UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Other High Profile Cases and Persons of Interest => The murder of landscape architect Joanna Yeates in Bristol in December 2010. => Topic started by: mrswah on September 10, 2016, 01:22:37 AM
-
I have doubts about whether Vincent Tabak is actually guilty. Yes, I know he may well be, and I am not accusing anyone else, but I have questions, that I hope some of you may be able to answer:
Firstly, yes, I know he made a confession, but how do we know he didn't make it under duress?
Why was it necessary to employ a team of fire engines and a crane to retrieve Joanna's body? (The Daily Mail carried a photo of this at the time).
Why was Tabak's DNA not found in Joanna's flat, if (as was claimed in court) he killed her there?
What evidence is there that he had her body in the boot of his car when he went to ASDA?
How do we know exactly what he searched on his computer, and do computer searches necessarily make one a murderer? (I think the police would have a field day if they looked at mine!!)
Why, once the police had Tabak's DNA, (or so they said) ,did they not release Christopher Jefferies immediately?
Why did neither Jefferies, nor Tanja Morson, nor Tabak's boss, appear in court to testify as to his character?
Ok, so these are some of my questions. I would be happier about Tabak's conviction, had there been better evidence, for instance, CCTV images showing him following Joanna home, or evidence of him buying cleaning materials in ASDA, rather than crisps! To me, he does not seem a very likely murderer, and I am not saying this merely because he has a PhD, as of course I realise that someone with a PhD can commit murder! But, really, a sexually motivated murder committed by someone who had only ever had one girlfriend, and who just happened to be the next door neighbour?
A lawyer called Sally Ramage, who was in court during the trial, has written an interesting account of it. Don't remember the link, but if you google Sally Ramage/Vincent Tabak, you will find it.
Any comments?????
1487
-
I have doubts about whether Vincent Tabak is actually guilty. Yes, I know he may well be, and I am not accusing anyone else, but I have questions, that I hope some of you may be able to answer:
Firstly, yes, I know he made a confession, but how do we know he didn't make it under duress?
Why was it necessary to employ a team of fire engines and a crane to retrieve Joanna's body? (The Daily Mail carried a photo of this at the time).
Why was Tabak's DNA not found in Joanna's flat, if (as was claimed in court) he killed her there?
What evidence is there that he had her body in the boot of his car when he went to ASDA?
How do we know exactly what he searched on his computer, and do computer searches necessarily make one a murderer? (I think the police would have a field day if they looked at mine!!)
Why, once the police had Tabak's DNA, (or so they said) ,did they not release Christopher Jefferies immediately?
Why did neither Jefferies, nor Tanja Morson, nor Tabak's boss, appear in court to testify as to his character?
Ok, so these are some of my questions. I would be happier about Tabak's conviction, had there been better evidence, for instance, CCTV images showing him following Joanna home, or evidence of him buying cleaning materials in ASDA, rather than crisps! To me, he does not seem a very likely murderer, and I am not saying this merely because he has a PhD, as of course I realise that someone with a PhD can commit murder! But, really, a sexually motivated murder committed by someone who had only ever had one girlfriend, and who just happened to be the next door neighbour?
A lawyer called Sally Ramage, who was in court during the trial, has written an interesting account of it. Don't remember the link, but if you google Sally Ramage/Vincent Tabak, you will find it.
Any comments?????
I was surprised when he was charged and subsequently found guilty as he seemed a most unlikely suspect but as far as I can see he's guilty as charged.
Personally I think his mind was corrupted by a certain type of porn. There was also evidence he used the services of escorts.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/vincent-tabak-porn-searches-jury
-
Thanks for your response, Holly.
Much was made of the porn on Tabak's computer, and someone from the States even accused Tabak of trying to strangle her during sex (this was reported in one of the tabloids). So, why didn't a police officer interview her ? Why didn't Tabak's girlfriend appear in court, as she would, surely, have had some idea as to whether or not her partner was into kinky and dangerous sex. Lots of people have porn on their computers, and many use escorts, pay for phone sex, etc, but this is not illegal, and it doesn't make somebody a killer.
As for the later appearance in court relating to the possession of child porn, I wonder why they bothered prosecuting. After all, even if they put Tabak on the sex offenders' register for ten years, he will be in prison for the next ten years anyway, and is, therefore, in no position to work with children, or harm them . (Incidentally, he had no previous criminal record either here, or in Holland , of any kind of sex crime). I wonder if there was another reason, for instance, would this additional conviction make it harder (or impossible) for him to appeal???
Not sure that porn (or anything else) on somebody's computer is actually good evidence: it can be planted, and did the jury actually get to see it?? It seems to me that the police and the CPS were DESPERATE to get a conviction, having messed things up so badly over the arrest of Christopher Jefferies. It would not have been difficult to convince the jury, as everybody was absolutely appalled at what happened to Joanna Yeates.
-
Thanks for your response, Holly.
Much was made of the porn on Tabak's computer, and someone from the States even accused Tabak of trying to strangle her during sex (this was reported in one of the tabloids). So, why didn't a police officer interview her ? Why didn't Tabak's girlfriend appear in court, as she would, surely, have had some idea as to whether or not her partner was into kinky and dangerous sex. Lots of people have porn on their computers, and many use escorts, pay for phone sex, etc, but this is not illegal, and it doesn't make somebody a killer.
As for the later appearance in court relating to the possession of child porn, I wonder why they bothered prosecuting. After all, even if they put Tabak on the sex offenders' register for ten years, he will be in prison for the next ten years anyway, and is, therefore, in no position to work with children, or harm them . (Incidentally, he had no previous criminal record either here, or in Holland , of any kind of sex crime). I wonder if there was another reason, for instance, would this additional conviction make it harder (or impossible) for him to appeal???
Not sure that porn (or anything else) on somebody's computer is actually good evidence: it can be planted, and did the jury actually get to see it?? It seems to me that the police and the CPS were DESPERATE to get a conviction, having messed things up so badly over the arrest of Christopher Jefferies. It would not have been difficult to convince the jury, as everybody was absolutely appalled at what happened to Joanna Yeates.
Yes I agree the fact he watched porn and possibly used the services of an escort doesn't in itself point to his guilt. In any event the jury didn't hear any of this.
I think men often use these services because their partners are not into whatever they are or they feel they can't ask. So TM may have been in the dark about his sexual preferences.
I thought his DNA was found somewhere on JY's body or clothing?
Is he protesting innocence or trying to appeal his sentence in some way?
The verdict was a 10-2 majority. I had look this up and was quite surprised as I did expect to find a unanimous verdict. From what I read at the time I thought the case against him was very strong.
I think people struggle to comprehend a well educated, well turned out man like VT carrying out such a crime. CJ on the other hand, whilst also well educted, looked a bit unkempt and perhaps people just found it easier to pin the blame on him? As evidenced by the way the press went to war on him? I think people feel safe when the perps of serious crime look or act a bit different.
VT claimed the attack was not sexually motivated and that he put his hands around JY's neck as she screamed. Sounds remarkably like the case of Ian Huntley (Soham Murders) in this regard.
mrswah I think there's little doubt VT is guilty. I can't see any evidence of anything amiss here at all? VT has even confessed. He comes from a stable middle class family. If they felt there was anything amiss I am sure they would be pursuing this?
-
They did find DNA, but had to have it "enhanced", and I believe the police believed that, on its own, it was not enough to get him convicted.
I , too, have wondered why his family have not made any fuss about his conviction. Do they believe him guilty, or have they been told to keep quiet, in order not to reduce his chances of being able to serve out part of his sentence in Holland?
I also find it strange that nobody has written a book about this case: normally, somebody does, after such a high profile case.
Of course, I might be wrong, and he is guilty. It is just that this case "niggles" me, whereas many murder cases don't.
Thanks for commenting, anyway. I am hoping that other people on this forum will.
As for Jefferies, I strongly suspect that , somehow, he would have been "found guilty" had they not arrested Tabak, not just because he "looked weird", but because he had keys to all the flats. The media (and people on forums) were very damning of him at the time---falsely, of course.
-
They did find DNA, but had to have it "enhanced", and I believe the police believed that, on its own, it was not enough to get him convicted.
I , too, have wondered why his family have not made any fuss about his conviction. Do they believe him guilty, or have they been told to keep quiet, in order not to reduce his chances of being able to serve out part of his sentence in Holland?
I also find it strange that nobody has written a book about this case: normally, somebody does, after such a high profile case.
Of course, I might be wrong, and he is guilty. It is just that this case "niggles" me, whereas many murder cases don't.
Thanks for commenting, anyway. I am hoping that other people on this forum will.
As for Jefferies, I strongly suspect that , somehow, he would have been "found guilty" had they not arrested Tabak, not just because he "looked weird", but because he had keys to all the flats. The media (and people on forums) were very damning of him at the time---falsely, of course.
DNA is often amplified and it wouldn't be strong enough evidence on its own to get a case to court whether amplified or not. Its not as strong as fingerprint evidence. A DNA profile can be shared by others, although statistically rare. Fingerprints are unique and not even shared by identical twins.
I don't believe the DPP would ever have been in a postion to bring about a case against CJ for the simple reason he is completely innocent of any involvement whatsoever.
VT and his family have kept a dignified silence as all concerned know he's guilty.
I've no idea why this case would "niggle" anyone as I can't see there's any doubt at all VT is guilty.
I'm not sure there's much to write about? As far as I can see it's just a sad case where a man allowed himself to become corrupted and consumed by violent porn to the point where it caused him to act out of character in the real world. His victim was a very decent young woman with her whole life ahead of her who it could be said 'was in the wrong place at the wrong time' albeit she was in her own home planning on spending a leisurely evening alone.
If you're interested in potential miscarriages of justice why not spend your time looking at cases where there's real doubt?
-
Hi Holly
Well, I cant help my niggles and doubts now, can I??
I remember (I'm probably a lot older than you!) a time when anyone who thought the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six might be innocent, were considered absolutely nuts!! And, yet----------
Of course Chris Jefferies, although totally innocent, could have been stitched up and convicted! If that kind of thing never happened, there would be no miscarriages of justice at all.
So, which cases, where there is real doubt, do you think I ought to be looking at ?
Was just hoping that somebody could help me with the questions that I asked in my first post.
-
Hi mrs w , welcome
There is a website dedicated to his innocence, just google tabak is innocent
There is some interesting info in there which didnt make the uk news
But
apart from pleading guilty his long list of actions before being caught are very incriminatory
I think youre probably onto a loser here
And if he was innocent wouldnt he have alledged confession after duress?
-
Hi mrs w , welcome
There is a website dedicated to his innocence, just google tabak is innocent
There is some interesting info in there which didnt make the uk news
But
apart from pleading guilty his long list of actions before being caught are very incriminatory
I think youre probably onto a loser here
And if he was innocent wouldnt he have alledged confession after duress?
Only one misguided voice crying from the wilderness of Denmark...
http://vincent-tabak-is-innocent.blogspot.co.uk/ (http://vincent-tabak-is-innocent.blogspot.co.uk/)
http://www.suffolkstrangler.com/philip%20Hollingbery%20review.htm (http://www.suffolkstrangler.com/philip%20Hollingbery%20review.htm)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nJqbxSVNOA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nJqbxSVNOA)
-
Thanks for the links folks! I am familiar with them, good to see some other people are.
Yes, of course I might be "onto a loser" and don't mind if I am: the consequences of people like me being "onto a winner" in this case would mean that Joanna's killer is still free to kill again, and that an innocent man is serving a life sentence.
Here is the link to Sally Ramage's account of the trial. She does NOT say Tabak is innocent, but what she does say is very interesting all the same. She is a lawyer, who was present at the trial.
www.philpapers.org/archive/RAMTMT-4.pdf
-
Hi Holly
Well, I cant help my niggles and doubts now, can I??
I remember (I'm probably a lot older than you!) a time when anyone who thought the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six might be innocent, were considered absolutely nuts!! And, yet----------
Of course Chris Jefferies, although totally innocent, could have been stitched up and convicted! If that kind of thing never happened, there would be no miscarriages of justice at all.
So, which cases, where there is real doubt, do you think I ought to be looking at ?
Was just hoping that somebody could help me with the questions that I asked in my first post.
Well I apologise if I sound completely dismissive but I just can't see anything to suggest VT is the victim of a MoJ. Moreover I don't believe he's even protesting his innocence which he surely would if he didn't commit the crime?
You mentioned the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four as examples of MoJ's but the members involved in these cases always protested their innocence and had family support who were very vocal. In the end their cases were taken up by high minded lawyers. I believe one or two had 'confessions' beaten out of them in an era when police interviews were not taped. MoJ's will sadly always happen but I do believe it's more difficult today for the innocent to be wrongly convicted than it was in the 70's and 80's.
VT was an unusual case in that he didn't fit the stereotypical murderer. He was well educated and turned out with a well paid job and steady girlfriend from a middle class family. As I said personally I think he allowed his mind to become corrupted and consumed by extreme porn.
-
Thanks for the links folks! I am familiar with them, good to see some other people are.
Yes, of course I might be "onto a loser" and don't mind if I am: the consequences of people like me being "onto a winner" in this case would mean that Joanna's killer is still free to kill again, and that an innocent man is serving a life sentence.
Here is the link to Sally Ramage's account of the trial. She does NOT say Tabak is innocent, but what she does say is very interesting all the same. She is a lawyer, who was present at the trial.
www.philpapers.org/archive/RAMTMT-4.pdf
Are we able to authenticate Sally Ramage by way of an entry to a professional register or something of that nature?
-
Will have a look Holly, and see what I can find out!
-
Re Sally Ramage:
www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk
www.linkedin.com/in/criminallawyer1
Don't have a clue how she came to involve herself with the Tabak trial, however!
-
Thanks for the links folks! I am familiar with them, good to see some other people are.
Yes, of course I might be "onto a loser" and don't mind if I am: the consequences of people like me being "onto a winner" in this case would mean that Joanna's killer is still free to kill again, and that an innocent man is serving a life sentence.
Here is the link to Sally Ramage's account of the trial. She does NOT say Tabak is innocent, but what she does say is very interesting all the same. She is a lawyer, who was present at the trial.
www.philpapers.org/archive/RAMTMT-4.pdf
Sounds like she was arguing it was manslaughter not murder and I cant say I disagree much from what is known
I havent got my head around somene else being the killer, free to kill again, when tabak described the evenings events and what happened
Ive also speed read some of the other links, some of the arguments on face value seem valid, and quite strong, there is a bit of speculation to say the least as well, so bar tabak being forced to lie throught the trial, the cps, police, prison chaplain and lawyers all being bent, leaned on, or incompetent, Im not convinced he had nothing to do with it
must admit though, there is somethng iffy about the conduct of the whole thing
Cps and police often act like the mafia cos theyre protected by the govt
But i cant see why they would do so in ghis case, frame an innocent manand make him agree to it
-
Will have a look Holly, and see what I can find out!
Thanks mrswah. It doesn't seem independent?
-
Re Sally Ramage:
www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk
www.linkedin.com/in/criminallawyer1
Don't have a clue how she came to involve herself with the Tabak trial, however!
I've just had a look on The Law Society's register and I am unable to find a Sally Ramage:
http://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/
-
I think she is American.
If you look at the link I put up, and then click on "the criminal lawyer", you will see a box which lists all her qualifications, memberships, etc.
-
I think she is American.
If you look at the link I put up, and then click on "the criminal lawyer", you will see a box which lists all her qualifications, memberships, etc.
British it appears... https://plus.google.com/+SALLYRAMAGE (https://plus.google.com/+SALLYRAMAGE)
Click on ABOUT.
-
Yes, I think you are right! She edits a journal called "The Criminal Lawyer", and , although she has degrees in Law, she may not have actually practised as a lawyer: she appears to be a legal researcher and journalist. There is quite a lot about her on the net. She has written about a number of court cases-----I wouldn't mind a job like that!!!
Her husband does practise as a solicitor, apparently. She lives in Staffordshire.
-
I too have doubts of his guilt, it nags at me and every so often i look back at whats available to research.
Crucially its his exit from his flat.. why would he go past joanna flat?
The more direct route for him is to turn left as he leaves the house and not right.
If turning right was the normal thing to do he would have seen more of his neighbours than he did, as he,d pass there house daily.
But I would think he would turn left onto the road/carpark next to his flat as his daily routine.
The double open gated exit is much wider and easier to access than struggling with his bicycle everyday going down the narrow path next to joanna flat.
And if turning left is your usual route out of the house, why go right on that night ??
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I too have doubts of his guilt, it nags at me and every so often i look back at whats available to research.
Crucially its his exit from his flat.. why would he go past joanna flat?
The more direct route for him is to turn left as he leaves the house and not right.
If turning right was the normal thing to do he would have seen more of his neighbours than he did, as he,d pass there house daily.
