The Defence Will State Their Case

[jixy]

Staying with the idea that Dr Vincent Tabak may have been in Amsterdam, even though people do not agree, after finding this on twitter from the time I thought I would add it..

https://twitter.com/KLM/status/15419647402713089

Delayed flights etc....

If Dr Vincent Tabak's version of events are muddled, and there is NO way in which to determine whether or not  Joanna Yeates was killed on the 17/12/2010. It is feasible he may have been returning from the Airport, when he was on a business trip.

Just a thought...

Darragh tells us he had difficulty leaving Bristol because of cancelled flights,

His friends response

Had Joanna Yeates gone somewhere?

They don't find her until Christmas Day...  Honestly she could have flown somewhere herself that weekend, who's to say?

I do not understand how everyone says that Joanna Yeates was MISSING from 17/12/2010

What proved that was the case??

You are just making it up now...

[Real justice]

Staying with the idea that Dr Vincent Tabak may have been in Amsterdam, even though people do not agree, after finding this on twitter from the time I thought I would add it..

https://twitter.com/KLM/status/15419647402713089

Delayed flights etc....

If Dr Vincent Tabak's version of events are muddled, and there is NO way in which to determine whether or not  Joanna Yeates was killed on the 17/12/2010. It is feasible he may have been returning from the Airport, when he was on a business trip.

Just a thought...

Darragh tells us he had difficulty leaving Bristol because of cancelled flights,

His friends response

Had Joanna Yeates gone somewhere?

They don't find her until Christmas Day...  Honestly she could have flown somewhere herself that weekend, who's to say?

I do not understand how everyone says that Joanna Yeates was MISSING from 17/12/2010

What proved that was the case??

You Forget one thing, anyone leaving the country has to go through passport control, this then registers that person leaving, the same happens when they arrive back.   Stop polluting the internet with such rubbish, sensible people would like to discuss this case but cannot because you keep filling the pages with SHITE.

[jixy]

Staying with the idea that Dr Vincent Tabak may have been in Amsterdam, even though people do not agree, after finding this on twitter from the time I thought I would add it..

If Dr Vincent Tabak's version of events are muddled, and there is NO way in which to determine whether or not  Joanna Yeates was killed on the 17/12/2010. It is feasible he may have been returning from the Airport, when he was on a business trip.

How do you get away with these kind of posts? you have gone on and on telling how smart and intelligent Tabak is not to mention placid so just how would he get muddled and forget about a trip to the airport?

If all these ifs and maybes are the best you have to offer i think you agree with us and he is guilty. These make believe stories are a waste of time and an insult to his victim

You ignore all the FACTS in this case to work on ridiculous scenarios then stamp your foot when no one buys it!

[[...]]

DCI Phil Jones at The Leveson:

Mr Philip Jones
Okay. When Vincent Tabak was interviewed, he gave "no comment" in interview. It was only a very small area around a mobile phone which he was willing to talk about. One of the topics in that interview concerned Mr Jefferies, to which he declined -- he again made no comment. Mr Jefferies was still a suspect in the investigation. There was still ongoing forensic examination work which was being undertaken. In particular, there were a pair of trainers which we found in Mr Jefferies' house which were hidden underneath a kitchen unit behind a kickboard. Those trainers had some -- had a blood spot on them. That was initially analysed and because of a sensitive forensic technique which they had to use, eventually a DNA profile was found and Mr Jefferies could be eliminated. So when the forensic lines of inquiry were completed, he was fully eliminated from the investigation, which is then when he was released from his bail without charge.

https://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-27-march-2012/mr-philip-jones

Okay. When Vincent Tabak was interviewed, he gave "no comment" in interview. It was only a very small area around a mobile phone which he was willing to talk about. One of the topics in that interview concerned Mr Jefferies, to which he declined -- he again made no comment.

This from DCI Phil Jones clearly states that Dr Vincent Tabak said nothing about CJ... He would only talk about "A" very small area around mobile phone...

Dr Vincent Tabak's tale on the stand, apologising for what he had apparently done to CJ, makes me wonder where that info came from?

CJ tells us he saw Dr Vincent Tabak, not Dr Vincent Tabak telling us he saw CJ, as for Tanja she makes NO appearance at court whatsoever, never mind taking the stand as a witness...

The burger stand... Was Dr Vincent Tabak actually identified? Could you see him clearly?

I keep saying I do not know why Tanja nor CJ were witness's at Dr Vincent Tabak's trial...  It makes no sense to me...

We do not know what DCI Phil Jones means about the mobile phone, he doesn't elaborate, it would have been helpful if he did, but the omittance again of information, makes a clear picture difficult..

I have often wondered about that statement DCI Phil Jones made, I've wondered whether or not their were more than one phone, DCI Jones has commented before on TV programs about a business phone.

But did Dr Vincent Tabak have a business phone? Possibily, we do not know for a fact....

So I'll return back to the text message as it has been stated it was a text message..

"Missing you loads, I'm bored V XXX "

Now what had he responded to where they answers to questions??

