsay....

Just reminded me of the time when the Police said that Greg Reardon was a "Witness" and it was Splashed all over the papers.... What did he witness??
"Nothing"... he wasn't there according to his testimony... But at least he was in court, which is more than can be said about anyone else who apparently added to what happened over Dr Vincent Tabak's weekend.... They just sent in a doctors note instead.... And didn't attend.... 

So can someone verify anything that was said on the stand by Dr Vincent Tabak??  Or are we all happy just to see someone swing??  Doesn't this not make the media curious to how our Justice System has been run??? Or will you just accept a Dr's Note!!!

[[...]]

BDP...... I always thought it was a bigger premises that this firm had... But I was mistaken... I had found an image of the Offices and just presumed that it must have been only one floor that they photographed, but I was mistaken... (image attached)

Property Address Help with this page (opens in a new window)
Second Floor 7 Hill Street City Centre Bristol BS1 5RW
 Print
Address  Property History (0)  Constraints (3)  Map
Full Address:   Second Floor 7 Hill Street City Centre Bristol BS1 5RW
Property Number:   7
Street:   Hill Street
Town:   Bristol
Postcode:   BS1 5RW
Ward:   Hotwells & Harbourside
Neighbourhood Partnership Area:

Now If BDP is on the second Floor, does the building have a "Lobby area" ????

'We met just before 5pm downstairs in the lobby area. We had a bit of a kiss and a cuddle, said goodbye and I left.

If this office that Greg Reardon and Joanna Yeates worked together was on the same floor why would the need to meet in a "Lobby Area"???

Did Greg Reardon and Joanna Yeates actually work together in the same Bristol Office on Hill Street ??
Did Greg Reardon go to work on the 17th December 2010 at the BDP Office on Hill Street in Bristol??
Did Joanna Yeates go to work on the 17th December 2010 at the BDP Office on Hill Street in Bristol??

Because why would he meet Joanna Yeates in The Lobby If they worked in the same Office on the same floor of the same building?????

Somebody wasn't in that Office on Friday the 17th December 2010 working...

As 7 Hill Street is a shared building did the Police ever Interview anyone from any other company??

Imperial Business Systems is also located at this address and was at this address before 2010... So did anyone from this business know or see Joanna Yeates ??

Why is everything so vague about Joanna Yeates work place and Colleagues, or Possible Individuals that Joanna Yeates may have crossed paths with on a daily basis....

Imperial Business Systems were never mentioned as being in the same building as BDP why?? What did the Police know that made them exclude anyone who worked at this business ever coming into contact with Joanna Yeates??

What evidence have the Police always had that no-one from the media was parked outside BDP asking questions of anyone coming and going from 7 Hill Street Bristol ?? Did the Police ever question the occupants of the Flats opposite 7 Hill Street Bristol.. Flats that look directly onto that building ???

There are always more questions.... But I would like to know If Joanna Yeates and Greg Reardon  both worked in the Office of BDP at 7 Hill Street Bristol as their everyday place of work...

Looking at that Office space.. everyone who work for BDP at that time in Bristol... should, would and could know, who worked there... The Office workers would hardly have any space for not knowing what was going on.... Everyone at that Office should have known that Joanna Yeates was going to be on her own because Greg was going away....

And looking at the size of the Office.... I cannot see how Greg Reardon would not have come into contact with the small group of workers there and not mentioned his visit to Sheffield...!!!!

But no-one from BDP has ever aid that Greg told them he was going to Sheffield....

Did the jury get to see BDP's Office??  It's tiny like the flat....  Maybe they would have had a better idea as to why Greg Reardon would need to meet Joanna Yeates in the lobby of that building when they should have been a stones throw away from each other on that day !!!!!

Did The Defence ever look at that Office of BDP's ?? Why didn't they ask Greg Reardon , why Joanna Yeates had chosen to meet him in the lobby... Or did Greg Reardon arrange to meet in the lobby?? Why meet in the lobby??  You both work in a small space and can see each other ???