But I would think he would turn left onto the road/carpark next to his flat as his daily routine.
The double open gated exit is much wider and easier to access than struggling with his bicycle everyday going down the narrow path next to joanna flat.
And if turning left is your usual route out of the house, why go right on that night ??
Oh right
So you think he would confess to get, what a life sentence? Sigh
-
There are many people who have falsely confessed to a crime they haven't committed.
-
There are many people who have falsely confessed to a crime they haven't committed.
He pleaded not guilty initially iirc
I assumed he pleaded gulty to get a lesser sentence
What do you think made him plead guilty then ?
-
as a foreign national not understanding british law, and the evidence they put infront of him with the (partial) DNA, maybe he was convinced to plead to a lesser charge as if found guilty he would get xyz years in prison and manslaughter carries a lesser sentence,..
I found the trial bizarre ... A man who basically sat there and tried to explain how it happened.
Where were the key players in that?
Tanja Morson, did not testify, (she was tabak,s girlfriend, she would know his manner etc, she wasn't called as a prosecution witness or a defence witness)
Christopher Jefferies did not testify,
neither did her parents. Her mother said the flat didn't look right when she went in..
Where were his defence in defending him?
In the trial they explain away, everything,
So... he uses small garden gate, that makes him pass her door..
He goes into hallway and hangs his coat
he strangles her within 10/20 seconds.. ( i,m sure strangulation is an upclose and personal thing, someone who's angry, also 10/20 seconds is too short a time)
After killing her, he puts her body on her bed, goes round to his flat..
Then comes back, moves her body to his flat..
He put her in a bicycle bag..( he says as not to leave evidence in car.. so what about all the evidence he should have left in the flat up until that point)
He the puts her body in the boot of the car...
He goes back to turn off the oven, the tv and take the pizza and sock...
He drives to asda, we all see him in an asda... ( wheres the date and time stamp on this video?)
He dumps her where she's found.... Taking her out of the bicycle bag and putting the cover back in his car.
He explains her breast was showing because he'd tried to lift her over the fence but couldn't because she was too heavy.. (A dead weight)
So i don't understand looking at that scene, how if he can't lift her up over a small fence to hide her, how he could in that short space of time, lift her onto a bed.. carry her to his flat.. put her into a bicycle bag, carry it to the car, lift it into the boot... get to the second crime scene and lift her out of the car, take her out of the bicycle bag and then think... too heavy i won't move her.....
To me the idea that, you go into your neighbours who you have never spoken to before, kill them and then think,.. I must go back and turn the oven off, take that pizza and the sock on the floor??
Yet...... Leave a half drunk bottle of cider, which showed she'd been home..( how long had she been home to drink half a bottle of cider?)
To me it doesn't add up.....
Why not take her coat? bag ? phone? shoes? If your trying to make it look like she's not there, popped out or something,
Also in the trail, it was described as a violent attack.. his DNA was not found in the flat, hers wasn't found in his.. wheres the transfer evidence???
I could be completely wrong , but it doesn't add up!
-
There are miscarriages of justice in the uk system as much as anywhere else but he hasnt since said he is innocent or had anyone campaigning for him
I would have to go back and read all the info available to reply to you properly
-
When VT was first arrested, he said he was innocent, and did not believe the DNA said to be found on Joanna's body was his DNA.
He changed his plea to guilty having been in a category A prison on remand for several weeks. We don't know how he was treated in there, or whether or not he was drugged. We don't really know how he came to make his confession, only that he, apparently confessed to a chaplain , who could have been planted there by the police in order to get a confession out of him. It is odd that Brotherton only started visiting Long Lartin in the January, just before VT got there.
His lawyers changed a few times too, and we dont know why.
At his trial, he claimed not to remember the answers to many of the questions put to him. Was this because he had been instructed as to what to say, and he couldn't remember what he had been told to say? Somebody who attended the trial thought he looked and behaved like "an automaton".
-
And, yes, as you say, if Joanna was killed in her flat, OR in his flat, by VT, why wasn't his DNA found there?
If he had killed her in his car, there would have been DNA evidence in the car: lots of it, not only one tiny blood spot in the boot.
There is no evidence that Vincent and Joanna even encountered each other on that Friday night. Nobody is even sure whether, in fact, Joanna did die on the Friday night. If she died later, it is unlikely that Vincent did it, as Tanja would have been around.
If he hadn't "confessed", there would have been no case, as the DNA evidence they had was not enough to secure a conviction.
-
Im at the moment, looking at video of christopher jefferies, not that i think he had anything to do with it...
But... he never gave evidence in court, and i noticed an interesting comment he made about recieving a phone call from Greg Rearon at half past twelve on the Sunday.. I think Jefferies means the monday morning..
Christopher Jefferies quote: "I got up on monday morning and noticed I had a missed call on my phone about half
past twelve on the Sunday.
So it was very very unusual.."
This can be found on a video called Killers: Vincent Tabak around the 11.06/11.07 mark
Found this rather odd.. as hed phoned joanna and noticed her phone was in her pocket.. Why ring the landlord before the police.. why not go round to the neighbours?? Ring her friends??
-
Sally Rampage,s paper about vincent tabak, says that there was no stomach contents..
If this is acurate, what about the cheesy chips?...
More important what about the half bottle of cider she drank, which was 5 mins before she was supposed to have been killed!!!
-
Did he leave via the little gate??
Well im not sure.. again on the video Killers: Vincent tabak around 12.55
Jo,s parents says they notice that there where foot prints going diagonally across the lawn, they encounter a couple walking across the lawn, in a reconstruction.
whether this is Tabak and Tanja im not sure, but it begs the question that who ever walked across the lawn possibly did so because the path was
A: slippy because of the snow or
B: It was a shortcut..
Either way it suggests that Vincent Tabak didnt need to mention the little gate, as he would have said he"d taken a shortcut across the lawn..
Who's diagonal footprints where they?
And did they go from right to left diagonally or Left to right diagonally?
-
Again on the video Killers: Vincent Tabak 9:45 0nward (Police Officer states)
Greg reardon is with his family in sheffield trying to get hold of his girlfriend Joanna Yeates..
Over the weekend he tried to text her. He sent text messages to her, he rang her number and he rang the landline andd hadnt got any response.
Greg grows worried,its unusual for Joanna not to keeo intouch!!!
He travels back to Bristol and encounters an empty flat.
Yet on Page 47 of Sally Ramapages paper ..
Gregs witness statement:
Mr Reardon told the court that he texted Miss Yeates on her mobile telephone several times during
the weekend but received no reply.
He stated that he was not alarmed because this was often how
she behaved.
Which was it??
-
Again on the video Killers: Vincent Tabak 9:45 0nward (Police Officer states)
Greg reardon is with his family in sheffield trying to get hold of his girlfriend Joanna Yeates..
Over the weekend he tried to text her. He sent text messages to her, he rang her number and he rang the landline andd hadnt got any response.
Greg grows worried,its unusual for Joanna not to keeo intouch!!!
He travels back to Bristol and encounters an empty flat.
Yet on Page 47 of Sally Ramapages paper ..
Gregs witness statement:
Mr Reardon told the court that he texted Miss Yeates on her mobile telephone several times during
the weekend but received no reply.
He stated that he was not alarmed because this was often how
she behaved.
Which was it??
Nine, where the hell are you going with this? Don't disrespect the poor girl's parents with nonsense. He did it.
-
Nine, where the hell are you going with this? Don't disrespect the poor girl's parents with nonsense. He did it.
I,m sorry .. `I,m not trying to disrespect Jo,s parents..
The family i feel terrible for, its an horrendous crime, i cannot imagine, the pain that they have gone through, (and are still going through) and if i have come across in a way that suggests, I am disrespecting the family, I can only apologise.
There have been plenty of people whom, for instance, in America have been given the death sentence, and the evidence has pointed to them, but only when you get a full picture of events do you really see what has taken place.
The west memphis three are a case in point.
http://www.westmemphisthreefacts.com/
Quite often in cases, its the little things that make all the difference.
Again I am not wanting to be disrespectful, I wasnt intending to cause alarm to them.
But, if Tabak didnt do it, his family must also be suffering.
I remember Stefan Kiszko he was asked to confess and told he could go home to his mum if he said he did it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
Im sure there are cases in which you, yourself feels like there has been a miscarriage of justice, as that is the Name of the site.
And without looking into the small discrepencies, and time lines etc, we will never know.
-
Puglove, nobody is disrespecting Joanna's family.
This is a site concerned with possible miscarriages of justice, and people are entitled to air their views!
No victims of miscarriages of justice would ever be freed if concern was only about not respecting victims' families.
I doubt whether Joanna's family would be too happy if the wrong man was found to be in prison, and Jo's killer was still out there.
-
I think as the man convicted in this case isn't screaming his innocence from the roof tops people are bound to be of the opinion the right man Is serving the sentence.
Most cases whether guilty or innocent, if you stare long enough then you will see something to say why did that happen, that cant be right, it doesn't add up
There are many cases where people are crying out for help and support because they are innocent. They deserve all that can be done given to free them from a wrongful conviction
-
Puglove, nobody is disrespecting Joanna's family.
This is a site concerned with possible miscarriages of justice, and people are entitled to air their views!
No victims of miscarriages of justice would ever be freed if concern was only about not respecting victims' families.
I doubt whether Joanna's family would be too happy if the wrong man was found to be in prison, and Jo's killer was still out there.
This site is also concerned with exposing false miscarriage of justice claims and have successfully done so on several occasions.
-
Not everybody who screams their innocence from the rooftops IS actually innocent!
In the same way, some who ARE innocent might keep quiet, and there could be a number of reasons for this:
They might have been drugged/brainwashed/isolated/, and are no longer sure whether, in fact, they "did it" or not.
Someone like Tabak, who is not from this country, might think that if he keeps quiet, it will increase his chances of being able to serve part of his sentence back in Holland. He might even have been told this, we just dont know. He was certainly protesting his innocence when he was first arrested, then he confessed after some time on remand. We dont actually know whether he did this because he was actually guilty, and decided to come clean, or whether he was coerced into making a false confession.
-
This sounds oh so familiar. If someone is doing their prison time and not protesting their innocence and been found guilty by the members of a jury in court, plus all the evidence lead them to that conclusion... then I am not too sure why you think differently
I know people are wrongly convicted and I know people pretend that to be the case.
You seem to have all the answers, anyone would think you are a Solicitor Barrister or something along those lines!
You seem to look for things to fit your way of thinking about crime. I wonder why?
-
Not everybody who screams their innocence from the rooftops IS actually innocent!
In the same way, some who ARE innocent might keep quiet, and there could be a number of reasons for this:
They might have been drugged/brainwashed/isolated/, and are no longer sure whether, in fact, they "did it" or not.
Someone like Tabak, who is not from this country, might think that if he keeps quiet, it will increase his chances of being able to serve part of his sentence back in Holland. He might even have been told this, we just dont know. He was certainly protesting his innocence when he was first arrested, then he confessed after some time on remand. We dont actually know whether he did this because he was actually guilty, and decided to come clean, or whether he was coerced into making a false confession.
That argument doesnt convince me personally because he would have to be drugged brainwashed and n isolation forever for it to hold aNy ground
Protesting his innocence once arrested is pretty normal for people who dont want to be caught
Have any of his friends and family protested it or campaigned on his behalf?
He may have been wrongly charged with murder though if it was not premeditated or intent to kill
The whole "fittingup a totally innocentman" up theory hasnt got enough behind it
Who would do this andwhy? A police force looking for the first available patsy??
And sincewhen have uk police drugged people into a confession??
-
I agree Mercury. Its very common place to do just that. You chance your arm, play the game and hope not to implicate yourself.
Not admitting your guilt does in no way indicate innocence!
-
Jixy, I have never claimed to have all the answers. I only wish I did !! On the contrary, I just have a lot of questions.
And, I have, on more on one occasion, admitted that I could be wrong.
So, perhaps you and other posters , who believe in VT's guilt, could answer one of these questions for me:
Where do you think VT killed Joanna? I ask this because, had he killed her in her flat, as he claimed, he would have left DNA and fingerprint evidence there. Had this been the case, I am sure we would have heard about it, as it would have formed good prosecution evidence at the trial. There has never been any mention of VT's DNA in her flat, or of Joanna's DNA in his.
Had he killed her in his car (or rather, Tanja's car), there would have been DNA all over the car, not one teeny weeny blood spot in the boot, which yielded somewhat inconclusive evidence.
Had he killed her outside the flats, this would have caused a disturbance (and, quite honestly, would anyone be stupid enough to kill his next door neighbour right outside the door?). Chris Jefferies, who lived upstairs, and who was in that night, and who didn't own a TV to block out the noise, surely would have heard something, gone to investigate, and called the police. He was, after all, a conscientious Neighbourhood Watch enthusiast.
Any ideas???
-
@mrswah
re the car
Jo's body was out in a bicycle bag so there would be no dna in the boot
Don't know about the flat not having VT's dna in it...maybe it got contaminated, maybe it wasn't looked for?? Why would it be?
-
The flat was certainly examined forensically. During the trial, the jury were taken to see the flat, and pictures were shown of the bathroom having been forensically examined.
You ask why they would look. Surely, one would expect the police to look for forensic evidence in a place where somebody is said to have been killed?????
-
The flat was certainly examined forensically. During the trial, the jury were taken to see the flat, and pictures were shown of the bathroom having been forensically examined.
You ask why they would look. Surely, one would expect the police to look for forensic evidence in a place where somebody is said to have been killed?????
Of course they will have forensically sweeped, sorry, what I meant was, they wouldnt be sweeping with any person in mind
As I said, maybe it was contaminated,as at least one person was in there after the events and before police arrived
I would though imagine that , bearing in mind there was a struggle, a few hairs may have fallen and hairs cant be contaminated /destroyed in same way as dna from skin, sweat e.g.
-
Jixy, I have never claimed to have all the answers. I only wish I did !! On the contrary, I just have a lot of questions.
And, I have, on more on one occasion, admitted that I could be wrong.
So, perhaps you and other posters , who believe in VT's guilt, could answer one of these questions for me:
Where do you think VT killed Joanna? I ask this because, had he killed her in her flat, as he claimed, he would have left DNA and fingerprint evidence there. Had this been the case, I am sure we would have heard about it, as it would have formed good prosecution evidence at the trial. There has never been any mention of VT's DNA in her flat, or of Joanna's DNA in his.
Had he killed her in his car (or rather, Tanja's car), there would have been DNA all over the car, not one teeny weeny blood spot in the boot, which yielded somewhat inconclusive evidence.
Had he killed her outside the flats, this would have caused a disturbance (and, quite honestly, would anyone be stupid enough to kill his next door neighbour right outside the door?). Chris Jefferies, who lived upstairs, and who was in that night, and who didn't own a TV to block out the noise, surely would have heard something, gone to investigate, and called the police. He was, after all, a conscientious Neighbourhood Watch enthusiast.
Any ideas???
The accepted version is that he killed her in her flat after attempting to kiss her.
He might very well have left DNA evidence in the flat, unfortunately the forensics team appear to not have recovered any.
-
Thanks Mercury and John.
You see, this is one of the things I cannot get my head around. Without forensic evidence from the flat, nobody can prove he killed her there, as (as far as I am aware), nobody saw VT enter Jo's flat, nobody saw them together that night, and nothing belonging to VT was found in Jo's flat. They only have VT's confession to rely on, and surely they would need to back this up with other evidence.
We do not know for sure that Jo was ever put into VT's cycle bag. If Tanja had been called as a witness, she might have been able to tell the court whether or not VT owned a cycle bag, and whether this was missing.
And, there was that front door! VT apparently aroused suspicion in the police officer who interviewed him in Holland, because he asked questions regarding why the front door had been removed. Either he was merely interested in how the forensic team do their investigations (so am I, for that matter), or he was afraid of his DNA being found on that door (the official line). Nobody in court actually said whether or not there was any forensic evidence leading to him on that door!
-
And I,m puzzled as to how the shower area is covered in forensic powder, yet the sink is clean and tiles behind.
The oven which tabak turned off is also void of forensic powder.
The back of the door had litte to know finger print powder upon it.
Looking at the door it look, it has two locks, was it every determined as to which locks were locked?
The lock catchment is a different colour to the Brass yale lock,
in the sitting room one of the settee covers have been removed, why not remove them all??
But my overwhelming concern, is why he would ever, need to move her at all.....
Two complete strangers, he wasnt seen entering or leaving the flat, hes gone into it more than once, he has to tidy it up...
The more actions he does in the flat, the more chance of leaving evidence of himself behind.
And why would you add to that evidence by placing her in your own flat, only then to worry, i better not leave evidence in tanja car, let me get the bicycle bag!!!
The twoing and froing between flats and car take time, a dead body is heavy, people struggle to move dead people.
