The Defence Will State Their Case

[[...]]

Where do you get the idea from that builders did the forensic work? 

From here: https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/police-investigation-continues-flat-door-removed-people-news-footage/685650778

Also here: https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/police-investigation-continues-flat-door-removed-england-news-footage/685655606

Images attached too....

D.R.A Maintenance... I have cover this before ....

I have gone on about Bob The Builder and lack of protocols....

[attachment deleted by admin]

[[...]]

I think you would have a better chance of proving there is a man in the moon than you have proving Tabaks innocence...

I cannot prove anything Justsaying... and thats the point, I can't even prove if there was a real trial.... I cannot prove what this is about, because i do not know what this is about......

The question has to be Who is Dr Vincent Tabak and who is Joanna Yeates...  i said maybe I have wasted nearly 2 years on here... This case is not what it has been made out to be... But thats my belief i just don't know what it is about...

And to quote Justice Field...

The Truth may Never be known.....

  And there's me like a silly person, thinking I could understand what had happened..... Chasing ghosts and shadows..... Of something I know nothing about.... 

[justsaying]

From here: https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/police-investigation-continues-flat-door-removed-people-news-footage/685650778

Also here: https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/police-investigation-continues-flat-door-removed-england-news-footage/685655606

Images attached too....

D.R.A Maintenance... I have cover this before ....

I have gone on about Bob The Builder and lack of protocols....

I do not see any builders doing forensic work. I see them removing a door which will more than likely have been forensically tested by experts before it was removed...

[justsaying]

I cannot prove anything Justsaying... and thats the point, I can't even prove if there was a real trial.... I cannot prove what this is about, because i do not know what this is about......

The question has to be Who is Dr Vincent Tabak and who is Joanna Yeates...  i said maybe I have wasted nearly 2 years on here... This case is not what it has been made out to be... But thats my belief i just don't know what it is about...

And to quote Justice Field...   And there's me like a silly person, thinking I could understand what had happened..... Chasing ghosts and shadows..... Of something I know nothing about.... 

I think Mr Justice Field would have said that because he knew that Tabak was a liar and was giving a version of events that were in his favour when it came to the issues of murder or manslaughter. Only Tabak knows the truth, as I have said before I do not believe for one second that he made a pass at her and she started screaming. Him attacking her and then she screamed is the most likely scenario.

[justsaying]

I can't even prove if there was a real trial....

The trial was as real as any other trial in which a person was convicted of murder.

[Nicholas]

The Missing Posters that the friends of Joanna Yeates originally did, that were not official Police posters, asked people to contact.. CID and mentioned "Operation Braid"

We can argue points all day long....nothing will change...

This article may help you Nine.

The Full Truth May Never Be Known
"The case began as a missing-person inquiry, made more poignant and newsworthy because the young woman had disappeared during the festive period.

But after Joanna Yeates's frozen body was discovered on a snowy roadside verge on Christmas morning, it became a huge murder hunt and a story that gripped the UK and international media.

The solution to the mystery turned out to be simple: the 25-year-old landscape architect was killed by her neighbour, the Dutch-born engineer Vincent Tabak.

To the torment of her loved ones, however, the truth about exactly what happened on the night of 17 December last year in Flat one, 44 Canynge Road, Bristol, may never be known.

Tabak waited until the last possible moment – when he was in the witness box – to offer his version of events.

He claims Yeates invited him into her flat and made a flirty remark as they chatted in the kitchen, which encouraged him to make a pass at her.Tabak says she screamed, and to stop her he gripped her throat with his right hand and put his left over her mouth. After about 20 seconds she slumped lifelessly to the floor.

The police and prosecution believe there are huge holes in Tabak's account. They think this was a sex attack and that Tabak might have derived a thrill from the act of strangling his neighbour, from having her at his mercy and under his control.

They have suggested Tabak might have been spying on Yeates and may have found an excuse to knock on her door that night rather than being spontaneously invited in.

The attack may have started in the hallway, which was found in a chaotic state. It could have continued in the bedroom: one of the earrings Yeates is thought to have been wearing was discovered beneath the duvet. There is also the possibility that something may have happened after Tabak carried Yeates's body back to his own flat. Certainly, according to the prosecution, there was a delay of more than an hour before he put her body into the boot of his car and drove it away.

Finally, what police and pathologists discovered when they examined Yeates's body suggested more went on than Tabak admits to recalling.

She had suffered 43 injuries, including wounds to her face, throat and arms. Though her jeans had not been tampered with, her T-shirt had been pulled up above her breasts and part of her right breast exposed. A sample of Tabak's DNA was found on her chest, however scientists could not establish what it came from.

