Regarding the internet searches. You're right - they prove nothing, however the fact is - Tabak lived in the same building as Joanna Yeates, she disappeared and subsequently Tabak is searching online about how long it takes for a body to decay but offers no defence for why he did so. Hmmm.. .. As far as I'm aware Tabak didn't have a daughter who could have snuck in to use his computer, nor anyone else in his flat who was there at the time, so it stands to reason that he alone was responsible for searches on his own computer.
Why do you necessarily think he would have carried out these searches while Joanna was in his room anyway?
Hi Alfie
I like facts....
Yes... Dr Vincent Tabak lived in the same building, and so did many more people. The polices original line of enquiry was that it had to be someone that knew her. For her to let them inside when she was afraid to be on her own...seems very unlikely.
Even Greg had said they had not meet him before.. They hadn't lived there very long, so would only know most neighbour in passing.
Lets go back to the searches... What do they actually prove? Not a great deal really. They were used to imply that Dr Vincent Tabak had looked at various things, that the police believe where all connected to Joanna yeates.
At Line 225 (sic)
Tabak searched using the words
‘Joanna Yeates’
‘Salt supplies in the Netherlands’
What can you imagine from that... He was checking on News about his missing neighbour andso were countless other people, me included.
Salt supllies in Netherlands, how does this help?
At Line 257 of the prosecution Chart
Tabak searched on Google Maps for
‘Longwood Lane’
I think this is probably the one that tipped the jury.... Searching for it implys he knew she was there, if he was driving around aimlessly ,not knowing where to put her and not knowing the area, I'm sure that he could have found a better location. And how can you search for somewhere you don't know where it is??
At Line 311 of the prosecution search
Tabak Googled the words
‘body discomposition time’ (sic)
How does this have anything to do with Jo'???....
With his range of searches that they have produced, it could have been anything, i watch alot of crime stuff, It appears to me that he also has a fasination. It doesn't prove he was checking to see how long it would take for Jo's body to decompose.
And that brings another thought.. if he was aware that Jo's was dead and that he had killed her, why check body decomposition time? It was freezing everyone knew that. Does it really mean he was checking for how long it would take for jo?
When he replies he can't remember, he probably can't..
Was he looking at body decomposition to check that something he'd read or heard had the correct information?
Or was he checking that a program for instance had researched their material correctly and he was seeing if the time for a body to decompose was correct.
So how can he say why he searched for it?
Could you explain all your searches from 10 months ago?? Probably not..
So why didn't he move her?
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdfI look at News, watch Crime, watch Designing show programs etc, I'm sure you have a selection of activities that you also do.
I know I flit from one thing to the next, i look at Twitter, next thing I might put a search in the computer to do with that Tweet. Someone might text me and I'll search again.
What I'm really trying to say is how can a search show intent!! Intent to do what??
Buy a shed load of Rock Salt and what.............
Sell it ??
A friend asked him about Rock Salt??
Prices of Rock Salt
History of Rock Salt in the Netherlands
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Rock+salt+netherlands What does looking for Rock salt in the Netherlands Prove? Nothing really again it's the intent.
The jury were too Obviously swayed by the searches, I can't see how they are admissible as it doesn't show intent it just implies that it May or Maynot apply to Joanna Yeates the proscution want you to think that it does.
The prosecution’s Internet evidence
On 17 December 2010 at 7.45:54 am
Tabak performed a Google search on the words
‘Weather’
‘Bristol’
‘Bath’
This search was made on a work computer.... who said it was Dr Vincent Tabak, that made this search??
He could have , he probabaly did.. But 2 ticks away from a computer and anyone could search..
So that creates doubt....
And there lies the problem.. I don't know why he pled guilty to manslaughter (but innocent people have done so before)..
And the so called evidence that the prosecution presented would have created reasonable doubt, because internet searches don't prove intent, they only imply what you want them to imply.
If he had not made a plea, with the evidence that they didn't really have.
Not guilty.. would have been the verdict in my opinion.
So you can see how important it was to get Dr Vincent Tabak to enter a manslaughter plea.
Any good Defence Lawyer would have made mince meat out of the so called evidence.