Thats why you have either, the person is left at the original crime scene or the body dismemebered or hidden in the place where they died.Two people move the body.
Victims are often walked to the scene where they are found.
The only reason to move someone would be to give the impression that they left somewhere, of there own accord and it would have to benefit the perpetrator to do so.
Tabak was aware that Tanja would be home that evening, they spent the weekend together.
He would have been able to have a better alibi with her left in the flat, having gone round home to use his computer,( time stamps) till he went to Asda.
If she was dead within 5/10 mins of returning home, who would know whom had entered the flat?
( He's described in court as being very calculated.)
Again to move her and return more than once to the flat, presents a risk of being seen.
To return to the flat to take a pizza and a sock and tidy up, turn oven off and Tv off but leave behind the opened beer..is ludicrous... if the sock was supposed to be the trophy he kept... where is it??
As a so called sexual preditor, wouldnt it of been more prudent of him to take the some underwear,
He's of need of hours to scrub it to make sure he hadnt left any evidence behind.
The prosecution believed he had Joanna in his flat for over an hour before putting her in the boot of his car..
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-case-vincent-tabak
So if shes in his flat for over an hour before he even puts her into the car, what time was that.????
Hes in Asda in Bedminster at what time? he's sent a text at 10.30 to Tanja, there no timestamp on the video in Asda, which is worrying.
Work backwards:
10.30 Asda.
5/10 minute drive to bedminster....10.20
How many minutes to put a body in a car? two attempts.. 5/10 mins ....10.10
Go get his car off the street and park it by his house.. 5 mins.. 10.05.
She's in his flat for an 1 hour.... 9.05
You then have 20 mins left for all the events to take place..
If shes arrived home at 8.45 ( as she was in (leaving) asda at 8.40) she would have a few minutes walk home. 4/5 mins, she talked to someone in the street??
She has to enter her flat lock the door,
put her keys away in her bag,
take her boots off ,
hang up her coat,
turn TV on,
Go into kitchen with her shopping, turn the oven on,
Open the beer ,have a drink.
wave at Tabak and invite him in....
Open the door , let him in, ( How many minutes does it take for all her actions??) 5 minutes??
Go back to kitchen and talk for 10 minutes, (be flirty as Tabak says).. You now have 5 minutes left
THEN!! he attacks her,
she sustained 43 injuries how many minutes would an attack take to cause all those injuries?? Surely with such an attack he's off left alot more of himself behind at the flat (DNA ,fibres, finger prints, etc)
A 20 second attack.. with 43 injuries... not likely.
He then puts her on the bed, (how did her earring end up in the duvet? did he make the bed??) (2mins) he has to carry her from the kitchen down the hall
He goes round to his flat,( 2mins?)
Comes back..( checks she alive 1min to 2 mins??) You've about 0 minutes left at this point to....
Then...
Moves her, from the bedroom,
through the hallway, through the front doorway ( did he leave it open or did he have to open it again) would you want to risk someone walking through an open door as your committing a crime?
Turns left carries her down the side of the building, turns left again, carries her across the back of the building,past he bedroom window , past his bedroom window puts her down,( is it at this point he opens his own flat door?) lifts her up again and carries her through his flat ..
Put her down, get a bicycle back, and put her in it.
He leaves her in his flat, goes back to her flat, ( he's either left door open or on latch)
He then starts to clear up evidence of him being there... Takes the now infamous pizza,(is the pizza out of the packaging??) He doesn't know she's just bought it.. so say its on its way to the oven...
(So why not take the open bottle of cider?? if hes trying to make it look like shes just left)
turns off the oven,
picks up the sock ( we know shes strangled with bare hands ... no need to take sock)
Turns off the TV
Picks up coatstand
Then what... does he wipe things down incase he touched something,
Lock the door
walk back round to his flat.
He's going to want to spend as little time as possible back in her flat... (Distance himself )
Also in this time she texted someone whilst she was in her house, her reply to `Peter was "At home on my Tod"..
Quote from Sally Ramage papers:
This is the Defence Counsel, Mr William |Clegg, QC’s opening speech:
“If Jo Yeates had stayed for just one more drink she would be alive today. If Vincent Tabak had
gone to Asda as he had planned that same time, he would not in the dock today. …
She turned on the oven to bake.
She phoned several male friends and told how she was bored.
She texted Samuel Ashcroft:
“Where are you this fine eve?”
His reply was “Home- sorry”.
She then texted Peter: “Where are you?”
Peter replied “On my way to a wedding. Where are you?”
She replied: “At home- on my todd”!
She texted a third male friend.
She has said she was bored and she was looking for company.
Did she rings these people whilst in her flat... all these actions take an amount of time, which makes me question the validity of the prosecutions case.
It's all about the Timeline, the available time Vincent Tabak could possibly have to commit the crime and cover up his tracks.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Tabak had a whole two days available to him in order to cover his tracks and destroy forensic evidence.
-
Tabak had a whole two days available to him in order to cover his tracks and destroy forensic evidence.
So if he had a whole two days as you are allowing him, to get rid of evidence and clean up the scene, why wasnt Tanja Morson called to tell the court of his constant disappearing throughout that weekend??
Did he keep her keys in his pocket. to keep going in and out of her flat? If that was the case, he'd of popped the keys down on a table not put them in her rucksack.
The door might of flung open if left on the latch, so he needs the keys with him if your scenario is to work.
-
So he cleans up after shes in his flat...
He still doesnt have enough time to :
Moves her, from the bedroom,
through the hallway, through the front doorway ( did he leave it open or did he have to open it again) would you want to risk someone walking through an open door as your committing a crime?
Turns left carries her down the side of the building, turns left again, carries her across the back of the building,past he bedroom window , past his bedroom window puts her down,( is it at this point he opens his own flat door?) lifts her up again and carries her through his flat ..
This is a heavy dead person we're talking about... Is he not panicking?? Does he take his coat off??
All those actions would take time..
-
So if he had a whole two days as you are allowing him, to get rid of evidence and clean up the scene, why wasnt Tanja Morson called to tell the court of his constant disappearing throughout that weekend??
Did he keep her keys in his pocket. to keep going in and out of her flat? If that was the case, he'd of popped the keys down on a table not put them in her rucksack.
The door might of flung open if left on the latch, so he needs the keys with him if your scenario is to work.
I agree, there are many unanswered questions but Joanna's disappearance was not reported until two full days after her murder. In that time Tabak had lots of opportunity to interfere with the crimescene had he chosen to do so.
His admission of guilt and his attempt to do a deal with prosecutors by admitting to manslaughter instead of murder is the clincher for me. Crying over spilt milk now would appear to be a veritable lost cause for him.
-
I agree, there are many unanswered questions but Joanna's disappearance was not reported until two full days after her murder. In that time Tabak had lots of opportunity to interfere with the crimescene had he chosen to do so.
His admission of guilt and his attempt to do a deal with prosecutors by admitting to manslaughter instead of murder is the clincher for me. Crying over spilt milk now would appear to be a veritable lost cause for him.
And also someone else could have had the same opportunity to interfer with a crime scene.
Who informed Tabak that Greg would not be returning home till 8.00pm the Sunday evening??
He would have to be fully aware of both Joanna and Gregs movements and possible movements for that said weekend!!
He'd have to know that she hadn't invited any guest round to stay, say on the Friday night... The whole of Saturday and Sunday till 8.00pm.
Or surely the alarm of her absence would have been raised sooner.
For a person that doesn't know their neighbour he'd be risking an awful lot to spend a whole weekend destroying evidence..
Just because a person admits guilt of a crime isn't evidence in itself that they have committed said crime...
-
shes in his flat for 1 hour, before, he puts her in car boot
Now i'm thinking about prosecutions statement:
That statement in itself suggests that the prosecution knew that Vincent Tabak was in his flat for 1 hour before he goes to the Bedminster Asda.
There must be some digital evidence to place him in his flat for 1 hour before he goes to asda....
They can't just sumise that he was in his flat..
So again I'll say, when does he have the time do do the crime????
-
I agree, he had two whole days in which to destroy evidence.
BUT, Tanja was around during those two days, so how did he do it ?
-
If the time stamps were removed from the ASDA CCTV, {as I understand was the case}, doesn't anyone think that is VERY suspect???
-
If i remember correctly, when he text Tanja, he was under a CCTV... which text is this..
The Asda one?????
-
If i remember correctly, when he text Tanja, he was under a CCTV... which text is this..
The Asda one?????
Didn't he go in and out of Asda more than once?
So What time did he drive up to the asda carpark in the first place?
-
Page 61 of Sarah ramage paper :
Clegg: Look at timeline again.
No 76. Jo Yeates did not get back to her flat until 8.37 or thereabouts.
Timeline 39- You ultimately went to Asda at approx 10.13 pm
Is Clegg saying he left home at 10:13 or was in Asda at 10:13
Because he doesnt say left your flat at 10:13
So that is left open to interpretation.
-
Yes, he texted Tanja while in ASDA, apparently under a CCTV camera, and the prosecution claimed that he had deliberately done this in order to give himself an alibi.
However, Vincent and Tanja were in the habit of texting/phoning each other all the time.
It was also claimed that Vincent went to ASDA in order to get caught on CCTV, in order to give himself an alibi. He could have gone to a smaller supermarket, which was nearer, and why on earth would he have wanted to drive further afield in bad weather, if not to give himself an alibi??
However, Greg drove all the way to Sheffield in the same bad weather, and nobody questioned that!
Vincent worked as a people flow analyst, meaning that he studied the flow of people around buildings. Perhaps large supermarkets really were interesting to him, as he claimed! Perhaps the smaller supermarket didn't stock the brand of beer he liked----who knows??? There is really nothing very suspect about him having gone to the bigger supermarket.
And, what did he buy in there? Beer, crisps and rock salt------not bleach, plastic bags, cleaning rags !!!
-
Yes, he texted Tanja while in ASDA, apparently under a CCTV camera, and the prosecution claimed that he had deliberately done this in order to give himself an alibi.
However, Vincent and Tanja were in the habit of texting/phoning each other all the time.
It was also claimed that Vincent went to ASDA in order to get caught on CCTV, in order to give himself an alibi. He could have gone to a smaller supermarket, which was nearer, and why on earth would he have wanted to drive further afield in bad weather, if not to give himself an alibi??
However, Greg drove all the way to Sheffield in the same bad weather, and nobody questioned that!
Vincent worked as a people flow analyst, meaning that he studied the flow of people around buildings. Perhaps large supermarkets really were interesting to him, as he claimed! Perhaps the smaller supermarket didn't stock the brand of beer he liked----who knows??? There is really nothing very suspect about him having gone to the bigger supermarket.
And, what did he buy in there? Beer, crisps and rock salt------not bleach, plastic bags, cleaning rags !!!
I don't see anything suspicious about him going to the Big Supermarket, it passed time, he was bored..
And quite honestly he didn't need to be under a CCTV writing a text, the phone provider would have a complete record of this, with (time stamps) without him having to make a song and dance about texting Tanja.
Another thing that quite suprised me, was the lack of quality of the CCTV on the suspension Bridge, so they couldn't make out any cars that drove along it,..(Driver.. number plate etc)
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/222191/Poor-CCTV-film-may-let-Joanna-Yeates-killer-escape
Why have CCTV on a road that cannot take pictures of vehicles???
whats the point of them??
Whilst writing this i thought,... hang on a minute, Does Clifton Suspension Bridge have a toll?
http://www.cliftonbridge.org.uk/
So now, how on earth would any driver get across that Bridge without:
A: Paying or
B: smashing through the barriers??
How would they ever be able to chase up someone who didn't pay?
So there must be clear CCTV of the suspension bridge and all the vehicles that crossed it!!
So on that token, that can't prove or disprove that Tabak or Greg went along Clifton Suspension Bridge..
Or anyone else for that matter!!!
-
There's a topic on this forum called
Topic: Are 'Murder by Stranger' victims ever removed from the scene of the crime? (Read 6874 times)
They also find it diffcult for statistics of a stranger murder moving a body from the scene of the crime.
-
There's a topic on this forum called
They also find it diffcult for statistics of a stranger murder moving a body from the scene of the crime.
This is an interesting read:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-RoxDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT156&lpg=PT156&dq=are+murder+by+stranger+victims+ever+moved+from+the+scene+of+the+crime?&source=bl&ots=5MaFsqzT01&sig=gybhYyrMRtS5uW7AASQwDw6beac&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjku4Oll5_QAhXICsAKHTVnC0AQ6AEIKjAD#v=onepage&q=are%20murder%20by%20stranger%20victims%20ever%20moved%20from%20the%20scene%20of%20the%20crime%3F&f=false
-
Thanks Mercury and John.
You see, this is one of the things I cannot get my head around. Without forensic evidence from the flat, nobody can prove he killed her there, as (as far as I am aware), nobody saw VT enter Jo's flat, nobody saw them together that night, and nothing belonging to VT was found in Jo's flat. They only have VT's confession to rely on, and surely they would need to back this up with other evidence.
We do not know for sure that Jo was ever put into VT's cycle bag. If Tanja had been called as a witness, she might have been able to tell the court whether or not VT owned a cycle bag, and whether this was missing.
And, there was that front door! VT apparently aroused suspicion in the police officer who interviewed him in Holland, because he asked questions regarding why the front door had been removed. Either he was merely interested in how the forensic team do their investigations (so am I, for that matter), or he was afraid of his DNA being found on that door (the official line). Nobody in court actually said whether or not there was any forensic evidence leading to him on that door!
Re his dna it was found on her body and although they couldnt say what substance it came from (weak samples apparently and not surprised if body was covered in snow) they said it was billion to one from him
Its under the dna section in this very thorough page
http://murderpedia.org/male.T/t/tabak-vincent.htm
There are some niggles in this case, doesnt mean they are big red flags without any explanation
As in the Knox case, a red flag is accusng someone else and I believe VT pointed the finger at the landlord
-
You could be right, but it is well known that enhanced DNA can be unreliable. I remember reading that the DNA found on Joanna's body would not have been enough to convict VT.
As far as him implicating the landlord is concerned, that is what the prosecution said, and VT was, indeed, given extra years on his sentence because it was said that he had done this.
Again, he MIGHT have done, but on the other hand, he might merely have wanted to help the police by giving them extra information. All the neighbours, when originally questioned, were invited to telephone the police "if they remembered anything else". Chris Jefferies did this, and was then arrested. VT did so, and was then arrested. Very strange!
Both Vincent AND Tanja (apparently) noticed that CJ's car was pointing in a different direction on the Saturday morning to on the Friday night, and they decided to telephone the police from Holland, having heard that CJ had been taken into custody. Some accounts say that it was Tanja who made the phone call, but it isn't entirely clear which of them made it. A police officer then travelled to Holland to interview them, and they took a sample of Vincent's DNA. The interview took six hours, and filled around 18 pages of the officer's notebook, so they can't just have been talking about CJ's car! Incidentally, this was when VT asked why the front door of JY's flat had been removed (he had seen this on the TV) and the officer became suspicious of him because he was taking so much interest in the investigation.
As CJ never appeared as a witness in court, we never heard whether or not he had, in fact, moved his car. I have not read anything that says he denied having done so. ( He does in the film "The Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies", but parts of that film were fictional. ).
I cannot really see why it is implicating somebody to say that his car appeared to be facing the other way! If VT had really wanted to implicate the landlord, why not say that he had seen him letting himself into JY's flat, or that he had seen him talking to JY that night?
-
Again, he MIGHT have done, but on the other hand, he might merely have wanted to help the police by giving them extra information. All the neighbours, when originally questioned, were invited to telephone the police "if they remembered anything else". Chris Jefferies did this, and was then arrested. VT did so, and was then arrested. Very strange!
--
Not the same
VT confessed to killing jo after he
He fingered the landlord
I think youre on a non starter here that VT was fitted up
as i said in older posts NO ONE in his famiky afaiaw are protesting his innocence, another red flag dont you thnk? If not, why?
-
I DO think it is odd that VT's family has been so quiet. However, they are not in this country, and they may well be thinking that, if they dont make any fuss, VT will be deported to serve out his sentence in Holland. They might have been told this, and I am sure it is what they will be wanting. Families don't give up on their own even if they are convicted murderers.
I also think it is odd that the press has been so quiet. I would have expected some journalist to have sniffed out details of Greg's and Tanya's new "love interests" by now! I would also have expected something on the lines of "Dining with the Dutch Devil: former cellmate reveals what flavour of pizza he really likes" or some similar unedifying, salacious rubbish to have emerged: VT best of friends with Ian Huntley or Nathan Matthews, for example.
Has the press been muzzled?
On the other hand, perhaps they have learned their lessons, after their treatment of Chris Jefferies. Perhaps they think everybody only wants to hear about Brexit and Donald Trump.