The bottom line is that nobody apart from Tabak can say what happened – and he claims his memory of exactly what happened remains sketchy.

Not at all sketchy are the last known moments of Yeates's life. They have become all too familiar. She vanished eight days before Christmas after leaving the Ram pub on Park Street in Bristol, where she had been enjoying after-work drinks with work colleagues. It was cold and snow and ice lay thick on the pavements.

Yeates bought a tomato, mozzarella and basil pizza from a supermarket and picked up two bottles of cider from an off-licence. Police believe she got back to her Clifton flat, which was already decorated in readiness for Christmas, at about 8.45pm.

Within moments – at about 8.50pm – partygoers heading to a nearby house heard two screams. And then silence.

Yeates's boyfriend, Greg Reardon, returned from a weekend away on the evening of Sunday 19 December to find Yeates missing, though her mobile phone, keys, purse and coat were there.

At 12.45am he dialled 999 and less than four hours later a police officer banged on the door of Flat two. Tabak answered and denied all knowledge.

His denial led to – in Tabak's own words – a "week of hell" for Yeates's family and friends. Over the next seven days police and family issued a series of increasingly desperate appeals for help in finding her.

On 23 December police revisited Tabak and carried out a routine search of the flat he shared with his girlfriend, Tanja Morson, to check Yeates was not there. He joked to friends that they must have thought he had stashed her in a drawer.

Tabak and Morson, the daughter of a Harvard-educated lawyer, then left Bristol to spend Christmas in Cambridge at her parents' home.

On Christmas Eve, Detective Constable Karen Thomas, a member of the police's major crime investigation team, spoke to Tabak by telephone about his movements on the night of Yeates's disappearance. He told her he was in all evening before driving in the early hours of the morning to pick up Morson after a work party.

He was able to say he did not know Yeates. She and Reardon moved in at the start of October 2010 and he left for a business trip in California on 6 November, only returning on 11 December, six days before the killing. They were in effect strangers.

On Christmas morning, at about the time Tabak and Morson – who remained ignorant of her boyfriend's crime – were opening their gifts, Yeates's body was found by a dog walker, covered in leaves and a pile of snow next to a quarry wall at Longwood Lane, Failand, three miles from Clifton. It looked as if the killer had tried to heave the body over the wall. Had he succeeded Yeates could still be a missing person.

The media interest became a frenzy. One tabloid suggested Yeates may have been held captive for several days before she was killed. Another theory was that she may have been dumped at the scene alive and died of hypothermia. The public was fascinated by the details. What had happened to the pizza, which was never found? Why had she bought two bottles of cider? Was she meeting someone? Was the killer waiting for her at the flat? Why was there no sign of a break-in?

Only Tabak knew the truth and he was not telling. On 28 December he and Morson drove via Eurotunnel to the Netherlands where they were to spend new year with Tabak's family.

There was no escape from the Yeates story in the Netherlands. On 30 December, Tabak and Morson watched a television news report of the arrest of Joanna Yeates's landlord, the former public school teacher Christopher Jefferies, over the killing.

At this point Tabak made a huge mistake. Spotting a chance to frame Jefferies, he contacted Avon and Somerset police and suggested the landlord had been out and about in his car on the night of Yeates's death. The murder team sent DC Karen Thomas to Amsterdam and on New Year's Eve she spoke to Tabak at a hotel near Schiphol airport for six hours.

For the first time, Tabak's behaviour seemed suspicious. He talked to her about Jefferies but seemed, in Thomas's words, "overly interested" in the forensic examinations police were carrying out. Tabak also gave Thomas a different version of what he had done on the night of Yeates's disappearance, explaining that he had gone out twice, once to take photographs of the snow and the second time to go to Asda.

He also suggested he may have once set foot in the hallway of Yeates's flat, not when she was there but when he was chatting to Christopher Jefferies before Yeates disappeared. Thomas asked him to provide a DNA sample and fingerprints so they could be eliminated if they were found in the flat. Tabak appeared concerned but cooperated.

Jefferies was released on police bail on New Year's day and Avon and Somerset police found themselves on the back foot, having to deny they were back to square one.

Tabak, of course, assumed the net was closing in. When he and Morson drove back to the UK on 2 January, Tabak expected to be arrested as soon as he cleared customs. Every day he waited for the police to knock on his door. He began to drink and take sleeping pills. He thought about jumping off Clifton suspension bridge.

