The Defence Will State Their Case

[[...]]

Maybe the lack of heating was another thing that got Greg R worried.

He doesn't mention whether the Flat is warm or cold on his arrival from Sheffield... And you would have imagined if that was another reason for him to be concerned he would have stated so at trial... Even if it hadn't been reported in the papers in the early stages of the Investigation....

Also the stench from the cat tray would have been overwhelming on his entry to the Flat as The Cat tray is next to the door... So I do not believe the heating was on a timer... And it not being on can't have been a problem wither...(imo)

[nina]

Or.... As people have mentioned previously....

She wasn't killed in her Flat and someone returned her possessions, locking the door behind them... But then you would still need someone to have the keys to the flat to lock both locks and leave Joanna yeates Rucksack on the table with the keys to the Flat inside....

It's a possibility I suppose, but I just don't believe it.

Is it a possibility that Joanna went upstairs to get any mail, leaving Flat 1 off the latch?

[[...]]

It's a possibility I suppose, but I just don't believe it.

Is it a possibility that Joanna went upstairs to get any mail, leaving Flat 1 off the latch?

Joanna Yeates could have collected the mail... But you still need to establish that both locks were locked on exit... And I have explained how I believe that had to be the case ......

[[...]]

Let me ask you a couple of questions Nina....

Do you think that both locks were locked??

What evidence did they arrest CJ on??

What Evidence did they arrest Dr Vincent Tabak on???

[nina]

Let me ask you a couple of questions Nina....

Do you think that both locks were locked??

What evidence did they arrest CJ on??

What Evidence did they arrest Dr Vincent Tabak on???

Haven't a clue.

Haven't a clue.

DNA.

[[...]]

Haven't a clue.

Haven't a clue.

DNA.

To all three.... really??

It tends to make it pointless me posting in some ways... If anything I write isn't understood...

I thought my post were self explanatory ,.. Obviously there are not... 

[nina]

To all three.... really??

It tends to make it pointless me posting in some ways... If anything I write isn't understood...

I thought my post were self explanatory ,.. Obviously there are not... 

We will never know.

You say keys, but again I don't know.

DNA.

[[...]]

We will never know.

You say keys, but again I don't know.

DNA.

We will never know could be the answer to everything that I have written.....

There needs to be probable cause to arrest CJ, and being a witness to people walking down the drive that he noticed, cannot have been probable cause to arrest CJ

The DNA was low copy 1000/1 and I'm not going over my posts about the Low Copy DNA again...

The sample was also minute... Transfer.. contamination.... could also rule this sample out....  And we know how slap dash they were with their Forensic Protocols at Canygne Road... Bob The builder has shown us that!!!!

[nina]

We will never know could be the answer to everything that I have written.....

There needs to be probable cause to arrest CJ, and being a witness to people walking down the drive that he noticed, cannot have been probable cause to arrest CJ

The DNA was low copy 1000/1 and I'm not going over my posts about the Low Copy DNA again...

The sample was also minute... Transfer.. contamination.... could also rule this sample out....  And we know how slap dash they were with their Forensic Protocols at Canygne Road... Bob The builder has shown us that!!!!

Well we never will know will we, unless there is something that can be had by FOI request.

I actually did read all you posted on low copy DNA, and with a lot of it I agree with you, but it's what they had to convict VT, plus his confession.

[[...]]

Well we never will know will we, unless there is something that can be had by FOI request.

I actually did read all you posted on low copy DNA, and with a lot of it I agree with you, but it's what they had to convict VT, plus his confession.

Which isn't good enough in my book....   They Low Copy DNA supported Nothing.... No Evidence was brought to trial to support Dr Vincent Tabak having committing this crime...

Anyone can make a confession... But you need hard facts and Evidence to support a confession...

If his confession fit the facts of Joanna Yeates date of Death... that apparently being the 17th December 2010??Then why was he charged between the 16th and the 19th December 2010 when he was at trial.....

The lack of body fluids and the obvious change of Joanna Yeates clothing is testament in itself that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't kill Joanna Yeates and these omissions were never challenged....

And to be factual.. Dr Vincent Tabak did not confess to anything... He did not confess to Brotherton"... and he did not confess to anyone else.. he sat at trial and told a tall story... that didn't support what had happened to Joanna Yeates...

It may have touched the edges to satisfy the prosecution...  But if fell way short of being any kind of admittance to commiting this crime...

Edit... This is also why the understanding of whether or not both locks had been locked is so important... Because I believe they had to be both locked, or The Police would not have arrested CJ... because informing them only that he saw people on the drive wouldn't be enough... and I believe it was the fact that he had the keys to Joanna Yeates Flat , was the other side of the coin they need to arrest him...

So we would have the problem that the way in which Dr vincent Tabak left the flat locked being of massive importance....

If you think FOI will work in this case... try The Relocation Services, mrswah has done a topic on this... an interesting read....


FOI = Freedom of Information and only if we decide that it doesn't come under data protection... and as everything comes under data protection we can not help you any further with your inquiry...

There was a woman who tried to get information through FOI... They did the data protection on her too...  I have posted on this matter ...

Edit... Here's the link to the FOI

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/vincent_tabak_statements

[[...]]

And to cut a long story short after much wrangling this was their response...

Private Our Reference 973/14

Emily Johnson Your reference 

[FOI #226900 email] Date 03 November 2014

Dear Ms Johnson


I write in connection with your request for information that was received
by us on the 27^th August concerning a personal statement.


Specifically you asked: “Please provide me with a copy of any statements
signed by Vincent Tabak during the Joanna Yeates investigation.”

 
Your request for information has now been considered and I am not obliged
to provide the information. The information is exempt by virtue of section
40(2) third party personal information, and section 30(1)(a)(b)(c)
relating to investigations and proceedings conducted by public
authorities.