I wish!!! Hm Hm
-
Again, he MIGHT have done, but on the other hand, he might merely have wanted to help the police by giving them extra information. All the neighbours, when originally questioned, were invited to telephone the police "if they remembered anything else". Chris Jefferies did this, and was then arrested. VT did so, and was then arrested. Very strange!
--
Not the same
VT confessed to killing jo after he
He fingered the landlord
I think youre on a non starter here that VT was fitted up
as i said in older posts NO ONE in his famiky afaiaw are protesting his innocence, another red flag dont you thnk? If not, why?
But it could quite easily have been Chris Jefferies, they had in the frame, they originally arrested him because he said he saw 3 people leaving Joanna yeates Flat around 9.00pm on the night.
He was parking his car on the street.
All I'm saying is I'm not convinced to the events the police say took place.
If the Forensic lab that helped convict Tabak are sloppy, how is the DNA not questionable.
And chaplains dont tell confessions..
And no stomach contents make me feel like something happened to her later, there is no conclusive time of death.
Also the removal of all the discussion pages at the time is rather odd..
There were tenants/ neighbours who contributed to the orignal discussions as events unfolded.
Does that mean that this discusssion thread will be removed??
-
Police await forensic test results on 'highly significant' item of evidence
Charity shop searched for missing sock after tip-off
Sicko sends pizza label to pub where Jo had last drink
Police hunting the killer of Jo Yeates have fresh hope today after a series of new revelations.
Chief among them is a 'highly significant' piece of new evidence that has been handed to them and which is undergoing a series of forensic tests.
In keeping with the investigation so far, the police have not revealed details of what the item is, but it is understood that it is not the sock that was missing from her body when it was discovered on Christmas Day.
What was the significant piece of evidence, and was it ever linked to Tabak????
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1345938/Joanna-Yeates-murder-The-final-text-friend-replied-late.html#ixzz4PhlGl1SE
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
-
Dont think it was ever revealed what that piece of evidence was.
-
Miss Yeates had got home after drinks and “settled down for the evening when she was interrupted by Vincent Tabak”.
https://www.channel4.com/news/yeates-accused-appears-in-court-in-bristol
Now this throws up a few questions:
Contradition in terms:
Had she got comfy at home, relaxing infront of the TV before Tabak arrived?
Which still means she would have to arrive kick off boots, put shopping in kitchen, turn oven on, open and drink half bottle of cider.
It sounds like she was sat down with her drink of cider Watching something on TV!
How did they know that the TV was on?? Tabak didnt have to mention turning TV off??
Why do the prosecution know she was relaxing?
You get less and less time.
Thought their idea was he just went straight round after she arrived home and attacked her??
So did she have time to SETTLE DOWN as the prosecution say or was she attacked as she ARRIVED HOME??
Think about it... whats your idea of settling down when you arrive home?
The date of the article is 10th oct 2011
so it was said in court.
-
I DO think it is odd that VT's family has been so quiet. However, they are not in this country, and they may well be thinking that, if they dont make any fuss, VT will be deported to serve out his sentence in Holland. They might have been told this, and I am sure it is what they will be wanting. Families don't give up on their own even if they are convicted murderers.
I also think it is odd that the press has been so quiet. I would have expected some journalist to have sniffed out details of Greg's and Tanya's new "love interests" by now! I would also have expected something on the lines of "Dining with the Dutch Devil: former cellmate reveals what flavour of pizza he really likes" or some similar unedifying, salacious rubbish to have emerged: VT best of friends with Ian Huntley or Nathan Matthews, for example.
Has the press been muzzled?
On the other hand, perhaps they have learned their lessons, after their treatment of Chris Jefferies. Perhaps they think everybody only wants to hear about Brexit and Donald Trump.
I wish!!! Hm Hm
His parents must believe his confession too
You make a good point about the paper stories being absent but he did plead guilty,and protested it was not murder, but just a mad moment, those that have committed heinous crimes and child murders are violently attacked in prisons
I dont see any justification for snooping into the boyfriends current life as its not relevant or anyones busness,why would it be
The Leveson inquiry probably has somethng to do with this as well
-
Yes, you are absolutely right that the boyfriend's private life is none of anyone's business-----however, some unscrupulous journalists don't normally care whether the stuff they print is anyone's business or not!!
I don't believe there ever was an anonymous tip off, actually. His girlfriend stood by him when he was first arrested, and even visited him in prison.
And usually, if people have been beaten up/attacked in prison (Ian Huntley, Peter Sutcliffe, for example), that is exactly the sort of thing the papers do report!
-
His parents must believe his confession too
You make a good point about the paper stories being absent but he did plead guilty,and protested it was not murder, but just a mad moment, those that have committed heinous crimes and child murders are violently attacked in prisons
I dont see any justification for snooping into the boyfriends current life as its not relevant or anyones busness,why would it be
The Leveson inquiry probably has somethng to do with this as well
Hi mercury
There's been nothing to substantiate the sobbing girl, it wasnt played in court was it?? (I'm not sure)
That could have simply been a Red Herring to make the culprit feel uncomfortable, and give away his guilt at hearing the news.
-
I don't see anything suspicious about him going to the Big Supermarket, it passed time, he was bored..
And quite honestly he didn't need to be under a CCTV writing a text, the phone provider would have a complete record of this, with (time stamps) without him having to make a song and dance about texting Tanja.
Another thing that quite suprised me, was the lack of quality of the CCTV on the suspension Bridge, so they couldn't make out any cars that drove along it,..(Driver.. number plate etc)
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/222191/Poor-CCTV-film-may-let-Joanna-Yeates-killer-escape
Why have CCTV on a road that cannot take pictures of vehicles???
whats the point of them??
Whilst writing this i thought,... hang on a minute, Does Clifton Suspension Bridge have a toll?
http://www.cliftonbridge.org.uk/
So now, how on earth would any driver get across that Bridge without:
A: Paying or
B: smashing through the barriers??
How would they ever be able to chase up someone who didn't pay?
So there must be clear CCTV of the suspension bridge and all the vehicles that crossed it!!
So on that token, that can't prove or disprove that Tabak or Greg went along Clifton Suspension Bridge..
Or anyone else for that matter!!!
Extract from daily mail:
Detectives interviewed the owner of the car earlier this month but eliminated him at that stage.
A source close to the investigation told The Mail on Sunday: ‘The investigation changed dramatically three weeks ago after this new CCTV footage came to light.
‘The discovery of this car driving over the bridge shifted the case’s dynamics.
'Before this breakthrough the investigation was close to hitting a brick wall. They had interviewed Miss Yeates’s landlord but nothing materialised from it and there was no concrete evidence linking him in any way to the murder.
‘It appears he had brought himself under suspicion by making a series of comments which now appear to be irrelevant and innocuous. There was no case against him.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349615/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Vincent-Tabak-charged-murder-court-Monday.html#ixzz4PpyeMNSI
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Thought they could identify cars going over the bridge?
-
Yes, you are absolutely right that the boyfriend's private life is none of anyone's business-----however, some unscrupulous journalists don't normally care whether the stuff they print is anyone's business or not!!
I don't believe there ever was an anonymous tip off, actually. His girlfriend she stood by him when he was first arrested, and even visited him in prison.
And usually, if people have been beaten up/attacked in prison (Ian Huntley, Peter Sutcliffe, for example), that is exactly the sort of thing the papers do report!
Then maybe he hasnt been attacked
So who was the anonymous call from? thatgave his name and why not sooner?
-
Hi mercury
There's been nothing to substanciate the sobbing girl, it wasnt played in court was it?? (I'm not sure)
That could have simply been a Red Herring to make the culprit feel uncomfortable, and give away his guilt at hearing the news.
How is it a red herring if the call ledthe police to arrest him
If it was a red herring what led the police to arrest him then?
-
Dont think it was ever revealed what that piece of evidence was.
I don t know what it could be, but its obviously an item of some description..
At first when i read it... I read it wrong, thought significant piece of evidence was the DNA.. but it actually says it was handed to them, I wonder what it could be and why it wasn't used in court..
-
How is it a red herring if the call ledthe police to arrest him
If it was a red herring what led the police to arrest him then?
Police tactics in unveiling criminals are many fold, for example to get a confession out of a person say for a crime of passion, they may suggest that they understand how they were pushed to commit said crime, leaving the perpetrator feeling that they have a friend someone who understands them.
Didn't the Police say that when they went to visit Tabak in Holland thats where they decided it was him.. The lady detective said in a video that at first Tabak declined to give a sample of DNA, thats what she saw as a Red Flag as far as he was concerned.
She telephone avon and somerset police immediateley, thats when Vincent Tabak came into their sights.
-
The apparent tip off from the "sobbing girl" was not mentioned during the trial, as far as I know. It was in the newspapers, and given as the reason why VT was arrested, but nobody ever identified the sobbing girl, and there is no evidence that she ever existed.
As far as we know, VT came under suspicion after he was interviewed in Holland on New Years Eve. He changed his story by saying that he went to ASDA, when, in his previous statement to the police , he had said that he had been in all evening until he collected his girlfriend from the coach. Also, he took a lot of interest in why the front door to JY's flat had been removed (he had seen this on the telly while in Holland). At least, this is what the papers were reporting at the time! It was said that the police went to interview him in Holland because he and his girlfriend had telephoned them about the position of the landlord's car, BUT the interview in Holland lasted for 6 hours, so they must have been talking about a lot of other things too. Nobody knows exactly what, as the police have never revealed it.
-
Dont think VT ever declined to give a DNA sample, but he was surprised and reluctant at first. This COULD be because he was guilty, or it COULD be because he had telephoned the police in order to be helpful, and suddenly he realised that he was , perhaps, being thought of as a suspect.
-
Police tactics in unveiling criminals are many fold, for example to get a confession out of a person say for a crime of passion, they may suggest that they understand how they were pushed to commit said crime, leaving the perpetrator feeling that they have a friend someone who understands them.
Didn't the Police say that when they went to visit Tabak in Holland thats where they decided it was him.. The lady detective said in a video that at first Tabak declined to give a sample of DNA, thats what she saw as a Red Flag as far as he was concerned.
She telephone avon and somerset police immediateley, thats when Vincent Tabak came into their sights.
Ok i get what youre saying and Only the police and those close to them know how they work
But why would police need a reason apart from their own work to suspect and charge someone? Why wouldnt a policewomans suspicions /judgements be enough? You dont need to answer that Im just thnking out loud
What a headache
I dont believe he is innocent
The case against him might have holes (ie he liked strangulation porn etc) but it was probably right...and all his internet searches after it are quite damning
-
The apparent tip off from the "sobbing girl" was not mentioned during the trial, as far as I know. It was in the newspapers, and given as the reason why VT was arrested, but nobody ever identified the sobbing girl, and there is no evidence that she ever existed.
As far as we know, VT came under suspicion after he was interviewed in Holland on New Years Eve. He changed his story by saying that he went to ASDA, when, in his previous statement to the police , he had said that he had been in all evening until he collected his girlfriend from the coach. Also, he took a lot of interest in why the front door to JY's flat had been removed (he had seen this on the telly while in Holland). At least, this is what the papers were reporting at the time! It was said that the police went to interview him in Holland because he and his girlfriend had telephoned them about the position of the landlord's car, BUT the interview in Holland lasted for 6 hours, so they must have been talking about a lot of other things too. Nobody knows exactly what, as the police have never revealed it.
Fact she was sobbing tends to it being the gf imo
-
Fact she was sobbing tends to it being the gf imo
Was it ever said what the content of the sobbing girls phone call was about?
Did she Infact say it was Vincent Tabak?
Was it played to the Jury?
Because that would then be a Damning piece of evidence!!
-
The Police have always told us about The Missing Tesco's pizza and The Sock..
Why didnt they tell us about the smashed console,
They didnt tell us to look out for a broken console along with the Pizza and the Sock, surely a big piece of evidence with finger prints on it..
I refer to the console because I didn't know about it , whilst reading Sally Ramages pages ,on page 84
I don’t know.
The screams were heard 40 minutes before you texted Sonja.
No. I don’t know.
The apron dropped near to the door?
I don’t know?
Shhards of console- did you do that?
I don’t know.
POr of her knickers by the door. Did you put them there?
I don’t know.
Earrings in the bedroom
Was The Console the item handed in to Avon and Somerset Police??
Why didn't they look for it??
Or do they have the console in the evidence collected, if so why wasn't,t it in court evidence?
-
I believe the "sobbing girl" was forgotten about once VT had been arrested and charged, and , as far as I recall, she was never mentioned at the trial. A number of people on various forums have questioned this.
As for computer evidence, I just hope that I never get questioned by the police regarding a murder, as they would probably nail me immediately if they were to see my internet searches! They would probably say I had become corrupted by reading true crime stuff, and that I had become "inspired" by Vincent Tabak !
I would then need a cohort of good friends and lawyers to persuade the police that a 60 something, five feet tall woman with arthritis could not have possibly dunnit!!
-
Extract from daily mail:
Detectives interviewed the owner of the car earlier this month but eliminated him at that stage.
A source close to the investigation told The Mail on Sunday: ‘The investigation changed dramatically three weeks ago after this new CCTV footage came to light.
‘The discovery of this car driving over the bridge shifted the case’s dynamics.
'Before this breakthrough the investigation was close to hitting a brick wall. They had interviewed Miss Yeates’s landlord but nothing materialised from it and there was no concrete evidence linking him in any way to the murder.
‘It appears he had brought himself under suspicion by making a series of comments which now appear to be irrelevant and innocuous. There was no case against him.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349615/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Vincent-Tabak-charged-murder-court-Monday.html#ixzz4PpyeMNSI
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Thought they could identify cars going over the bridge?
Just re reading my post, quite often it takes a while for the light to turn on... ( i first read it as just a driver, but i think they mean VT) In any case they could see one driver clearly.
If the Police had interviewed Vincent Tabak because they saw his car go over the bridge, why didnt they use the CCTV as evidence??
Why was it clear enough one day to identify the driver but, its not clear cctv footage to use in court?
I don't understand
-
Re his dna it was found on her body and although they couldnt say what substance it came from (weak samples apparently and not surprised if body was covered in snow) they said it was billion to one from him
Its under the dna section in this very thorough page
http://murderpedia.org/male.T/t/tabak-vincent.htm
There are some niggles in this case, doesnt mean they are big red flags without any explanation
As in the Knox case, a red flag is accusng someone else and I believe VT pointed the finger at the landlord
The murderpedia states that Tabak left his home at 10.00pm
Jo's in his flat for an hour, gives even less time for events to take place.
I'm not convinced, with the timelines,... the media used the CCTV image of Tabak driving around Bristol, saying he was looking for somewhere to dump Jo..
Even though the CCTV image doesn't have a timestamp it has a date stamp for the 18th Dec, which is after Midnight, and according to murderpedia tabak was home at midnight and didn't go out again until he went to pick up Tanja!!
So I'm interested about the CCTV footage showing him driving around trying to find a place to get rid of Jo..
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Hi nine
I never followed this case much
I dont thnk the vincent is innocent blog is unbiased
I would like to think the uk police dont fit people up in this day and age
I just dont know though
I dont though believe he was forced to confess or drugged to or drugged throughout the trial
Alot of the questions people have have to do with police secrecy, right or wrong in their investigations....perhaps the british police should take a leaf from other countries and release their police files after a case is ended... Yeah ok
But its a fact that secrecy can protect abuses of the system...it sooo should be removed as much as possible
-
Found another law paper about the trial ,which has given me a clearer understanding as to why, the searches that Vincent Tabak did, where not admissable..(Its by Sally Ramage again, it layed out better and seems to have more info..)
Also how safe the metadata they produced saying Vincent Tabak did A B and C is probably lost and gone forever, As the defence didnt question this so called evidence and it can't be reproduced, Does that make it evidence???
page 29
11.1. Abuse of process
To use this law to prove the guilt of Dr Tabak in as serious an offence as murder can be
interpreted by some as an abuse of process and it is too late for a judicial review on this
point, because the trial did go ahead with he trial and the trial has concluded. The law of
presenting computer ‘evidence’ is intended to be used for accounting and banking
transactions and not murder, ie. what the accused did with the money , not what was in his
mind when he looked at a webpage. Some would argue that murder cannot be committed
by looking at a webpage, whereas fraud can be committed by making an electronic
transaction which can be put to evidence. Looking at a webpage cannot be the cause of
murder.
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
page 32
14.2. Significance of computer document is the defendant’s reaction to it
In ex parte Levin, it was assumed that section 69 of the 1984 PACE (now repealed) would
have to be complied with. In such a case, the reliability and accuracy of the computer are
obviously relevant. In other cases, however, they have no relevance at all. The significance
of the computer generated document lies not in its accuracy, but in the defendant's
behaviour in relation to it. In this case, Dr Tabak looked at webpages. Hypothetically, this
evidence could have been created for purpose and since the defence experts were not
allowed to examine it, all the metadata which shows when and who created it, to whom it
was forwarded, etc, has been lost forever. It is much too late at trial, and so this evidence
should be excluded because all the metadata has since been lost. It would not have been
difficult for the prosecution’s exper to show he live documents . Documentary copies set
up in a database alongside other documents alleging electronic conversations, etc. has
corrupted all the live evidence and its metadata.
