Just helps a little when the person in question confirms it’s him don’t you think, poor Joanna never got the chance to defend herself.
Timeline 39- you ultimately went to Asda at approx 10.13 pm
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.
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.
Just a thought
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.
Your quote is from the Sally Ramage papers... And looking at that I was always in two minds why it didn't appear to make sense..
I do not know whom Sally Ramage is, but mrswah informed the forum that this lady was at trial and she works in a legal capacity apparently.
I had used the Sally Ramage papers before, but I do not know whether this was what was stated at trial, so it is difficult to know if it is an accurate translation of the exchange between Dr Vincent Tabak and The Defence, or the prosecution...
This is one of the reasons, I started to use what was stated in the Leveson and any TV interviews people had given..
But I'll go with your quote for now, and try and understand what Dr Vincent Tabak's response meant..
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.
The only way in which Dr Vincent Tabak would hear anyone's voice from receiving a text, would be the notification sound set on his phone...
Therefore the only conclusion I can come to was that he somehow had Joanna Yeates voice on his phone, in one form or another...
But on saying that... the conclusion I would come to is he therefore had to know Joanna Yeates in some capacity...
Why would everyone therefore pretend he didn't know her?
I'm trying to understand what type of recording it could have been...
Looking at that again, it doesn't make sense, he wants the response from sending the text, maybe that is what is being referred too..
So didn't he physically type the text?
Did he speak the words?
The idea that Dr Vincent Tabak had a Blackberry phone, comes from the depiction in the Judge Rinder program, but for arguments sake lets say he did...
There's an app and at the time there was an app called Vlingo, a bit like Siri for Blackberry , where you could speak into the phone and it would record text messages and then it would read text messages/emails back to you that you had received.
Maybe Dr Vincent Tabak had such an app...
If that was the case, firstly the word in the text being "Crisis".. could have been an error from the app...
But going back to the wanting to hear her voice, then the voice is virtual... Not real, is that what you're trying to tell me....
Where all of the text messages and emails sent via a voice recognition app?
One thing I noticed in that text message was that there were no kisses, so I am staying with the idea at the moment that V XXX did mean
Hotel V Amsterdam, in some context...
I still do not understand why hearing her voice would bring comfort?
But it makes me question if that was the way in which Dr Vincent Tabak used his phone? If his phone was set up for a virtual assistant, then literally anyone could have sent those texts... I'm not saying they did, only that it is a possibility..
Going back to DCI Phil Jones, on one of the documentaries, he states something about a business phone... Did Dr Vincent Tabak carry both phones always?
DCI Phil Jones also says that Dr Vincent Tabak only answered to a question/questions surrounding a phone.
What were the questions? Maybe asking if it had a password to get access or not?? I have no idea....
From the Sally Ramage papers:
Did you normally take the phone when you went out?
Tabak: Yes.
Defence Counsel: When at home, where was the phone kept?
Tabak: In a little room.
Is Dr Vincent Tabak trying to say that he didn't take the phone out with him, but ordinarily would have done?
And why keep it in a little room??
What phone is he referring too?
Which little room?
A little room in his flat? or in the main house?
Is the phone the house phone?? eg: a mobile phone that is used as the house phone?
I don't know... I tie myself in knots... the possibilities are endless...
I can't get my head around, how a man can appear at trial, and appear in front of a jury, whom already know he plead guilty to Manslaughter in May 2011, as it was reported everywhere..
How the case in one way or another was in the media right up until trial.. As in all the reports regarding CJ and the July 2011 court case for contempt with the tabloids, and then CJ, being announced as a core participant in The Leveson before this trial.... Giving the possibility of the fade factor becoming redundant...
Until, Dr Vincent Tabak takes the stand... no-one knows what happened to her, there is nothing conclusive at this point to prove one way or another when she died and how and by whom's hand..
So Dr Vincent Tabak takes the stand as a "GUILTY" man, the jury knowing of this guilt, and for some bizarre reason only those of you in the Justice system may understand, he then goes on to explain, what the events were for Friday 17th December 2010... A story he told on the stand that could have been assembled from many of the media and social medias information that was about at the time..
No-one in the legal profession appears to object to this, which I find astounding....
Common sense tells us if he states nothing, the proof is then with the prosecution to prove the intent, but that is saying what has gone before is legally acceptable... And the prosecution appear to have only suggestions as to what too place rather than fact....
I don't get the Joanna Yeates case, and that is not any disrespect, because my understanding of law is virtually zero, I haven't the where withall to argue any point in the correct fashion....
It is like a case where every possible action is the incorrect action, every possible law connected to the case wasn't followed, it appears to be the opposite of how it is supposed to be....
Is it some intellectual joke? Some media exercise? Police training? Moot Trial....???
I don't know... It is never going to sit right with me, and as I have stated, I have tied myself up in enough knots and for what??
A man I am unsure is even real, A man I am unsure is in prison... And a case that will never make any sense to me...
It reminds me of how trials are treated in America, I'm not saying exactly, it just reminds me of that... Then I wonder if it was a trial of an American style model of justice??
I'm flummoxed, I don't get it... I don't understand why everyone reacts in the same way about this case...
The Old Grey matter can't be arsed, because it appears that it doesn't really matter anyway....
Therefore I don't know what else to say.....
Edit.... All I've managed to prove is that I am a gullible idiot.... But i suppose that's in the normal range of most humans..