The knock finally came on 20 January – three weeks after he spoke to police in Amsterdam. He was told that his DNA had linked him to Yeates's body.

He tried to blame the laboratory that had carried out the testing, suggesting it was insecure, even that a scientist may have been paid to set him up.

But the DNA evidence was damning and 30 days after killing Joanna Yeates, Vincent Tabak appeared before Bristol magistrates charged with her murder. In May at the Old Bailey he admitted manslaughter but denied murder.

In court he told his extraordinary story during two days in the witness box. How, after Yeates's death, he had bundled her body into his car boot before going shopping to Asda for beer and crisps and texting his girlfriend that he was "bored". He accepted that, following the killing, he had researched subjects such as the difference between murder and manslaughter and the definition of sexual assault. But he repeatedly said he could not remember how Yeates had come by her 43 injuries – beamed on screens around the court – or even whether she had been frightened.

Privately, detectives believe Tabak can recall what happened in Yeates's flat perfectly. They think he calculated that there was no point in denying that he had killed her but gambled that the detectives would not be able to prove he meant to do so.

Avon and Somerset police may now have some questions to answer. Why did they not look into Yeates's next-door neighbour more closely until he contacted them with supposed information about Christopher Jefferies? Did they preserve the scene of the crime properly in the early days? Why did it still take three weeks for them to arrest Tabak after he gave his DNA sample?

The police deny they were slow in getting to Tabak, saying he left the Bristol area before Yeates' body was found. Officers also revealed that it was "early January" when they had an "interesting development" regarding Tabak's DNA sample and possible links to Yeates' body. Confirmation took more time.

Of course, in the end, the death of Joanna Yeates and the continuing agony her family must suffer partly because so much remains unclear is down to Vincent Tabak.

"He is a clever young man who thinks he can play a clever game," said one senior police source. If he is playing a game, it is a cruel one for those who were closest to Joanna Yeates.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-case-vincent-tabak

[jixy]

All the attention that went his way was all of his own doing Not quite the picture Nine has posted on here. His over interest caused suspicion then his lies started to seal his fate .

He wasnt wrongly perused at random  he drew himself right into the middle of the investigation. A master manipulator  who thought he was clever but it backfired and identified him as a killer!

[[...]]

All the attention that went his way was all of his own doing Not quite the picture Nine has posted on here. His over interest caused suspicion then his lies started to seal his fate .

He wasnt wrongly perused at random  he drew himself right into the middle of the investigation. A master manipulator  who thought he was clever but it backfired and identified him as a killer!

So who's over interest are we talking about??

And how did he draw himself right into the middle of the investigation??

[jixy]

Im off to work so cant debate it but please reread you posts and see how much he put himself right in the middle. the post from Stephanie puts it all in one place

You think all the questions he asked arent important or in fact relevant - the Police thought differently.

Just because you dont see that doesnt mean it isnt real


sorry I dont mean to be rude but your view of the case is very childlike...what you think should happen and then doesnt blurs what did happen because it should have.

[[...]]

Im off to work so cant debate it but please reread you posts and see how much he put himself right in the middle. the post from Stephanie puts it all in one place

You think all the questions he asked arent important or in fact relevant - the Police thought differently.

Just because you dont see that doesnt mean it isnt real


sorry I dont mean to be rude but your view of the case is very childlike...what you think should happen and then doesnt blurs what did happen because it should have.

The only people who were bang right in the middle of the investigation, that we could see are..

* Greg Reardon

* David Yeates

* Theresa Yeates

* CJ

The person we know as Dr Vincent Tabak has done nothing to put himself bang in the middle of an investigation... If he had the evidence of this would have been used at trial....

There were various Police officers around at the time also... Do I put them bang in the middle of the Investigation??

And since the trial the only person who has made anything out of this is CJ.... He's everywhere....  So what is that about???

Edit...... And Rebecca Scott......

[justsaying]

The only people who were bang right in the middle of the investigation, that we could see are..

* Greg Reardon

* David Yeates

* Theresa Yeates

* CJ

The person we know as Dr Vincent Tabak has done nothing to put himself bang in the middle of an investigation... If he had the evidence of this would have been used at trial....

There were various Police officers around at the time also... Do I put them bang in the middle of the Investigation??

And since the trial the only person who has made anything out of this is CJ.... He's everywhere....  So what is that about???

Edit...... And Rebecca Scott......

Nine I think the highlights below answer a lot of your questions. Unfortunately you only see what you want to see.