Did the defence or anyone, check the reliability of Tabak computer?
12.1. Any evidence will go to weight unless unreliability is proved
Prior to the repeal of section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 by the
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, s. 60, it was necessary to prove the
reliability of the computer before any statement in a document produced by a computer
could be admitted in evidence. This applied, whichever category the information fell
within. See R v Shephard.
41 The repeal of s. 69 PACE means that any evidence
pertaining to the reliability of a computer will go to weight.
page 31
14.3. The relevance that Dr Tabak viewed certain online pages
Dr Tabak- if he did look at internet pages, did not print them.
He did not use them.
He did not act on the information in them.
He did not act in response to them.
He did not annotate them.
It is the defendant's behaviour in relation to the print-out that is important.
Therefore, there is no hearsay element involved and no reliability issue.
But as Dr Tabak did not print out this information, this is not relevant to his case.
So when they showed the supposed picture after the trial of a girl in a pink t-shirt in a car boot, it played on the sympathies of the general public,.. did this image infact come from vincent Tabaks, computer.
Because the press implied that Tabak had recreated the image he was supposed to have on his computer, thus it drove him to kill Joanna yeates.
And if this evidence is hard to recreate the exact time and how the image came to be how do we know for sure ,Tabak had it on his computer.
I know myself when i put information into google, google itself sometimes decides what I am looking for, and because im not concentrating on the search bar i press enter.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131210/07555625519/lawsuit-claims-accidental-google-search-led-to-years-government-investigation-harrassment.shtml
"In October of 2009, Kantor used the search engine Google to try to find, 'How do I build a radio-controlled airplane,'" he states in his complaint. "He ran this search a couple weeks before the birthday of his son with the thought of building one together as a birthday present. After typing, 'how do I build a radio controlled', Google auto-completed his search to, 'how do I build a radio controlled bomb.'"
Accidental porn hits are known and in 2012 google change the searches to prevent this from taking place
http://www.cio.com/article/2389773/online-safety/google-adjusts-image-search-to-avoid-accidental-porn-hits.html
So who said that Vincent Tabak intended to look up the difference between Murder and manslaughter? Or intended to look at porn? Without a printout of the said searches, how is it possible to prove he meant to look at what was entered into the search engine?
So There is no evidence to prove Intent at all.
-
Hi nine
I never followed this case much
I dont thnk the vincent is innocent blog is unbiased
I would like to think the uk police dont fit people up in this day and age
I just dont know though
I dont though believe he was forced to confess or drugged to or drugged throughout the trial
Alot of the questions people have have to do with police secrecy, right or wrong in their investigations....perhaps the british police should take a leaf from other countries and release their police files after a case is ended... Yeah ok
But its a fact that secrecy can protect abuses of the system...it sooo should be removed as much as possible
Hi Mercury
I wish they would release things from the trial... I'd honestly would love to spend the time sifting through the 1300 page document of the timelines, because it was presented to the defence on the day of the trial, they didnt have enough time to go through it properly.
And when I read certain aspects of the case and they go backwards and forwards to try to confuse, it infact does that..
For instance, the third text Joanna recieves appears that she gets it after she is home, because she has already replied to Peter..
She phoned several male friends and told how she was bored.
She texted Samuel Ashcroft:
“Where are you this fine eve?”
His reply was “Home- sorry”.
She then texted Peter: “Where are you?”
Peter replied “On my way to a wedding. Where are you?”
She replied: “At home- on my todd”!
She texted a third male friend.
She has said she was bored and she was looking for company.
page 51 sally ramage papers
I dont understand why they didnt say that it was MW, which i posted a link to on an earlier post.
What time was that text, because in the paper they said 8.20.. but that couldnt be correct because she was at home.. so was it later?? if so which time. And why don't they mention his name??
The police May have or may not have anything to hide, then they should be more transparent and it would stop people questioning , what is the official line is on certain events..
People do and have admitted to a crime they haven't committed, I cannot guess why Vincent Tabak might have done that... That's like me imaging whats going on in your head right now..I don't know...
And i don't know why he admitted guilt. (unless he did it... But.. And there it is... theres always a But) Not having his girlfriend especially testify in court and no one as a character witness is very strange indeed..
I would have at least expected Tanja to give her account of the weekend and the days leading up to Vincent Tabaks arrest in person. She was in a prime position to explain what his behaviour was like and if she felt it was different to his usual self.. If he didnt sleep properly, if he drank excessively. If she found him secretive.
If things looked different in their flat when she arrived back home after the party? lots of little niggly questions.
Statistically strangers do not move strangers bodies from home crime scene. (this puzzles me)
But I still have many questions And some I fear may be uncomfortable.
And i genuinley do not want to be disrepectful...
But its difficult when you end up asking uncomfortable questions not to appear like you are being disrespectful
And i'm truly not
-
The prison Chaplain:
Very important because this is what lead to Vincent Tabak pleading guilty, as events seem to suggest:
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2011/10/12/the-joanna-yeates-trial-and-the-salvation-army-chaplain-who-heard-a-confession-of-murder/
Ive never heard of a priest telling confessions...... who would ever trust them???
-
I have a question?
What do people think about the defence that Vincent Tabak recieved?
Do you think he had a good defence from his Lawyer?
-
what do people think as regards he was found guilty of murder?
Was it murder or was it manslaughter?
-
Goodness, Nine and Mercury, you have been busy!!
It was not a satisfactory trial, partly because VT had pleaded guilty to manslaughter. Therefore, nobody was asking "Did he do it?" He had already said he had done it, so the lawyers in court didn't have to worry about that. They just needed to determine whether or not he meant to do it. I have always thought it was a pity he didn't plead not guilty, then a lot more evidence would have come out at the trial, and people such as Tanja, Chris Jefferies, work colleagues, etc perhaps would have been called to testify.
That is partly why some of us are left with a lot of unanswered questions!
Jo's murder appalled and disgusted the whole country (and rightly so), and I am sure the vast majority of people were relieved that someone was charged, tried and imprisoned for it. People tend to think that if somebody is charged, then the police must surely "have something on them", and they dont question this. They are just relieved that a killer is no longer walking the streets. We are supposed to consider a suspect innocent until proved guilty, but I don't think people do in general----look at how poor Chris Jefferies was vilified, and he hadn't even been charged!
Most people don't question the tactics of the police , but people DO get stitched up sometimes, and the police DO sometimes make mistakes. The police were under immense pressure to solve Joanna's murder. If they hadn't , they would have had the indignity of police from elsewhere coming in to help them, or to take the case over. They had already made one mistake, and police have targets to reach, just like anyone else in a job. If a murderer is not caught, the police get the blame, and the media let everyone know about it!
We have to accept and respect the verdicts of juries, because the law says we must, but jury members are just members of the public, like us. They are not trained in law---in fact, I believe you can't serve on a jury if you are a lawyer. People vary as to how "hardline" or how "liberal" they are when confronted by a defendant, and I would imagine that a lot of people are so disgusted by the crime that they are only too ready to find the defendant guilty, and that they don't ask too many questions. You only have to read people's comments about criminals on the internet----many people are of the "lock them up and throw away the key " mentality, and many believe in capital punishment.
As for prosecution and defence barristers, I did read somewhere that winning is as important to them (or even sometimes more important) than getting to the truth. I don't know whether that is true or not, so I won't comment any further!!!
I have already said what I think about computer evidence!! Sally Ramage does mention that in the Tabak case it could have been concocted by the prosecution, or something to that effect. Until I read that, I would not have believed that such a thing could happen!
I know a very law abiding and decent man who genuinely believes that it is possible to strangle somebody accidentally during sex. Well, one learns something every day!!!
As you know, I lean towards the feeling that VT did not kill Jo at all. There is no motive (apart from sex, and I just dont believe that in his case: he had only ever had one girlfriend, and he didn't even know Jo). There is also no clear consensus on WHERE she died or WHEN she died. We only know HOW she died. If those questions cannot be answered, how can somebody be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt?
It may well be the case that the police know far more than has ever been revealed to the public, and if that is so, I am sure they have good reasons for it. However, while there are so many ifs and buts, of course some people are going to be asking questions! It is human nature. Lucky for the jury that they didnt have me on it!!
-
Well you were busy too mrswah
I'd like to know what people think about the Intent?
He was found guilty of murder,
Did the prosecution show intent,
Or is there another reason people think that Vincent Tabak went round to Joanna Yeates flat to kill her?
-
From what I have read, the fact that Joanna had 43 injuries led people to believe VT intended her harm. However, we do not know when or how all these injuries were sustained. If they needed fire equipment and a crane to retrieve her body, some of the injuries would have been sustained then, also some might have resulted from being exposed to the snow---we just dont know. She DID have a lot of bruises though, which can only be sustained when someone is alive, so it was obviously a violent attack on her-----it's just that I think someone other than VT did it!! So, yes, I think it was murder----but not because of "sex" and not by VT.
Also, people don't generally believe that it is possible to strangle someone by accident, although, as I said before, I know a very decent man who disagrees with this !!!!
Also, it was thought that VT lied in court. He said that he wanted to kiss Jo, but denied that this was sexual. Well, I wouldn't have believed that one either!! However, most people think VT lied in court because he wanted to make himself look less bad than he actually was. I would say that he lied in court because he was told what to say in the first place.
-
Tabak was in the house when Jo Yeates was on her last known evening alive. He was alone and had no alibi. He said he did it. There is a wealth of evidence to back up his admission. You can play these sorts of games on pretty much any case you want, indeed there are people on the internet convinced that Ian Huntley was stitched up and that Sarah Payne's murderer is a lovely man wrongly convicted. What purpose this serves other than to make you feel like Miss Marple I do not know. Put yourselves in the shoes of the victim's familiy for a moment and then tell me that what you're doing here is in their best interests.
-
Very well said Alfie. This game could run and run but as you say he said he did it!
-
Very well said Alfie. This game could run and run but as you say he said he did it!
This is not a game,
Its to look at miscarriages of justice: That is what the site is about'
Find Damien Echols on Twitter and tell him his conviction was correct and the American Goverment should have executed him.
He was one of the West Memphis Three, and even though originally they said he did it.... HE DIDNT!!
You can't try to shut people up because you don't agree with them, having your say is what a discussion is all about, your right to have your own opinions and they my differ from other people.
But saying he's in prison job done,... Walk away don't talk about it, .. will never stop other people voicing their concerns over his conviction.
And I do not think people are being disrespectful, it's easy to throw such a word about to undermine someones viewpoint.
-
As you used a quote from me, I hope you aren't saying I am trying to shut anyone up. You seem to be doing just fine talking to your alter ego!
It seems that you don't like anyone who doesn't agree with your ideas of justice and the fight you have to see innocence even when guilt has been proven, the person has been sentenced and isn't complaining!
-
As you used a quote from me, I hope you aren't saying I am trying to shut anyone up. You seem to be doing just fine talking to your alter ego!
It seems that you don't like anyone who doesn't agree with your ideas of justice and the fight you have to see innocence even when guilt has been proven, the person has been sentenced and isn't complaining!
jixy can i ask you what you thought about the porn tabak viewed and how that influenced your view of Vincent Tabak?
It is not about ego, I'm trying to understand how Vincent Tabak could have had the time to Kill Joanna as the prosecution have stated..
Because with the little timelines that are available, I honestly can't see him having the time or the reason for going around to her house in the first place.
-
I think you totally misunderstood my post...
-
Alfie and Jixy, we are not playing games here. We are debating: as far as I am aware, that is what people do on forums like this.
As for the effect on victims' families, nobody intends any disrespect to them, as I have said before. We are all entitled to our own opinions, and are entitled to air them, even if the victim's family may not like it. It is called free speech!! In any case, I very much doubt whether Jo's family are reading our posts.
I do agree, however, with what Alfie says regarding Ian Huntley. I have read a lot of stuff on the internet about people thinking he is innocent, and, having done my research, I reckon he is as guilty as sin. I think Vincent Tabak is rather different though, and I don't actually think there is much good evidence at all pointing to his guilt.
-
I was hoping to find more timelines and i have,.. They are about Vincent Tabaks computer searches.
One particular entry caught my eye from these papers:
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Page 44
At this point the jury on Wednesday morning 19 October 2011, were invited to write into
their copy of the prosecution chart where they see the words typed in by Tabak
‘definition’ before the words ‘sexual conduct’. The jury were invited to write the word
‘definition’, so that this entry is more accurate, the prosecution counsel Nigel Lickley said,
because these words were missed out when the prosecution constructed the chart of
evidence.
How can they change the evidence, right under peoples noses???
It completely changes the context of the search and how it was implied to make Tabak's look.
He can't add to the evidence in court, why on earth didn't his lawyer object??
Iv'e tried googling Sexual Conduct or Definition of Sexual Conduct, but it always comes up with (Sexual Misconduct), so did he click on it?
I'm still astounded that the Judge allowed this to happen, was he asleep??
Where is the proof that Tabak actually wrote the word "DEFINITION" in a search engine with regards sexual conduct??
The jury have now gone away with an annotation on their copy of the prosecutions chart.
Hiow can he invite the jury to add something that they havent got in evidence?
The jury were invited to write the word
‘definition’, so that this entry is more accurate, the prosecution counsel Nigel Lickley said,
because these words were missed out when the prosecution constructed the chart of
evidence.
How can it be more accurate??
More accurate for whom??
If the prosecution has made an error, he can't just decide to correct it in court, (how does that work)
Tabak didn't write a sentence, he wrote TWO WORDS,
I don't know what people think about this but..
I'm gobsmacked.....
-
If you searched the two words were "Miss Yeates"
Then you add the word "Murdered"
Then search "Murdered Miss yeates" you have two different answers
-
From what I have read, the fact that Joanna had 43 injuries led people to believe VT intended her harm. However, we do not know when or how all these injuries were sustained. If they needed fire equipment and a crane to retrieve her body, some of the injuries would have been sustained then, also some might have resulted from being exposed to the snow---we just dont know. She DID have a lot of bruises though, which can only be sustained when someone is alive, so it was obviously a violent attack on her-----it's just that I think someone other than VT did it!! So, yes, I think it was murder----but not because of "sex" and not by VT.
Also, people don't generally believe that it is possible to strangle someone by accident, although, as I said before, I know a very decent man who disagrees with this !!!!
Also, it was thought that VT lied in court. He said that he wanted to kiss Jo, but denied that this was sexual. Well, I wouldn't have believed that one either!! However, most people think VT lied in court because he wanted to make himself look less bad than he actually was. I would say that he lied in court because he was told what to say in the first place.
He needed to keep his girlfriend onside, of course he was going to deny it was sexual.
-
If the evidence they have presented in court doesn't stand up to scrutiny and nobody objected at the trail of Vincent Tabak, because for what ever reason he made a plea to manslaughter.
His Solicitor could have Objected on many issues but didnt, because they only had to try prove it was manslaughter and not murder.
But if all the so called evidence had been scrutinised in the first place, the ridculous evidence of Vincent Tabaks internet searches would have been thrown out.
With this forum being about Miscarriages of Justice, it gives a platform for people who have misgivings on convictions..
And the more information i read from the trial and how it was used, the more i am worried about it.
Who is going to put the evidence throught the ringer? For most people they are satisfied that Vincent Tabak is locked up, But what if he's not the real perpetrator? I don't believe he is.. And that in itself is a hard thing to say when your aware the majority of the public believe in his guilt.
The prosecution made much of Tabaks Internet searches, which they used to bolster their case.
I find that some of these searches don't make any sense.. For instance..
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
This link has some trial transcript:
On 23 Dec 2010 at 4.00 pm
Tabak searched the Dutch Wikipedia for the words
‘extradition’
‘Yeates’
‘missing persons’
‘% of grey cars in UK’
‘Renault Megan cars in UK’
why would he search a dutch wiki for this when the dutch wiki wouldnt have the information?
Take the % of grey cars...
https://translate.google.co.uk/#nl/en/%25%20Van%20de%20grijze%20auto's%20in%20het%20Verenigd%20Koninkrijk
Now if you put that into the dutch wiki you get :
https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speciaal:Zoeken&profile=default&fulltext=Search&search=%25+Van+de+grijze+auto%27s+in+het+Verenigd+Koninkrijk&searchToken=76r9hzzultimrab2igr01du7m
There isn't an entry, why would there be? It's useless information to the Dutch wiki
Again put the word Yeates in the Dutch wiki and you get this:
https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=yeates&title=Speciaal:Zoeken&go=Artikel&searchToken=ekugxqqdlqri4akdovwrcfq54
So how can they say that he was searching for related information to the case on the dutch wiki when realistically the dutch wiki would be useless just as the english wiki, it just writes information, it has sourced from news papers mainly and tv news.