 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050063/Vincent-Tabak-strangled-Jo-Yeates-20-seconds-stifle-scream-arm-her.html#ixzz52YI2tdQd


http://planningonline.bristol.gov.uk/online-applications/propertyDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=L2M5NMDN0RP07


[attachment deleted by admin]

[AerialHunter]

Tabak came up for discussion yesterday as an agenda item.

The main points are:

1. The reasoning and methodology evident in his answers as to how he killed Yeates and handled the body appear to be an imaginative answer to the questions you would expect investigators to put. They are far too simplistic and only serve to provide an answer, any answer. If you sat down and tried to provide those types of questions with answers that would bring the questioning to an end, that’s what you would do.

2. Nine’s analysis of the timings suggests Tabak did not have the opportunity to carry out what was claimed.

3. The police reaction is all wrong, they are downbeat, beaten in fact. They had to accept what Tabak was saying.

4. The main thrust of the exchange of views, however, centred on another approach independently taken by one of our number who reported back to the meeting. This centred on the idea of mistaken identity, that the flat was being targeted to attack someone else, not Yeates. As any endeavour is to applauded, whatever the outcome, and as a group we don’t have any reason or facility to direct each other, it was considered that we would put more information (largely opinion, admittedly) on this forum in respect of this particular incident.

One particular item of interest is that we had one individual on a list compiled some years ago that had been entirely overlooked, or rather filtered for relevance to another situation, the compiler sadly no longer with us, the reasoning lost also. Out of sheer coincidence a previous resident of 44 Canynge Road is an immediate relative.

For what it’s worth we don’t do coincidences!

AH

[[...]]

Tabak came up for discussion yesterday as an agenda item.

The main points are:

1. The reasoning and methodology evident in his answers as to how he killed Yeates and handled the body appear to be an imaginative answer to the questions you would expect investigators to put. They are far too simplistic and only serve to provide an answer, any answer. If you sat down and tried to provide those types of questions with answers that would bring the questioning to an end, that’s what you would do.

2. Nine’s analysis of the timings suggests Tabak did not have the opportunity to carry out what was claimed.

3. The police reaction is all wrong, they are downbeat, beaten in fact. They had to accept what Tabak was saying.

4. The main thrust of the exchange of views, however, centred on another approach independently taken by one of our number who reported back to the meeting. This centred on the idea of mistaken identity, that the flat was being targeted to attack someone else, not Yeates. As any endeavour is to applauded, whatever the outcome, and as a group we don’t have any reason or facility to direct each other, it was considered that we would put more information (largely opinion, admittedly) on this forum in respect of this particular incident.

One particular item of interest is that we had one individual on a list compiled some years ago that had been entirely overlooked, or rather filtered for relevance to another situation, the compiler sadly no longer with us, the reasoning lost also. Out of sheer coincidence a previous resident of 44 Canynge Road is an immediate relative.

For what it’s worth we don’t do coincidences!

AH

Fanatastic AH..... I always wondered what material you had...

Looking at Point 4: Be good to have something else to consider, maybe it could lead somewhere... It did make sense to "A" Comment that has been in the media at the end of the trial.

He has sympathy for Tabak’s fiancee Tanja Morson. With one arm around his wife Teresa, 58, he said: “Who knows whether Tanja had a lucky escape?

That could add weight to the fact that maybe it was Tanja who was the actual target... possible??  I won't comment on this much more, until you have added to the forum...
Looking forward to reading.. And seeing how that would pan out if that was the real motive behind Joanna Yeates death..

Edit... Maybe start a thread for your topic AH


https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/280592/Tabak-was-always-going-to-kill

[[...]]

Looking again at the little clips from the news media, I came across a rather curious comment..

Did the media know something we didn't ??  Was there another location ????

At 1:43 of the video clip...

It seems the continuing Forensic Examination, here and elsewhere, will be the key to solving this case. Test results are coming back all the time, but detectives are still waiting for that vital bit of evidence.

Where is Elsewhere??  Elsewhere is NOT "Longwood Lane" or the reporter would have said so....

Here Is Canygne Road as he is reporting from that location... So what is Elsewhere on the 2nd January 2011 ?? That the Police have not divulged this other possible location

If there is indeed another location that the Police were Forensically testing, was this location a house? an outdoor area or a vehicle???

Is this the reason we always see vehicles being removed from Canygne Road.... ??