At this point Tabak made a huge mistake. Spotting a chance to frame Jefferies, he contacted Avon and Somerset police and suggested the landlord had been out and about in his car on the night of Yeates's death. The murder team sent DC Karen Thomas to Amsterdam and on New Year's Eve she spoke to Tabak at a hotel near Schiphol airport for six hours.

For the first time, Tabak's behaviour seemed suspicious. He talked to her about Jefferies but seemed, in Thomas's words, "overly interested" in the forensic examinations police were carrying out. Tabak also gave Thomas a different version of what he had done on the night of Yeates's disappearance, explaining that he had gone out twice, once to take photographs of the snow and the second time to go to Asda.

He also suggested he may have once set foot in the hallway of Yeates's flat, not when she was there but when he was chatting to Christopher Jefferies before Yeates disappeared. Thomas asked him to provide a DNA sample and fingerprints so they could be eliminated if they were found in the flat. Tabak appeared concerned but cooperated...

Tabak, of course, assumed the net was closing in. When he and Morson drove back to the UK on 2 January, Tabak expected to be arrested as soon as he cleared customs. Every day he waited for the police to knock on his door. He began to drink and take sleeping pills. He thought about jumping off Clifton suspension bridge...

...He was told that his DNA had linked him to Yeates's body...

...But the DNA evidence was damning and 30 days after killing Joanna Yeates, Vincent Tabak appeared before Bristol magistrates charged with her murder...

...He accepted that, following the killing, he had researched subjects such as the difference between murder and manslaughter and the definition of sexual assault. But he repeatedly said he could not remember how Yeates had come by her 43 injuries...

[Nicholas]

So who's over interest are we talking about??

And how did he draw himself right into the middle of the investigation??

Something or someone appears to have distorted your thinking Nine? You seem to have been brainwashed into holding onto to your beliefs of this case?

How did you get involved in this case in the first place? What sparked your interest?


Self deception
"Self-deception is a process of denying or rationalizing away the relevance, significance, or importance of opposing evidence and logical argument. Self-deception involves convincing oneself of a truth so that one does not reveal any self-knowledge of the deception

"The folly of fools-The Logic of Deceit and Self-Deception in Human Life  "  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L5EcIvVuAxg

[Nicholas]

The person we know as Dr Vincent Tabak

You should read about serial killer (& professor) Theodore John Kaczynski

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QQnJGoFnC6Q

[[...]]

Something or someone appears to have distorted your thinking Nine? You seem to have been brainwashed into holding onto to your beliefs of this case?

How did you get involved in this case in the first place? What sparked your interest?


Self deception
"Self-deception is a process of denying or rationalizing away the relevance, significance, or importance of opposing evidence and logical argument. Self-deception involves convincing oneself of a truth so that one does not reveal any self-knowledge of the deception

"The folly of fools-The Logic of Deceit and Self-Deception in Human Life  "  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L5EcIvVuAxg

Therefore, using techniques on Dr Vincent Tabak, you may get him to believe and admit he has committed said act , when in actual fact he didn't.... The fact that he didn't have enough knowledge of said crime and was unable to answer 80 questions, could be interpreted in two ways....

(A): He was being deceptive

(B): He had no knowledge because he didn't do it..

Whether or not you think I am brain washed, is neither here nor there.... I still believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent... 

But since I started on here, nothing knew has come along to make me believe he is Guilty...

Nothing new in the media.... Nothing new at all.... Whether or not my beliefs differ from yours, is here nor there... i won't change your mind and you won't change mine... And not because i am being stubborn, because i would like to see evidence supporting Dr Vincent Tabak's claims he made on the stand.....

Saying he went to Asda, isn't proof he went to Asda... There a man walking around Asda that may resemble Dr Vincent Tabak... It may not be him..... Just because someone has told me it is him doesn't make it so.... Telling me that a blurred image of a car coming down Park Street is Dr Vincent Tabak's car doesn't make it so.... I see NO number plate, I cannot see who is driving... It could be anybody and any car.... And the time the footage comes from could also differ... It could be from Midnight on the 18th December 2010, up until 11:59pm on the 18th December 2010, so, who's car, what person is driving it and what time... Is extremely important.. You have a full 24 hours in which to establish someones where abouts, and there whereabouts are important, because if they are not on Park Street at 12:00am say... Then it cannot be them or their car, if they are drinking with friends for instance...

The footage could be at 5:00pm on the 18th December 2010... blowing the prosecutions idea, that Dr Vincent Tabak is driving around with Joanna Yeates in the car.... So we need to establish the facts and not just take the say so of someone....