So he might as well have just looked at the news!!
If i can find holes in a couple of examples, why on earth didn't his Lawyer object..!!
Because for starters as regards the Searches, they were only given the timeline document of 1300 page on the day of trail..
He would not have time to go through all the so called relevant searches and other timeline information.
The timeline chart consisted of 566 events, how on earth would a Lawyer have the time to scrutinise the prosecutions evidence?? They had a day!!
Iv'e spent more than a day looking at a few timeline..
How is the defence going to check whether it is possible to even search the dutch wiki for the supposed searches?
https://translate.google.co.uk/#en/nl/extradition
https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speciaal:Zoeken&profile=default&fulltext=Search&search=uitlevering&searchToken=1z737ea7a123nljokk36r47vn
did they follow that up with him clicking on the word extradition??
"The Netherlands also usually seeks to request that a national accused of crimes committed abroad is tried, or serves a sentence, in the Netherlands," she says.
So why isn't he spending time in a Dutch prison??
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23029814
In Fact I think it would have been better for Vincent Tabak if he was in Holland and they had to extradite him:
Article 16, paragraph 4 of the European Convention on
Extradition states that provisional arrest can be terminated
somewhere between 18 days and 40 days if the original
request for extradition and accompanying documents are
not received by the requested state.
Following Dutch legislation, provisional arrest can last no
longer than 20 days without the receipt of the original
request for extradition and accompanying documents. If
the original request for extradition and accompanying
documents (a fax version is not sufficient) are not received
within 20 days after a Dutch judge has ordered the
provisional arrest, this provisional arrest must be
terminated. Only after the original request for extradition
and accompanying documents are received can the
requested person be arrested for extradition again.
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/pc-oc/Country_information1_en_files/NL%20Extradition.pdf
They would have then had to prove to a Dutch judge that the evidence that they had on him was sound, and personally I'm not sure the Dutch Judge would have agreed.
Ive added this since posting:
Concerning extradition of Dutch nationals the following is
of importance. Article 6 of the European Convention on
Extradition allows states the possibility to deny extradition
of its own nationals. The Dutch declaration to this article
states that the Netherlands can only permit the extradition
of Dutch nationals for purposes of prosecution if the
requesting State provides a guarantee that the person
claimed may be returned to the Netherlands to serve his
sentence there if, following his extradition, a custodial
sentence other than a suspended sentence or a measure
depriving him of his liberty is imposed upon him.
So I cant see Tabak actually leaving holland if he committed the crime.. He was guarented under the extradition Treaty to at least spend his SENTENCE In Holland. If not they wouldn't possibly have extradited him...
If this was supposed to be an extremely calculating man. He would have STAYED
But I now understand why he wasn't given bail originally, when they didn'nt have any real evidence!!!
-
He needed to keep his girlfriend onside, of course he was going to deny it was sexual.
Ok.. he's got porn on his computer.. possibly he didnt want her to know...
But.... If he was into Sado Masochisim, surely they would have wanted Tanja Morson on the witness stand to say about Tabaks, sexual demands!!!
That would have bolstered there case....
-
So I cant see Tabak actually leaving holland if he committed the crime.. He was guarented under the extradition Treaty to at least spend his SENTENCE In Holland. If not they wouldn't possibly have extradited him...
If this was supposed to be an extremely calculating man. He would have STAYED
But I now understand why he wasn't given bail originally, when they didn'nt have any real evidence!!!
By taking a DNA sample from him in Holland and as eveyone says .. he knew he was scuppered then..
If his DNA was on Joanna.. it should have been all over joanna..
Then surely he'd have stayed in Holland, knowing it was only a matter of time before they matched him!!!
-
I believe VT had previously had porn on his computer, and he had admitted this to Tanja. When they moved in together, he told her he had deleted it.
So, yes, he must have lied to her, and he obviously wouldn't have wanted her to know the police had found porn. However, I understand from speaking to people that many men watch porn on their computers, and this does not make them in any way deviant: some of them are merely doing it behind their partners' backs. Same with using escorts. Not the most edifying of things to do, to my mind, but it isn't criminal!!
I suspect that, by the time VT went to trial, Tanja was already "not on side", as she fled to New Zealand, I believe! If she objected to porn, she certainly would have objected to "kinky" and masochistic sex, so I assume Vincent can't have tried anything like this while they were together.
-
I go with the Polices original theory that the Perpetator/perpetrors knew Joanna Yeates.
I have questions about her Mobile phone?
What sort of mobile phone did Joanna Yeates own??? (possibly a smartphone.. i don't know)..
Lots of information to do with this phone is unknown.
If its a smartphone, does it have apps running in the background?
Did she trawl the internet on it on an average day?
Did she check facebook on it? Reply on facebook on it?
Did she do twitter on it? (reading latest tweets?)
Did she take photo's? view photos?
Listen to music on it?
We know she texted on it, We know she rang on it on the day of the 17th Dec 2010
We don't know how many texts she made that day or how many phone calls she made that day, we only know some of that information.
Was she constantly recieving Alerts?
So i wondered when she last charged her phone?
Smartphones are notorious for losing battery fast.. there a pain in the..!!
I know they're alot of factors regarding battery life, but it puzzled me how the phone had life in it at 9.00pm on Sunday 19th 2010
It could still have had, i'd be suprised.
-
I suspect they wont extradite him because they are afraid that if he is back home, he might start talking!
-
If Vincent Tabak was sent to a Dutch Prison after the murder trail was over. He would have never been extradited again to face Trail on the Porn charges.
Can you imagine the expense of extraditing him?
Are the images in a Dutch court classified as child porn??
They got this evidence from over 4 computers Vincnet Tabak had access to... and an EXTERNAL hardrive that anyone could put things onto...
They needed these charges to stick, so the British Public can sleep comfortably at night knowing That Evil man is behind bars and he's not getting out!!
The have vilified him like they did with Chris Jefferies.
The Child Porn Conviction is pointless.. (with regards to this conviction )He's on a register, that will probably finish before he leaves prison. As far as I'm aware they don't have a Sex Offenders Register in Holland. And He got 10 month...
So the only real purpose I can she in this Conviction is to tell the British Public....
There you go,..We told you he was a nasty man!!!!
Appauling...
-
I suspect they wont extradite him because they are afraid that if he is back home, he might start talking!
I absolutley agree with you there Mrswah...
Maybe thats why he's not protesting his Innocence, maybe thats why His family are not making a song and dance..
If he behaves .. they'll let him serve time in a dutch prison..
He is probably desperate to be back in Hollland,whether its in prison or not his mother is really old and I'm sure she would like to see him
-
was she receiving alerts
Well we knew she received texts.. that evening
We also know that her boyfriend had text and rung her several times. Over that weekend
So that information adds to the wear on the battery life..
I'm sure Vincent Tabak didnt plug her phone in to keep the charge!!!
-
Tabak was in the house when Jo Yeates was on her last known evening alive. He was alone and had no alibi. He said he did it. There is a wealth of evidence to back up his admission. You can play these sorts of games on pretty much any case you want, indeed there are people on the internet convinced that Ian Huntley was stitched up and that Sarah Payne's murderer is a lovely man wrongly convicted. What purpose this serves other than to make you feel like Miss Marple I do not know. Put yourselves in the shoes of the victim's familiy for a moment and then tell me that what you're doing here is in their best interests.
There maybe a wealth of supposed evidence to back up an addmission, but where is the Hard evidence to prove he even entered Joanna Yeates flat??
Are there Vincent Tabaks finger prints anywhere in that flat??
He supposedly moved her round the flat to various locations.where are the finger prints??
He turned the tv off.. again wheres his finger prints or dna on the remote control
He turned off the oven.. where are his finger prints, surely by this time he was sweating profusley as he's apparently had just killed Janna Yeates.
There is no DNA evidence in Her flat Or His Flat..
He didn't leave his coat behind to prove he'd been in the flat..
Nobody saw him enter or leave the flat
There is no CCTV footage of him going into the Flat, because theres no CCTV's
He didn't ring anyone saying he's at his neigbours..
No Hard Evidence!! They need to support Vincent Tabak admission of guilt with hard evidence!!!
The supposed evidence in court fits snuggly with what the prosecution need you to believe:
Defence Counsel: Accepting that she was dead, what did you do?
Tabak: After a couple of minutes I lifted the body and carried it over to my flat.
Defence Counsel: Your hand being on what part of her body?
Tabak: One arm was underneath her knees.
from http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
One arm was underneath her Knee... What about her other Knee?
where was the rest off Vincent tabak? His other arm?
Did he draw her up towards his chest so that he had hold of her properly?
Surley if he did that more of his sweat would have dripped on her.
did he have one arm supporting her neck? so he could lift her?
Did he just move her by her legs..
I've tried but the answer does give an image of how Vincent Tabak was supposed to have lifted Joanna Yeates..
He's apparently only holding her by her Knee!!
This would explain why they supposedly found his DNA behind her knee of her Jeans..
Why on earth wasn't there more DNA on her or in the Flat if he had been Struggling to Move her!!!
-
And another thing...
How did they prove that the searches were all made by Vincent Tabak and None of these Internet searches were Made by his girlfriend on his home computer or work mates on work related computer?
Did they produce the evidence that they were all definetley Vincent Tabaks searches and not anyone else..
Again did his solicitor ever check who made the searches or did he just accept the Prosecutions word on that!!!
-
Alfie and Jixy, we are not playing games here. We are debating: as far as I am aware, that is what people do on forums like this.
As for the effect on victims' families, nobody intends any disrespect to them, as I have said before. We are all entitled to our own opinions, and are entitled to air them, even if the victim's family may not like it. It is called free speech!! In any case, I very much doubt whether Jo's family are reading our posts.
I do agree, however, with what Alfie says regarding Ian Huntley. I have read a lot of stuff on the internet about people thinking he is innocent, and, having done my research, I reckon he is as guilty as sin. I think Vincent Tabak is rather different though, and I don't actually think there is much good evidence at all pointing to his guilt.
I had a look at that "Tabak Is Innocent" website and it's the biggest pile of illogical and badly written/reasoned tosh I've ever read.
-
Ask yourself this:
Why would a dutch Nation look up Extradtion from Holland if:
On 23 Dec 2010 at 4.00 pm
Tabak searched the Dutch Wikipedia for the words
‘extradition’
‘Yeates’
‘missing persons’
‘% of grey cars in UK’
‘Renault Megan cars in UK’
A: He probably already has a basic Knowledge of the laws of the Dutch Land
B: He probably wouldn't have gotten the answer from a dutch wiki, he would need to check something long the lines of:
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/pc-oc/Country_information1_en_files/NL%20Extradition.pdf
Do not forget that Vincent Tabak has got a PHD,
I'm sure he knows Wiki isn't fact.. And realisically would have checked the relevant sources if he was trying to sercure not being detained in this country an avoiding Police apprehension.
He is Not Called Dr Vincent Tabak for nothing, the man has an education!!
-
I had a look at that "Tabak Is Innocent" website and it's the biggest pile of illogical and badly written/reasoned tosh I've ever read.
I am not saying the "Tabak is Innocent" website is accurate or that it makes statement that are suggesting certain things that haven't taken place.
I have not used information from "Tabak is Innocent" website to support the posts that i have made.
I have used common sense , logic and evidence from the offical information that has been made available, occasionally i have refer ed to the news papers at the time to see what the dates were.
If you check my posts I always use quotes and back them up with link, unless its a direct quote from this forum...
-
I had a look at that "Tabak Is Innocent" website and it's the biggest pile of illogical and badly written/reasoned tosh I've ever read.
I agree, Alfie. It's absolutely dire. %56&
-
Alfie, could you tell us why you think the "Tabak is Innocent" blog is a load of rubbish?
I don't get my ideas from there, either. I have looked at a lot of different sources: forums, newspapers, etc, BUT most of my ideas come from my brain!!! There was a time when I assumed VT must be guilty. I think I started to have doubts when his glasses were taken away from him in prison, and he had to appear in court unable to see properly. As for the trial, I think it was a farce.
I dont agree with a some of the views expressed on that blog, but I do think it is well written and well researched. I would like to know more about why you think as you do!!
-
Ah, Puglove, good afternoon! Perhaps you could tell us a bit more too, regarding why you think it is dire???
-
And I would like to know why they decided to strip Dr Vincent Tabak of his title?
He doesnt loose his education because ofhis conviction!!
They didnt strip Dr Harold Shipman of his when he in prison...
Just calling him plan old Vincent Tabak makes him seem more villianous
The Prosecution don't show him any respect at all.. They refer to him all the Time as "TABAK"
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
At Line 340 of the prosecution chart
Tabak Googled on 26 Dec 2010
‘Yeates’
At 3.00 pm he search the Telegraph Newspaper online
At 3:43 pm he searched online global newspapers
At 3.45 pm he searched the words
‘Suspension bridge police footage’
I remember teachers at schools refering to pupils by their last name... This tended to happen because they didn't like them.
Makes Dr Vincent Tabak less appealing to the Jury...
So I'm going to be making a concerted effort to call him by his proper title....
-
It was reported that he took his glasses off as he shed a tear and apologised to Joanna's parents in court. Why would he do that?
-
He probably was sorry that they had such an horrendous crime visited upon their daughter..
Whats he gonna do... not say anything and appear even more of a callous unfeeling person, And crying not a suprising reaction to everything that was put infront of him..
At that time he's already been in prison for a lenght of time..
I'd cry in that position... damned if you do damned if you dont...
We still don't know what or who convinced him to plead guilty in the first place...
-
maybe he WAS sorry because he killed her and really didn't mean to rather a general sorry that she was dead! at least he had his glasses on!
He was sorry for putting them through hell and not indicating someone else did!
-
Question:
Did The chaplain Brotherton appear in court?
Correct me if i'm incorrect, but isn't it hearsay when one person has a conversation with another person? As regards evidence in court, doesn't the original confession to The Chaplain Brotherton need to be recorded, especially if he didn't make an appearance?
When the confession was heard by the Chaplain Brotherton, Did he record this confession for the Police, if he wasn't bothered that Dr Vincent Tabak was an atheist as has been mentioned to explain away why a Religous Man of the cloth would divulge the confessions of anyone.. Then he could have worn a wire?
Or demand a court ruling for him to appear as a reluctant witness, and because of his convictions as a man of faith, would possibly face a contempt of court ruling for refusing to divulge a confession.
-
maybe he WAS sorry because he killed her and really didn't mean to rather a general sorry that she was dead! at least he had his glasses on!
He was sorry for putting them through hell and not indicating someone else did!
Once the plea had been made, he couldn't implicate someone else, at that point he's going through the motions.
Jixy why the Glasses?
-
Jixy, do you think he was showing remorse then?
I began a separate thread on this site, asking what a defendant has to do to show remorse, as we often hear that convicted people havent shown any remorse (Im not only thinking about VT here). As far as I recall, only one person replied! I have always wondered about this: if someone cries in court, people will say they are only crying because they were caught, so what would VT have to do, assuming that he DID murder Jo, for people to think he was remorseful?
I always wondered about this, in relation to Myra Hindley in particular (and at least, with her, there was GOOD EVIDENCE that she was guilty). As we all know, "Evil Myra" was selling newspapers even after her death! She had her supporters, who thought she was showing remorse by helping to find the body of Pauline Reade, becoming a practising Catholic, etc etc, but others thought that she never showed any remorse at all. Sorry to go off topic, but this has always interested me.
-
maybe he WAS sorry because he killed her and really didn't mean to rather a general sorry that she was dead! at least he had his glasses on!
He was sorry for putting them through hell and not indicating someone else did!
Jixy you beauty, you don't realise what a help you are...
Why didnt his Glasses fall off??
Why didnt he break them;
Bending up and down doing all those movements to place joanna in different places around the Flat, surely he of had to pause to stop his glasses faliing off, they'd be moving round his face, he'd have to keep ajusting them..
I wear glasses for reading, he wears them all the time and sometimes i bend over and they fall off or move, they're quite annoying..
If he had Joanna yeates near his face his glasses also would of had DNA on them and his consent touching of his glasses , having come into contact with Joanna yeates should surely have had some transfer on them....
I think these Glasses need more investigation...
-
Nine
It was me who first mentioned VT's glasses! I said I first began having doubts about his guilt when his glasses were taken away!
As for Brotherton, I believe he had three conversations with VT, and somehow (have no idea how) this became a "confession". Dont know whether he actually said that he had killed Jo---he did talk about changing his plea, apparently. I always thought it was very odd that he only started visiting Long Lartin in January 2011, just before VT found himself there.