* U Missed me?
Missing U loads

* How's Your trip?
I'm bored

* Where have you been
VXXX

The message to Dr Vincent Tabak may have been

U Missed me  hows your trip where U been

And his response

Missing you loads, I'm Bored, VXXX

Both messages staying within the characters allowed per message, at the time..

He could have been responding to anyone. Telling them he had been or was at the Hotel V in Amsterdam..

The context of the message is important, we have no idea really what it is response too..

Dr Vincent Tabak could have just been telling someone he 'd been staying at Hotel V in Amsterdam

[jixy]

the questions you keep asking yourself have all been answered numerous times by various posters. You choose to ignore the replies and carry on with your conspiracy theory.

[[...]]

How do you get away with these kind of posts? you have gone on and on telling how smart and intelligent Tabak is not to mention placid so just how would he get muddled and forget about a trip to the airport?

If all these ifs and maybes are the best you have to offer i think you agree with us and he is guilty. These make believe stories are a waste of time and an insult to his victim

You ignore all the FACTS in this case to work on ridiculous scenarios then stamp your foot when no one buys it!

With so much information Missing and no definiate time of death or many many timelines, People statements on video, that change the events, etc I am trying to give example of what was possible, and what should have been ruled out...

And I do not agree with you all that he is guilty... You are all aware of this fact...

As for wanting someone to buy it.... I am not selling anything...

[[...]]

the questions you keep asking yourself have all been answered numerous times by various posters. You choose to ignore the replies and carry on with your conspiracy theory.

Yes... I do ignore the replies sometimes, and it's just as well.... Seeing as you all believe he tried to implicate CJ, and I have shown that simple wasn't true.... It came from CJ's own mouth on the "Count Down to Murder program"!!

Jixy... one cannot always go with the crowd, just to be popular... This case is off... end of, and if it makes me unpopular, so be it....

[Real justice]

There's nobody on here called Billy, nina.  He's a figment of RJ's imagination!  Good to see you back, by the way.

The only figment of imagination is down to you, Billy accepted the name and was open to offers, you obviously don’t follow the board before making comments.

Well every forum I’ve been on members have a username, you don’t appear to want one, so what do we Address your highness with then?

BILLY’s RESPONSE

You can call me Dotty if you choose, It doesn't offend me ... 

Anyone can decide what they wish to call me, it's up to them... 

[jixy]

With so much information Missing and no definiate time of death or many many timelines, People statements on video, that change the events, etc I am trying to give example of what was possible, and what should have been ruled out...

And I do not agree with you all that he is guilty... You are all aware of this fact...

As for wanting someone to buy it.... I am not selling anything...

You have a very cocky attitude when replying! You are trying to sell your crap about him being innocent and no one is buying it. The man himself has never said it and your arguments for it get more and more ridiculous each time you post

You can post what you want and rarely corrected.

You dont read the replies and take notice because you dont want to. You just reply with anything, doesnt seem to really matter what the content is however unlikely or should I say IMPOSSIBLE!

[[...]]

the questions you keep asking yourself have all been answered numerous times by various posters. You choose to ignore the replies and carry on with your conspiracy theory.

I'm trying to establish facts, and yes, some of my posts are scenarios's...

But The FACT that CJ states on video he spoke twice to Dr Vincent Tabak , spoke of a conversation and a light dusting of snow then asked Dr Vincent Tabak to help him move the car up the incline of the drive at 44, Canygne Road on the next day, is a fact from CJ, it comes directly out of CJ's own mouth as I have explained.. The FACT that CJ told The Leveson he parked his car on the road on 17/12/2010 at 9:00pm, is a FACT, coming from CJ's Leveson statement..

Therefore I concluded, that the FACT I cannot prove, that Dr Vincent Tabak rang up the POLICE whilst he was in Holland to try to implicate CJ about a car changing position... Is because the evidence is Missing...
But if true it would proves that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't implicate CJ as has been stated..

But where is the recorded phone call from Holland of Dr Vincent Tabak speaking to the Police in the UK?? And why would he ring, it would cost money for an International call...

Who is to say it wasn't the Police whom rang him?  And his response was he'd speak to them when he returned to the UK!!

That appears more plausible to me... whether you agree or not....

Because NO evidence was brought to trial of the phone call Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have made from Holland to the Police in the UK.... 

And there should have been a record of this phone call...

[[...]]

I'm trying to establish facts, and yes, some of my posts are scenarios's...

But The FACT that CJ states on video he spoke twice to Dr Vincent Tabak , spoke of a conversation and a light dusting of snow then asked Dr Vincent Tabak to help him move the car up the incline of the drive at 44, Canygne Road on the next day, is a fact from CJ, it comes directly out of CJ's own mouth as I have explained.. The FACT that CJ told The Leveson he parked his car on the road on 17/12/2010 at 9:00pm, is a FACT, coming from CJ's Leveson statement..

Therefore I concluded, that the FACT I cannot prove, that Dr Vincent Tabak rang up the POLICE whilst he was in Holland to try to implicate CJ about a car changing position... Is because the evidence is Missing...
But if true it would proves that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't implicate CJ as has been stated..

But where is the recorded phone call from Holland of Dr Vincent Tabak speaking to the Police in the UK?? And why would he ring, it would cost money for an International call...