Section 40 (2), third party personal information, this is an absolute and
class based exemption which means that there is no requirement to identify
and evidence the harm that would be caused by disclosure or consider the
public interest. Any information to which a request relates is exempt if
it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is not the data
subject and if disclosure of that information to a member of the public
would contravene any of the principles of the 1998 Data Protection Act. In
this particular case, disclosure of this information would contravene
Principles 1 and 2 of the Act, whereby personal data shall be processed
fairly and lawfully and only obtained for one or more specified purpose or
purposes.

 

Section 30 is a qualified and class based exemption which means that there
is no requirement to identify and evidence the harm that would be caused
by disclosure, however there is a requirement to consider the public
interest.

 

Public interest test

Factors favouring disclosure

This was a high profile case which was widely publicised in the media.
Disclosure of the requested information may go some way to demonstrating
that the force is efficient, effective and accountable for the actions
that it takes.

 

Factors favouring non disclosure

As this information was obtained as part of an investigation for the
purpose of ascertaining whether he should be charged with an offence and
whether he was guilty of that charge, section 30 is engaged.  Should Mr
Tabak ever appeal his conviction, release of his statement may prejudice
any appeal. This exemption is valid for (currently) 29 years which
restarts every time the case is annotated or reopened.

 

Balance Test

Vincent Tabak’s statement was obtained for the purpose of the
investigation, disclosure of which would breach the data protection, this
would also prejudice any appeal he may make regarding his conviction. 
Whilst this investigation is now closed, it is recognised there is a
public interest in understanding why or how a the conclusion was reached.
This murder investigation attracted a lot of media attention and a lot of
information is already in the public domain.  A trial has been held which
of course means all aspects of the investigation have been subject to the
scrutiny of the court.  Therefore after weighing up the competing
interests, I have determined that the benefits of disclosure are not made
out.  Whilst the statement may be interesting to you this is of course
different to being in the public interest and I can see no tangible
community benefit of the disclosure of this information. In accordance
with the Act, this represents a Refusal Notice for your request.

 

Yours sincerely

 

C Quartey

 

Freedom of Information Officer

Corporate Information Management Department

 

This little nugget is total tosh

A trial has been held which
of course means all aspects of the investigation have been subject to the
scrutiny of the court. 

All aspects of the Investigation were not dealt with at court... No Forensic Evidence from either Joanna Yeates Flat or Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat were ever brought to trial....

And vital witness's did not take the stand!!

Bow locks.... Total Bow locks...(imo)

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/vincent_tabak_statements

[[...]]

Balance Test

Vincent Tabak’s statement was obtained for the purpose of the
investigation, disclosure of which would breach the data protection, this
would also prejudice any appeal he may make regarding his conviction. 
Whilst this investigation is now closed, it is recognised there is a
public interest in understanding why or how a the conclusion was reached.
This murder investigation attracted a lot of media attention and a lot of
information is already in the public domain.  A trial has been held which
of course means all aspects of the investigation have been subject to the
scrutiny of the court.  Therefore after weighing up the competing
interests, I have determined that the benefits of disclosure are not made
out.  Whilst the statement may be interesting to you this is of course
different to being in the public interest and I can see no tangible
community benefit of the disclosure of this information. In accordance
with the Act, this represents a Refusal Notice for your request.

Vincent Tabak’s statement was obtained for the purpose of the
investigation,

 

disclosure of which would breach the data protection, this
would also prejudice any appeal he may make regarding his conviction. 

Now my question to the quotes I have seperated is ... Is that two different reasons why they will not disclose the information???

Dr Vincent Tabak's statement being obtained for the purposes of the Investigation, could refer to his assistance he gave Avon and Somerset Police whilst he was in Holland.... 

Which is different from any statement he made whilst he was under Investigation himself....

Also there should be statements that all the neighbours made when the Police Initially questioned them on what happened on the weekend of the 17th-19th December 2010

And as for Dr Vincent Tabak appealing... Judge Field made sure he couldn't... that was the reason apparently they didn't use the porn in the trial as it could have been seen as prejudical..  And stopping Dr Vincent Tabak having a right to appeal, I believe ...

So back to good old 'Bow Locks"...  I'm afraid...

Could Dr Vincent Tabak's statement incriminate anyone else ??? unbeknown to him???

[[...]]

‘He is not being tried for his behaviour after Joanna
died. He is not being tried for dumping the body. What
he is being tried for is whether he killed Joanna Yeates,
intending to kill or cause really serious harm to her, or
whether, he panicked and did it without thinking of the
consequences. Most of what the prosecution has stated
does not go this fact: it goes to what happened
afterwards.’

And on that... The searches should therefore, not have been admitted as evidence... As they account mainly what happened after the 17th December 2010... And I have never believed that these searches were the searches of Dr Vincent Tabak... As I have explained my reasoning many many times before..

They do not prove that Dr Vincent Tabak had intended to kill Joanna Yeates....

Which again leaves you with Zero evidence to support Dr Vincent Tabak killing Joanna Yeates...

You are left with a story that doesn't add up.. And a defendant that was NEVER Defended...imo



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

[[...]]

Sorry wrong place ...

[[...]]

At Line 305 of the prosecution chart
PC Karen Thomas went to 44 Canynge Road to search

Was Karen Thomas only a PC???  This is from the Prosecutions 1300 page document of searches etc....

DCI Phil Jones just says he sent a team out to Holland to interview Dr Vincent Tabak,.. And after finding out that Andrew Mott is a civilian, I'm starting to have my doubts about Karen Thomas also...

With the volunteers that the police have these days... Is Karen Thomas just that... A volunteer...

I am really starting to wonder what qualifications these Police have that were in key positions of the Joanna Yeates Case.

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