I will also add that if they had been testing "Elsewhere" why wasn't this other location/ possible scene of crime, brought to trial as part of the evidence against Dr Vincent Tabak???

Dr Vincent Tabak apparently had only just returned back to England on the 2nd January 2011 and at that point in time the evidence the police had, could not link Dr Vincent Tabak in anyway to this Crime.....

What is Elsewhere?? It has to be significant enough for the police to be Forensically Testing this 'new" location....

Just before the reporter makes that statement they show a shot of Longwood Lane.... Is Elsewhere actually inside the quarry itself??  Taking us back to the Fire Services attendance and the rope access guys working there...

Either way.. It changes what has been said at trial..... Dr Vincent Tabak couldn't possibly have dumped Joanna Yeates on Longwood Lane on a Grass verge, If The Police where Forensically testing Elsewhere on the 2nd January 2011 (imo)


Edit... Listening to it again.... 

Continuing Forensic examination here and elsewhere

How many days had this Forensic testing been done for? When did they start Forensically testing Elsewhere? This had to have a viable connection to Joanna Yeates (imo) or else they wouldn't be continuing to Forensically test this 'Illusive Place"....

http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/police-in-bristol-have-renewed-their-call-for-help-from-news-footage/107853537


[attachment deleted by admin]

[[...]]

Defence Counsel: You went to the University of Technology in Utrecht. Did you have to
leave home then? Utrecht is about 30 kilometres away.
Tabak: Yes. I lived away. I studied architecture for seven years.

So did Dr Vincent Tabak attend the 'University of Technology in Utrecht?? Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't clarify anything here, he clarifys that he lived away from home and The Defence Council say Utrecht is 30 kilometers away...
But "what" is 30 kilometers away from Utrecht??

Joanna Yeates murder: man arrested
Joanna Yeates murder: man arrested; NETHERLANDS: Eindhoven: EXT General views of Eindhoven University of Technology

Credit:   ITN
Clip #:   655482290   SD
Collection:   ITN
Date created:   20 January, 2011
Licence type:   Rights-ready
Release info:   Not released. More information
Clip length:   00:00:21:00
Location:   Netherlands

The video clip shows the TU/e Institute, the clip is from the 20th January 2010...

From Uden to The TU/e Institute it is 33 kilometers
From Uden to Utrecht is around 80 kilometers

So which is correct??? 
He attended a University 30 kilometers away from home or...
He attended Utrecht University and he didn't live in Uden

Why did the media show the University ot TU/e on the day of Dr Vincent Tabak,s arrest ?? One University that would be 30 kilometers away from his home in Uden??  (If Uden is indeed his home town)..What relevance is the University of TU/e

Eindhoven University of Technology (TU/e) plays a prominent role at both national and international levels through its research and educational programs in the engineering science and technology domain.

What is the relevance of the University of TU/e ???
The media are not just going to put a random University in its report... It's like someone attending Birmingham University, but showing Manchester University Instead.... Not likely!!

The TU/e intends to be a research-driven, design-oriented university of technology, with the primary objective of providing young people with an academic education within the engineering science & technology domain. The primary task is the training of engineers (at Master of Science level) possessing a sound scientific basis and depth of knowledge, as well as the necessary competences that will enable them to develop successful careers in a wide range of fields and functions within the community. The bachelor?s programs (BSc) are intended to serve as a basis for further education at Master?s level. The TU/e also trains teachers (at Master of Science level), designers (at the Professional Doctorate in Engineering level) and researchers (at Doctor of Philosophy level). In addition, it provides postacademic programs and courses. In the research field the TU/e prefers to focus, within the engineering science & technology domain, on the specific areas in which it takes or can take a significant role in the international scientific world, and in which it can make meaningful contributions to the knowledge-intensive industries and other sectors of the community with a high, or rapidly developing, technology intensity.

Or should I say "who" does the University of TU/e have a connection too??



https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/eindhoven-university-technology

http://drtherapat.eu/consortium/eindhoven-university-of-technology/

http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/man-arrested-netherlands-eindhoven-ext-general-views-of-news-footage/655482290

http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf


[attachment deleted by admin]