Who is to say it wasn't the Police whom rang him?  And his response was he'd speak to them when he returned to the UK!!

That appears more plausible to me... whether you agree or not....

Because NO evidence was brought to trial of the phone call Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have made from Holland to the Police in the UK.... 

And there should have been a record of this phone call...

Also, was there even a phone call?? If everyone remembers, the Police encouraged people to contact them via the on-line form and give them information that way...

Someone easily could have assumed the identity of Dr Vincent Tabak and made any statement, the on-line forms have never been questioned, the on-line forms have never been scrutinised, the on-line forms were open to abuse, if you ask me....

http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/jo

[[...]]

Mr Philip Jones
Okay. When Vincent Tabak was interviewed, he gave "no comment" in interview. It was only a very small area around a mobile phone which he was willing to talk about. One of the topics in that interview concerned Mr Jefferies, to which he declined -- he again made no comment. Mr Jefferies was still a suspect in the investigation. There was still ongoing forensic examination work which was being undertaken. In particular, there were a pair of trainers which we found in Mr Jefferies' house which were hidden underneath a kitchen unit behind a kickboard. Those trainers had some -- had a blood spot on them. That was initially analysed and because of a sensitive forensic technique which they had to use, eventually a DNA profile was found and Mr Jefferies could be eliminated. So when the forensic lines of inquiry were completed, he was fully eliminated from the investigation, which is then when he was released from his bail without charge.

No mention of the Holland interview, no mention of where the interview had taken place, no mention, how many times Dr Vincent Tabak was interviewed...

We know from this statement that Dr Vincent Tabak spoke once.... So where is the evidence of the phone call or Dr Vincent Tabak trying to implicate CJ?? Where is this 6 hour interview in Holland??

Was the interview in Holland done via an on-line chat?? we do not know... We have no idea about it whatsoever..

https://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-27-march-2012/mr-philip-jones

[[...]]

Below is from a post I did about media stratergy of Avon and Somerset Police at the time.


This is from The Leveson, found it whilst looking at Colin Port... Exhibt CP5.pdf  ..Media stratergy etc...

Homepage
  ,Homepage banner and spotlight images
¯ 1440 inbound messages went to the investigation team via the form on the website
   Newsroom
¯ Newsroom story with regular updates
¯ Updates automatically pushed out via twitter with #joyeates "hashtags"
¯ Updates automatically appeared on dedicated section (see below)
,  Story e-mailed out to subscribers (currently 15,000+ subscriber base) and media contacts
¯ Briefings filmed / uploaded to YouTube and embedded as well as images
   Dedicated section
¯ Set up special website address- www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/jo
¯ Interactive Google map showing key locations
¯ Video play list showing most recent video release first
¯ Image gallery of Jo
¯ Facebook and Twitter sharing tools
¯ Secure on-line contact form sending messages direct to the incident room
¯ Twitter widget showing discussion around the case and our updates
¯ IP address logging for investigative purposes
   Local pages
¯ Localised community safety article in the Clifton area
¯ Downloadable advice leaflet (the same as distributed physically in the area

Prepare for the ’ten day turn’: media likely to ask questions about your experience as
an SlO & potential for bringing in another / more senior SIO or outside force to help
Don’t under-estimate the additional personal pressure of being ’the face of the
investigation’

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg470437#msg470437

Therefore, where is all of the information from the online forms in this investigation???

Or is that it, the statements read out in court, were from the online forms??

[mrswah]

I'm trying to establish facts, and yes, some of my posts are scenarios's...

But The FACT that CJ states on video he spoke twice to Dr Vincent Tabak , spoke of a conversation and a light dusting of snow then asked Dr Vincent Tabak to help him move the car up the incline of the drive at 44, Canygne Road on the next day, is a fact from CJ, it comes directly out of CJ's own mouth as I have explained.. The FACT that CJ told The Leveson he parked his car on the road on 17/12/2010 at 9:00pm, is a FACT, coming from CJ's Leveson statement..

Therefore I concluded, that the FACT I cannot prove, that Dr Vincent Tabak rang up the POLICE whilst he was in Holland to try to implicate CJ about a car changing position... Is because the evidence is Missing...
But if true it would proves that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't implicate CJ as has been stated..

But where is the recorded phone call from Holland of Dr Vincent Tabak speaking to the Police in the UK?? And why would he ring, it would cost money for an International call...

Who is to say it wasn't the Police whom rang him?  And his response was he'd speak to them when he returned to the UK!!

That appears more plausible to me... whether you agree or not....

Because NO evidence was brought to trial of the phone call Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have made from Holland to the Police in the UK.... 

And there should have been a record of this phone call...

Some reports say it was Tanja who made the call from Holland. Not really certain who made it.

If it is true that VT helped CJ move his car on the Saturday morning, and that CJ parked his car on the road at 9pm on the Friday night( as he says he did), then, at some point CJ did move his car. So what if he did? In fact, as far as I know, he has never denied doing so. Why on earth should this be taken as an example of VT implicating CJ??

[mrswah]

Oh, and, ..... it would be helpful if you point out , when you post, that something is meant to be seen as a scenario rather than an opinion or a fact!!