First and foremost, we know that DCI Jones and his colleagues are not prepared to let anyone read what was in the landlord's 2nd witness statement. The landlord is reckoned to be an exceptionally reliable witness of unblemished character who saw two or three persons on Joanna's front path just after 9 p.m., probably on Saturday 18th December 2010. Who were these persons, that their identities must be kept secret even 6 years later?
We know that two of Jones's colleagues interviewed both Vincent Tabak and his girlfriend at Schiphol, yet the only details that the court was told about this couldn't have occupied more than 15 minutes of the 6 hours the interview lasted. The DC who testified may not have lied, but the judge ought to have spotted that she didn't tell the whole truth and asked her to explain herself. Once again, what have the police got to hide after 6 years? Why don't you e-mail them?
The public also has a right to know by what process the police so quickly and categorically eliminated Joanna's boyfriend as a suspect, but decided instead to arrest on very insubstantial grounds the landlord, a person of very good character who could have had no motive to kill Joanna and who scarcely knew her. The boyfriend may have had an alibi for the Friday evening, but not for 7 hours during the Sunday evening. Suspecting the boyfriend is standard practice. I repeat this here as there are some who don't seem to have grasped the basic facts of the case.
Did we ever get to see the first witness statement???
I believe too that it could quite have probably been the Saturday 18th December 2010 that CJ saw or heard someone at the little gate...
By Dr Vincent Tabak having a plea impressed upon him (IMO) that stops a full trial taking place where all the witness's would have had to take the stand, and he could have faced his accusers..
It's all neatly wrapped in a 'Plea Bow' and there's The Dutchman, sat there for all to ridicule and say a story that sort of covers the bases, but NOT quite...
I agree Leonora.. usually in cases it's the partner of the deceased who comes under scrutiny first and we are not aware of what the Police did to eliminate him..
But they tried their hardest to have Dr Vincent Tabak in their clutches (IMO)... as you say going out of their way to interview him in Holland when they could have quite easily have waited on his return...
It is extremley odd that the Holland 6 hour interview took place at all and one really has to wonder why??? especially at this point they had not cross referenced any of Joanna Yeates work collegues or close friends DNA..\
There could not have been any evidence at all for the Police to even suspect Dr Vincent Tabak when they went over to Holland, so why the big drama and why take his DNA if they hadn't gone prepared!!!!
There's definitley something fishy about this case...... I just don't know what it is!!!!!