-
Sorry mrswah
I apologise for my oversite..
And the Glasses of Dr Vincent Tabak are of relevance to the case, in more than one way..
Maybe someone could add a few extra minutes here and there for Dr Vincent Tabak to adjust his glasses during the commission of this crime.
Not only in the first crime scene, but the second crime scene...
-
He added: “When I found out she had not been admitted to any hospital, or been picked up by the police, or returned to work on the Monday morning, I could only fear the worst. I knew she would not just run away.”
Read more at http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/joanna-yeates-8217-boyfriend-greg-speaks-agony/story-14143998-detail/story.html#KgcicPQM7MdgHVDK.99
did he ring any hospital on that day? Returned to work Monday morning??? The police where in his house Monday morning, why would she go to work without her , shoes, coat, phone rucksack or anything else.. (weird)
At 11pm, Greg’s feelings of insecurity deepened dramatically when he noticed Jo’s rucksack on the dining room table. He said: “I rummaged through it and found her specs in a case, her sunglasses in a case, her wallet and keys within the depths of the bag and the striped multi-coloured top she had worn on Friday.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-trial-boyfriend-tells-86312 He said: “I found one of them under a piece of clothing on the floor and the other was under the duvet in the bed.
Arriving home to an untidy flat, Greg Reardon felt a little miffed his girlfriend Jo Yeates had left coats and boots scattered across the hall.
Just my opinion ,but not to notice the Rucksack on the Table for 3 hours in such a small flat, Yet finds earrings;;
Suprises me.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8822459/Jury-shown-inside-Joanna-Yeates-flat.html
Dr Vincent Tabak apparently noticed the Pizza on the table after he'd taken Joanna Yeates around to his flat, he went back to collect it, and the sock.
I still don't understand why he would take the Pizza, he didnt know she had just bought it...
If the flat is in such mess on Mr Reardons return, why hadn't Dr Vincent Tabak spent the time to clean up?
How could he assure that he hadn't left any evidence behind... the earring in the duvet shows it was possible for evidence to be there??
He said of his return to Flat 1, on the Sunday night:
'It was quite untidy. There were clothing, boots and shoes and general paraphernalia.' He
told jurors he paced around the flat, tidying as he went, and trying to piece together what
may have happened’. There were clothing, boots and shoes and general paraphernalia. I
was wandering about. I didn't really think there was a big problem. I thought she may well
have gone away visiting friends. 'So I thought she may have been away doing fun things,
so not having been able to get hold of her phone. I wasn't sure. I didn't immediately think
anything serious was wrong.' I was quite annoyed that I had not been told what her plans
were and she had not got back to me and I was starting to feel quite worried.’ said Greg
Reardon.
Mr Reardon said Bernard the cat was pleased to see him and wanted to go outside to the
toilet. The cat was also hungry and quickly ate his dinner. Referring to the hungry cat, the
clothes on the floor and general mess, Mr Reardon said:’
Mr Reardon said he had eaten a pizza from the freezer for his dinner and drank the open
bottle of cider he had found in the flat when he got home.
Mr Reardon, who works as an architectural assistant, said he spotted his girlfriend's
rucksack on the dining room table and when he opened it he found her glasses, sunglasses,
keys and wallet inside. Her striped jumper, which she had been wearing on the day she
was last seen alive, was found in her rucksack. His discrepancy was never queried during
this murder trial.
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Why hadn't anyone in the court challenged Greg Reardon and his inconsistencies.
If his account isn't accurate it throws doubt upon events..
It also highlights the difficulty that Dr Vincent Tabak would have faced trying to remove Joanna Yeates from the Flat.
If the Hallway had boots left there, coats etc, and theyre had been a huge struggle in the flat. Dr Vincent Tabak would not have found it easy to negotiate moving Joanna Yeates out of the flat to his flat.
-
Alfie, could you tell us why you think the "Tabak is Innocent" blog is a load of rubbish?
I don't get my ideas from there, either. I have looked at a lot of different sources: forums, newspapers, etc, BUT most of my ideas come from my brain!!! There was a time when I assumed VT must be guilty. I think I started to have doubts when his glasses were taken away from him in prison, and he had to appear in court unable to see properly. As for the trial, I think it was a farce.
I dont agree with a some of the views expressed on that blog, but I do think it is well written and well researched. I would like to know more about why you think as you do!!
I'm surprised you have to ask actually. Within a few sentences of the front page of the blog we have this
"His pretty neighbour Joanna Yeates, whom he did not know at all, even by sight, was murdered just before Christmas 2010 (probably after her boyfriend caught her déshabillé with her secret lover)",
This makes the most offensive allegations about the victim and suggests her boyfriend is guilty, which is libellous and completely unsupported by even a shred of evidence.
-
Alfie, good evening...
Hasn't anything that has been said on this forum made you think differently in anyway?
Not even the post about "internet searches"...
my goodness, if someone used my internet searches against me, when I've been looking at this case, they could construe allsorts from them.. Not forgetting when I leave the room My daughter may use my computer..
Who said Dr Vincent Tabak was at a computer (of which there were 4 they searched) and hadn't left the room, someone pops on for 2 ticks.. Searches weather/ murder/ anything.. Can they prove it was definetley Dr Vincent Tabak who made these searches??
It's difficult to prove intent on a computer search as virtually all these searches are one or two worded.... And is searching google actually a crime? Where are the print off's from the searches.. The searches really mean nothing and should have been questioned in court!!
There is nothing proving he did any searches when Joanna Yeates was in his flat for an hour.. But the prosecution insisted that joanna yeates had been in his flat for an hour..
Was there a record that he watched a film, accessed files to do with work on his computer.. Surely if he was looking for places to get rid of Joanna, he'd of had google earth map up so he could decide of the best disposal site...
There are wooded areas closer to Canygne Road and of course the river, which would have hidden her better.
-
Alfie
Yes, the sentences you quote---I would agree with you, as I don't think Joanna had any lovers, and nor do I think she was murdered by her boyfriend, and there is no evidence to support either of these scenarios!! And, as you say, they are libellous.
However, the blog is very long, and there ARE lots of good things in it---that are not the result of speculation and are not libellous. The part about the fire engines, crane etc being needed to recover Jo's body is fact (although not well known), and very interesting. It casts doubt on whether the body was actually found where we have been told it was found. If we have been lied to about that, I wonder what other lies we have been told. It makes one wonder.
-
I'd like to look at other evidence that was available:
The shard of console..
Was it a games console??
Was it taken as evidence??
Was it handed in as Evidence??
Was Joanna Yeates playing on the console??
And mostly did it belong to that household ,or did it get brought into the house, should there have been a console in the house??
There is nothing available about this console i can find apart from it been asked as a question to Dr Vincent Tabak
Having a shard of console may sugest it was broken in the Flat..
Was Tanja Morson asked if they owned a console or if it was broken?
-
Alfie, good evening...
Hasn't anything that has been said on this forum made you think differently in anyway?
Not even the post about "internet searches"...
my goodness, if someone used my internet searches against me, when I've been looking at this case, they could construe allsorts from them.. Not forgetting when I leave the room My daughter may use my computer..
Who said Dr Vincent Tabak was at a computer (of which there were 4 they searched) and hadn't left the room, someone pops on for 2 ticks.. Searches weather/ murder/ anything.. Can they prove it was definetley Dr Vincent Tabak who made these searches??
It's difficult to prove intent on a computer search as virtually all these searches are one or two worded.... And is searching google actually a crime? Where are the print off's from the searches.. The searches really mean nothing and should have been questioned in court!!
There is nothing proving he did any searches when Joanna Yeates was in his flat for an hour.. But the prosecution insisted that joanna yeates had been in his flat for an hour..
Was there a record that he watched a film, accessed files to do with work on his computer.. Surely if he was looking for places to get rid of Joanna, he'd of had google earth map up so he could decide of the best disposal site...
There are wooded areas closer to Canygne Road and of course the river, which would have hidden her better.
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?
-
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.pdf
I 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.
-
hi again Alfie...
The prosecution said Dr Vincent Tabak had Joanna Yeates in his Flat for 1 hour before he went to Asda..
So how do thy know???????
-
You can post theories til the end of time, the fact is he said he did it and even cried in court because he did it and realised what he has done. case closed!
-
You can post theories til the end of time, the fact is he said he did it and even cried in court because he did it and realised what he has done. case closed!
I haven' t posted theories really Jixy... Since when have internet searches been proof of committing a crime??
And your entitled to your opinion, which differs to mine.
And i'll reiterate.. I don't know what made him make a plea of guilty to manslaughter..
If he made a plea of guilt.. you still have to back it up with concrete evidence.
If the case is closed...?? " SEND" Dr Vincent Tabak Back to his own country to serve out his sentence.. his family didn't commit any crimes, his mother is old.. it's called compassion for them... The Tabak family are guilty off nothing!!!
This Country might despise him with a passion, But his family loves him.....
So what is wrong with sending Dr Vincent Tabak back to Holland to serve his sentence???
You have him in Prison... The Dutch want there offenders back to their own country, It's part of the stipulation of their EU Treaty...... which I posted the other day...
Maybe there should be a thread on sending him Back to Holland!!!!!!
Quite honestly I'd cry... He's in a hopeless situation..
Think its called Catch22
-
I have never commented on the internet searches that you seem very keen to focus on. There are some cases available where it is clear there has been a miscarriage of justice and family members are fighting to get their loved one back home.
To me that is far more interesting than constant searching to prove a man innocent when he hasn't said that himself.
I respect you fascination even though I don't understand it.
Have another look on Google and you will be surprised what cases are real clear cut miscarriage of justice
-
I have never commented on the internet searches that you seem very keen to focus on. There are some cases available where it is clear there has been a miscarriage of justice and family members are fighting to get their loved one back home.
To me that is far more interesting than constant searching to prove a man innocent when he hasn't said that himself.
I respect you fascination even though I don't understand it.
Have another look on Google and you will be surprised what cases are real clear cut miscarriage of justice
So As I said before..... "SEND"'''' Dr Vincent Tabak back to his homeland of Holland to serve out his sentence.
Why has nobody heard him ask that either Jixy??? That is a peculiar question you have risen...
Why has nobody heard Anything from Dr Vincent Tabak,..... As you say he's not Shouting I'm Innocent..
BUT,,... He's not shouting..
"SEND ME HOME"?????????
Ask yourself that!!!!!!!
-
we don't know him or how he thinks no matter how hard you try to work it out all. Maybe he is serving a sentence that he accepts he deserves unlike some other people
If you accept he is guilty as he says he is, why is it important to you where he is? He is a murderer
-
we don't know him or how he thinks no matter how hard you try to work it out all. Maybe he is serving a sentence that he accepts he deserves unlike some other people
If you accept he is guilty as he says he is, why is it important to you where he is? He is a murderer
Why does it matter to me... Interesting question Jixy
Things abother me.... lots of things, niggle at me and I keep having to go back to the to work them out..
I followed the case very early on and there were lots of discussion groups about the case... The information on there was vast... `People who live in the building and people who were in close proximity gave information.. which differed from what we know...
I never understood why these Discussion groups were removed, but, they're gone and lost forever..
So when Dr Vincent Tabak come into the frame, he was a most unlikely candidate....As i know longer have access to these Discussion I can't provide you with any "quotes"...
It bothers me because i like Fair.... And this was not a fair fight..
And every so often, something pricks my conscience , and I start looking at it again..
That is what lead me here... (like been lead down the Garden path)...
And a friend of mine once said to me IF THINGS DON'T ADD UP, SOMEBODY IS LYING
-
I could understand your dedication if he pleaded not guilty. The ones who we think would never do it can often turn out to be the very ones who do
Serial killers, psychopaths etc still can have a certain charm and interest
I asked you previously why you don't look more towards the cases where someone is maintaining innocence or even more so where its clear they are? a few well known cases fit that mould
-
Good evening Jixy
Which cases do you think involve miscarriages of justice, and why? Not being nosy, just interested! Lots of people using this site seem to believe Jeremy Bamber is a victim of a MOJ, for example,
-
Good evening Jixy
Which cases do you think involve miscarriages of justice, and why? Not being nosy, just interested! Lots of people using this site seem to believe Jeremy Bamber is a victim of a MOJ, for example,
Lots of people? How many, would you estimate?
-
On this site? No idea really, Im afraid. I suppose I meant generally, as he has a supporters page, I believe. I haven't read the threads in detail on her, but it seems there are people on either side!
-
Dr Vincent Tabak was a extremely competent computer user, more than competent, he had an understanding that is greater than most people, the pic i've attached shows Dr Vincent Tabaks Qualifications and Computer skills..
Under Activities it describes that Dr Vincent tabak: Programming Active Server Pages (ASP)
ASP use server-side scripting to generate contents that would be sent to the visitor's web browser. The ASP interpreter reads and executes all script code between <% and %> tags, the result of which is content generation. These scripts are written using VBScript, JScript and PerlScript. The @Language directive, the <script language="manu" runat="server" /> syntax or server configuration can be used to select the language. In the example below, Response.Write Now() is in an HTML page; it would be dynamically replaced by the current time of the server.
(Did you understand that, because I didn't)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Server_Pages
Defence Counsel: You went to the University of Technology in Utrecht. Did you have to
leave home then? Utrecht is about 30 kilometres away.
Tabak: Yes. I lived away. I studied architecture for seven years.
Defence Counsel: What qualifications did you pass?
Tabak: Equivalent to a combined Master Degree in Architecture and Computer Science.
Defence Counsel: Did you then obtain employment?
Tabak: No.
Defence Counsel: What did you do then?
Tabak: I studied for a PhD in people behaviour in the corporate environment.
Defence Counsel: How long did that degree take?
Tabak: It took 4 years to receive my PhD.
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
I don't understand why his Lawyer didn't direct the Jury as to Dr Vincent Tabaks knowledge of Computing and his ability to program computer, Dr Tabak Mentions Computer Science.
So..Why didn't he show them what Asp programming was, why didn't he show the Jury Computer Script, most wouldn't be able to understand it, but it would have created doubt as to why Someone who is so computer literate would leave damning evidence on his computer, or just get rid of the hard drive.
Why Not? He helped the Prosecution
Had the Jury know of Dr Vincent Tabaks abilities they might have found the Prosecutions claim difficult to believe...
If he is computer literate and had Committed this crime before he went to Holland, why didn't he take the hard drive with him, dump it somewhere.
(Apparently he was clever enough to dump a pizza and sock)
He clearly has a great understanding and education in Computing and would be extremly aware of what could be perceived as damaging evidence against him..
The fact that Dr Vincent Tabak had admitted manslaughter helped a little but the central point of the trial – his intention when he killed Yeates
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/nov/02/vincent-tabak-trial-tweeted
So did the computer evidence show Intention?
Because that was the only EVIDENCE they had as a way to persuade the JURY that Dr Vincent Tabak intended to murder...
If he Intended to Murder someone that evening, why didn't he just walk the streets?
He had been out earlier... He had a keen Interest in Photography..
Why Didn't his Defence mention Dr Vincent Tabak had opportunity that evening to MURDER anyone!!
If searches cannot prove intent,.. How could the Prosecution have proven Dr Vincent Tabak Intended to do anything
Like I originally posted.. when I saw Dr Vincent Tabak on the stand, I saw a man just going through the motion's..
A man that was not being defended.... A man that could see his Defence was not trying to help him,(IMO) was not challenging anything that the Prosecution placed in front of a JURY..
He just sat there as this supposed Evidence was being piled upon him..
So I can clearly understand Dr Vincent Tabak sobbing in court.. He knew the situation was hopeless, because nobody was there to help him..
No Character Witness's called to testify to his nature
No Tanja Morson called to testify to their relationship or Dr Vincent Tabak's behaviour.
No Christopher Jefferies to say whether or not he had indeed seen Dr Vincent Tabak that evening or moved the car.
No Family to testify what A loving son he is and they couldn't understand him being charged.
No employer to testify as to his Character.
No friends to testify to any knowledge they had good/or bad
Even his Lawyer had nothing good to say about him...
” When the evidence emerged in the courtroom, even Tabak’s barrister described the 33-year-old’s actions as “disgusting and horrendous”.
That's when I thought his Goose was cooked, If Your Lawyer is against you.. You must be Guilty.. (IMO)
No Neighbours who knew him to say:News of Tabak’s arrest was greeted with shock in his homeland. A former neighbour of the Dutchman described him as “shy” and said “he wouldn’t do that”.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/10/28/joanna-yeates-murder-tria_n_1063591.html
Infact he didn't have anything going for him...
Because people wanted him to be the Monster..
And if you call that a fair Trial.... In My Opinion It isn't..
Though our country prided itself on being Fair Open and Honest..
In My Opinion this Trial was far from being a FAIR FIGHT...