So you believe I am brainwashed... Or am I thinking independently... There will always be influences upon someones perception of any idea, to not have such influences is an impossibility...

Or is the brainwashing the game of good cop bad cop..... Whilst I have been on here, i have questioned my own sanity, I have questioned my own self, I have cried plenty, I have got to the point at to whether i know if i am on my arse or elbow....

But nothing has changed.... Nothing has changed whatsoever.... I may have looked at some aspects in a different light, but my core belief that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent still stands.....

I have felt like an experiment sometimes, On the one hand, sometimes people seem supportive, then the next they have cut me down to the quick without explanation....

But is it our human nature that makes us respond that way, when we feel that we need to be accepted somehow...  and other peoples opinions count in support of our own ideas....

The world won't stop spinning because a small person as myself, have a belief that most do not.... Those who believe what has been said at a trial, have that option to believe that too... The FULL FACTS do not appear to have been presented.... The story in itself maybe true.... Just the wrong person saying it....

I have not seen an autopsy report, so I have reports that skim on the evidence of what this report actually tells us of Joanna Yeates... For all I know she may have been pregnant.... She may have already had had a child,.. I am not stating this as fact, but saying nothing about Joanna Yeates has been fully explained... telling me she has bruises, doesn't tell me how she sustained said bruises, and by what mechanism, not telling me whether or not she had DNA under her finger nails, doesn't tell me whether she fought back...

Where there a pattern to these bruises that indict she was either grabbed or deflected a weapon,... I don't know that information... She could have been rendered unconcious as far as anyone knows... Because for all intense and purposes, she hasn't fought back.... WHY?

If it was a stranger, she most certainly would have fought back (imo)... And if it was someone known to her once she realised her life was in danger, she would have fought back too...

The sexual assault, or sexually motivated crime... This idea was planted in our heads long ago.... By denying that it was sexually motivated, people would have made there own mind up, trying to find a reason for an attack by someone not known to her... And by the time we are at trial, the mire suggestion that it was sexually motivated, tells our own minds, that she must have been assaulted, especially, if she is wearing different clothes..Especially, if she was posed, especially, if they talk of re-dressing.. And especially if we did not see images of her... her clothes could have been inside out for all I know... I do not know what the jury saw.... But the motive as I have stated, was subliminally planted back in December 2010..

Where was the evidence to support that Joanna Yeates had been sexually assaulted.... She very well may have been, but the autopsy report we haven't seen would tell us that... If someone omits  something on a stand, doesn't mean it didn't happen... Or it wasn't a possibility....

As with whether or not I feel brainwashed, that depends on whether or not i interpret what has been said to me as brainwashing and whether or not my mind gets changed.... If Dr Vincent Tabak was brainwashed, that is more of a possibility.. Because that would depend on who is telling him what... And the fact that he is in isolation, having nothing familiar, to bounce back opinions from, makes him more susceptible, into believing what has been said...

He maybe sleep deprived, he may have been questioned for ever we don't know... But I can walk away from my computer... I can freely move about.... But Dr Vincent Tabak did not have that luxury... So was he brainwashed into believing he had committed this act?? or brainwashed into believing that he would be incarcerated for this act and evidence supports that it is him therefore admitting to Manslaughter, would be the safer option....

I cannot tell you who killed her... I can suggest people based on the information I know, but there are to many variables to that for me to be 100% sure.... If I base it on interviews of people I have seen that shortens the percentage... But If the real perp has not been identified in any manner in the media, then I have nothing to go on...

I don't know what else to say other than I still believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent, and does it really matter, to those who don't believe this, that I believe this?? It shouldn't... As I have said many times... I am nobody, I have no influence on any outcome of this case.. I am just a person, who has always believed that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent... And will forever believe this until i have been proved incorrect in my beliefs with concrete evidence...

[Nicholas]

Something or someone appears to have distorted your thinking Nine? You seem to have been brainwashed into holding onto to your beliefs of this case?

How did you get involved in this case in the first place? What sparked your interest?


Self deception
"Self-deception is a process of denying or rationalizing away the relevance, significance, or importance of opposing evidence and logical argument. Self-deception involves convincing oneself of a truth so that one does not reveal any self-knowledge of the deception

"The folly of fools-The Logic of Deceit and Self-Deception in Human Life  "  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L5EcIvVuAxg

Therefore, using techniques on Dr Vincent Tabak

NO - he's clearly pathological

I was referring to you and your posts on this forum

I asked you questions which could help you understand where your flawed opinions and distortions stemmed from.