-
What lead the Police to Dr Vincent Tabak???
A source close to the investigation told The Mail on Sunday: ‘The investigation changed dramatically three weeks ago after this new CCTV footage came to light.
‘The discovery of this car driving over the bridge shifted the case’s dynamics.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349615/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Vincent-Tabak-charged-murder-court-Monday.html#ixzz4QGk5zyx7
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Police have been holding dramatic CCTV evidence that they believe shows the car in which they believe Miss Yeates’s body was being taken to be disposed of just hours after she was murdered.
The evidence captures what detectives believe to be the car containing her body being driven over Clifton Suspension Bridge in Bristol the morning after the killing of landscape architect Miss Yeates, on its way to dumping her body three miles away in a lane in nearby Failand.
The images were caught by cameras on the bridge on December 18, the day after Miss Yeates, 25, vanished. It is understood that Avon and Somerset Police have had the footage for three weeks
.Did they produce this evidence?
Answer No:.. Because it was too Grainy supposedly...
AND MORE IMPORTANTLY.... THE DATE WAS 18TH DEC 2010 and not 17th DEC 2010!!!!!!!!
Yet: Detectives interviewed the owner of the car earlier this month but eliminated him at that stage.
IMO they're reffering to Christopher Jefferies
How can the quality of the video be Good enough to eliminate one driver, but to grainy to convict Dr.Vincent Tabak.. WRONG DATE!!!!!!!!!!!
Because he didn't go over The Bridge they had no Evidence of him doing so.. But They did have Evidence of a car Travelling across the Bridge.
Meanwhile, it has been revealed that Tabak was arrested on suspicion of murder after police received vital new evidence in a phone call last Wednesday.
A source close to the investigation said the caller was in tears after watching Mr and Mrs Yeates’s appeal on BBC1’s Crimewatch programme.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349615/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Vincent-Tabak-charged-murder-court-Monday.html#ixzz4QGk5zyx7
Following Tabak's arrest, the BBC cancelled its plans to air the Yeates re-enactment on Crimewatch. On 31 January, Yeates' family publicly released photos of her that previously had been scheduled to be broadcast on the programme.
http://murderpedia.org/male.T/t/tabak-vincent.htm
So how could the so called crying girl have exisited... She obviously did not see The Crime watch program as it was never aired.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtOST33-LjU And for the first time we can here exclusively from Jo's parents David and Theresa Yeates and from her brother chris
uploaded Nov 6th 2011
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtEeGrikBcI
(they didn't even have the guy in a black coat stood next to the actress)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00wv27l
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vlt25
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00y4815
Where is this DRAMATIC New EVIDENCE???
By Daily Mail Reporter
UPDATED: 23:08, 23 January 2011
Interestingly too.... The Daily Mail reported that she had seen the Crime Watch Program before it was due to air on the 26th January 2011
Something else stands out... The DATE: The 18th December 2010
So how can it be Dr Vincent Tabak he was supposed to have dumped Joanna Yeates after his Asda Trip on the 17th Dec 2010.
More evidence of a disturbance on December 17 has also emerged. A resident living in the building directly behind Miss Yeates’s flat told police he heard a woman screaming ‘Help me’ on the night she went missing.
From Kingdom:http://www.bowlandcentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=94037&page=4&highlight=scream
It amazes me that some people on this forum are and have been so prepared to give VT the benefit of the doubt.
@Fortuny - let me elucidate you - I'd been confused as to how the murder could be anyone other than someone with access to these flats not only on friday 17th but also on saturday 18th.
Well i completely advocate the "innocent until proven guilty" line. I hadn't known there were two separate flats on the ground floor of that building - so i've never harbored any undue suspicions about VT because i didn't know of his existence until they arrested him.
When they arrested CJ, i was perhaps at best 70% persuaded of his guilt - and that was only for a few days. When they arrested VT - i was over 90% persuaded - especially when they charged him (actually i knew instinctively that they had got their man - not that i'm suggesting you build a case around instinct).
@Dyna - very interesting theory - the thing that struck me as odd at the time as well was that although i assumed the voice had come from Canynge Road - it sounded really strange - sort of near and far at the same time. Almost as if it were coming from directly underneath my window.
The other curious thing was ... i only heard the call once. Why didn't she call out again? The time would have been between 10 a.m. and just before 1 p.m. on saturday 18th - i'm guessing (as i went out at 1 p.m. to do some printing).
I'm still not convinced of the Friday night killing (for reasons posted earlier)
Actually this is the interview i actually gave : http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/NEIGHBOUR-HEARD-HELP/article-3132931-detail/article.html
@fortuny - the house number isn't no - 42. No i don't know the person that heard the screams. Having said that i thought i heard something, that could well have been significant during the day time - which has led me to believe that JY was possibly abducted on the saturday morning (which i can't really discuss on here for obvious reasons).
There's only three flats that overlook the back of CJ's house - (an abandoned shooting range one side).
(personally i believe the body was removed on the saturday morning by the way - and that she was still alive on the saturday morning).
http://www.bowlandcentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=94037&page=4&highlight=scream
This is clearly the neighbour who lives behind:
Did he testify to what he heard?
So... How could the evidence point to Dr. Vincent Tabak when they clearly didn't have the evidence in the first place????
-
If Jo was killed on the 18th, it is unlikely that VT did it. Tanja was around then. When would he have done it, and how would he have got rid of the body?
This neighbour, posting on the forum, is sure that VT is guilty, but he does not say what evidence he has. Why on earth should it HAVE to be someone from the flats who killed Jo? In any case, the fact that he was 70 per cent sure of CJ's guilt at one stage, shows that he is just relying on emotion/gut feelings.
And, what about Mr Lickley's assertion that VT went to ASDA with Jo's body in the boot of his car??????? Obviously he didnt, if Jo was killed on the 18th.
-
I'd just like to add this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRDtLjPfdw0
Play it from 3 mins 38 sec to 4.00 mins
We know the crime watch Documentary was not aired... Recieved 300 new calls from what??? An unaired program???
Continue watching from 4:00 minutes
And clearly stated Then... Shortly before the reconstruction was due to air,They made a dramatic breakthrough
Which we are aware of the DNA...(Partial DNA profile)
Answer me this.....because it really confuses me...
Why not air it anyway??? They might have recieved more information from the reconstruction!!!
-
The fact that Tabak had admitted manslaughter helped a little but the central point of the trial – his intention when he killed Yeates
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/nov/02/vincent-tabak-trial-tweeted
How can admitting to Manslaughter help a little?????????????????
Lets put this aside his saying:
Lets concentrate on the useless inadmissible searches instead!!!!!!
-
hi again Alfie...
The prosecution said Dr Vincent Tabak had Joanna Yeates in his Flat for 1 hour before he went to Asda..
So how do thy know???????
Maybe he told them? He did after all admit he did it.
-
I'm surprised he hasn't asked to serve his sentence in Holland as the regime there has many more benefits.
http://www.damncoolpictures.com/2011/08/resort-like-prisons-of-netherlands.html
-
Maybe he told them? He did after all admit he did it.
You need to get to the understanding why Dr. Vincent Tabak's plea was made and If indeed he made it voluntarily...
He apparently gave a confession to a prison Chaplain Peter Brotherton.
Peter Brotherton, a voluntary Salvation Army chaplain at Long Lartin prison in Worcestershire said the Dutchman had unburdened himself on February 8 this year.
He said Tabak had requested a meeting, informing him: “I have something to tell you that will shock you.”
Giving evidence at Bristol Crown Court, Mr Brotherton said: “I said ‘you tell me and we will see’, or words to that effect.
“He said ‘I am going to change my plea to guilty’. He said it was to do with the crime he had committed.
“I said, ‘is this concerning the young lady from Bristol?’, he said ‘yes’.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8834133/Vincent-Tabak-confessed-Joanna-Yeates-killing-in-emotional-meeting-with-prison-chaplain.html
As A VOLUNTARY CHAPLAIN ..Chaplain Brotherton would have to satisfy the Free Church..
Formal endorsement from the candidate’s own denomination will be required via the Free Churches Faith Advisor.
http://www.freechurches.org.uk/Groups/256814/Free_Churches/Activities/Prison_Chaplaincy/Eligibility/Eligibility.aspx
Expected Formal Qualifications (as required for HMPS Contracted Posts)
Band 5 Ordained.
Free Church Chaplains (ordained) will have completed some period of post-ordination consolidation (normally at least 2 years post ordination/ training). They will have shown to the National Leadership of their denomination that they can effectively practice and fulfil the skills and competencies required of a Faith leader. Formal recognised qualification in theology or religious study and Professional Recognition by Denomination generally representing at least 3 years of study, normally to Degree standard.
Band 5 Non-Ordained
Free Church Chaplains (non-ordained) are trained Faith practitioners in their own communities. They have demonstrated consistently to a range of people (academic / pastoral / practical) that they have effective communication and relational skills in order to have achieved this level of accreditation. Formal recognised qualification in theology or religious study generally representing at least three years of Part Time study, normally to Diploma standard.
Band 7 – Managing Chaplain
Must be suitably qualified and have a formal recognised qualification in theology or religious study and be experienced such that the job holder will have received formal endorsements (where relevant) from the faith community to which they belong.
Chaplain Brotherton would have had to have the endorsement of the free church??
Did HE?????
And they would be whom Chaplain Brotherton returned to for advise as to whether to divulge a prisoners confession....
Again... DID HE??
The chaplain told the court he then advised him to contact his legal team and inform them of the decision and offered to pray with him.
While Mr Brotherton accepted he had told Tabak the conversation would be in confidence, he decided to tell his superiors because he did not regard it as a religious confession...
Was this on another visit or the same visit... It read to me like the same visit.....
But This comment suggests.... That the Chaplain was going to inform the POLICE not THE FREE CHURCH.....
Because why advise DR Vincent Tabak on getting his LAWYER.... if he did NOT know what THE ADVICE WOULD BE!!!
The Advice would probably be from the FREE CHURCH and to wait and see if called as a witness......
But it appears that the Chaplain had decided immediateley that he was going to reveal his confess, because Dr Vincent Tabak answered angrily.....Vincent Tabak was on suicide watch in prison when he is said to have told the Salvation Army’s Peter Brotherton: “I have got something to tell you that is going to shock you.”
Tabak then reacted angrily as Mr Brotherton told him he would not be able to keep the admission secret, the chaplain said.
Detectives questioned the 33-year-old Dutch engineer for three days after arresting him on 20 January. He was said to have constantly replied “no comment”, before he was charged with murdering Miss Yeates, 25.
But Tabak, who had been under 24-hour supervision at Long Lartin prison, was said to have told Mr Brotherton of his plan to “plead guilty” on 8 February. The chaplain had shaken hands with Tabak before he made the confession.
Mr Brotherton, who has been visiting prisoners since 1975, said “there was a little bit of anger” in Tabak’s voice after the chaplain said he would have to pass on the information.
(MUST BE A QUALIFIED CHAPLAIN)
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/joanna_s_killer_confessed_to_jail_chaplain_murder_trial_jury_is_told_1_1917420
Any information divulged by a PRISONER is classified as a confession, he is after all trusting this man to be there to guide him...
What qualifies as a confession to a Chaplain?????? A vulnerable Prisoner would see a Chapalin as a SAFE PLACE...
Did Chaplain Brotherton tell Dr Vincent Tabak he could divulge (NON) confessions?? Akin to reading him his rights!!!!
Did the Chaplain tell Dr Vincent Tabak of his rights???
Because.... Prison Chaplains are perceived as neutral
If Prison Chaplain are allowed to divulge the contents of a confessional, then it would be only fair in law that the prisoner have some kind of RIGHTS... And are informed of such right..When you are arrested you are given your caution rights:
You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."
Which superiors is Chaplain Brotherton refering too?
1: The Police?? well in RELIGIOUS TERMS THEY ARE NOT HIS SUPERIORS
2: The Church:Free Churches Faith Advisor. Senior church leaders to whom the volunteer chaplain would be actively accountable. http://www.freechurches.org.uk/Groups/256814/Free_Churches/Activities/Prison_Chaplaincy/Eligibility/Eligibility.aspx
3: Prison Staff: The Chaplaincy and the prison staff are seperate...
I say this because, holding a chaplaincy inside a prison where they are potentially serverley disturbed, emotion prisoners who need the help and support of someone when they feel VULNERABLE.
Did Chaplain Brotherton feel it was so necessary for him to INFORM on Dr Vincent Tabak whilst he was in custody, surely he should have been called as a PROSECUTION witness and divulged the confession under oath...
By DIVULGING this information before a trail would put Chaplain Brotherton in a most compromising position..
HOW WOULD PRISON INMATES EVER TRUST A CHAPLAIN AGAIN!!!!!
That bring up various questions:
Dr Vincent Tabak was surely seen as a VULNERABLE inmate:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/332161/jo-suspect-on-suicide-watch-in-tough-jail/
Yet according the http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
17.2.5.That the man he allegedly confessed to in Long Lartin prison in Worcester was a
chaplain, yet he was not called to give evidence in court; that the man said he knew that
Tabak was not a practising Christian and yet he went to see Dr Tabak several times to
develop a relationship with him.
So... Peter Brotherton did not give testamony at the Tail which Dr Vincent Tabak was subsequently found GUILTY.
Practicing Christian??? That's another question...
What are the rules regarding Prison Chaplains, within the Prison Service.???
There are guidelines for Prison Chaplaincy and reports are gathered in regards to their service.
REFERENCES FROM:http://www.stpadarns.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Todd-and-Tipton-2011-Report-on-Prison-Chaplaincy.pdf
Further, it appears that honouring and respecting the religious and cultural plurality of
the contemporary prison that the prison chaplains, and indeed other staff, goes hand
in hand with being often highly sensitive to any suggestion of their proselytizing:
So let not try to convert from one religion to another....
The chaplains of today are not here to judge or convert anyone, or anything like
that, they are just here to talk to and give prisoners support.’
(Prison Governor, 2010)
YET.... Chaplain Brotherton decided on his own that he could JUDGE Dr Vincent Tabak and divulege his supposed confession. If within the report it says they should NOT judge, then he had no reason to seek advice on any matter.Therefore he wasn't following protocol... which in any line of work is VITAL!!!!!
3.3. A Prison Chaplain - Prison Officer Continuum
‘The prison chaplain should never confuse their role with the role of the prison
officer…that would be a fatal mistake.’
(Prisoner, 2010)
Again... He has a role and one role only...
(1) the chaplain should not confuse and thus
contaminate their pastoral role with the disciplinary role of the officer and (2) the
chaplain’s role and standing as ‘chaplain’ accords them a ‘neutrality’, or
‘independence’ that is central to their ability to provide that pastoral care. This is a
multi-faceted aspect of the chaplain’s role, where neutrality/independence connects
with: chaplains not having the same perceived ‘authority’ as a prison officer; their
being able to relate in human way with prisoners; their being ‘in-betweeners’; their
having ‘time’ for people; and their being non-judgemental.
So they are looked upon by the prison population as UNBIAS..... Which gives prisoners a release from the pressure they may be under whilst incarcerated.. Not to mention the fact of VUNERABLE OR SUICDAL prisonser may respond in the knowledge a prison Chaplain would divulge there words...
To not have the role of the Prison Chaplain and the Prison staff seperated can be Dangerous:
‘We therefore have to use the role of the chaplain to kind of meet some of the
political concerns and pressures prisons are currently facing. We just have to be
careful how far we push as the lines that separate, that demarcate, those different
roles. Losing that neutrality and losing that kind of professional role as a religious
leader is a danger’
(Prison Governor, 2010)
Prisoners beliefs as regards the role of a chaplain:
‘ I find that when I am at my lowest ebb or when I have situations that I am not
comfortable speaking to the screws or cons about because of trust issues with cons
and insensitivity with officers; I always know that there is someone in the chapel I can
talk to.’
(Prisoner, 2010)
Dr Vincent Tabak was described as a non believer in faith, the prison chaplain cover all people:
Question: Even though Dr Vincent Tabak said that he was a NON BELIEVER, did Chaplain Brotherton discuss if DR Vincent Tabak had ever Practiced any religion prior to his NON BELIEVER STATUS..
The reason I say this and knowing many people who haven't followed there faiths, say they are no longer practicing.. and no matter how hard they try to leave it behind, it is always with them....
So if Dr Vincent Tabak was an atheist now... had he had Religous teaching before which may have lead him back to CHAPLAIN BROTHERTON as a confidant... And without CHAPLAIN BROTHERTON proving Dr Vincent Tabak never had any RELIGOUS teaching in his life, HOW WOULD IT BE CLEAR CUT THAT DR VINCENT TABAK WAS AN ATHEIST?????.
Infact DUTCH SCHOOLS DO TEACH RELIGION: Religious education in Dutch schools.
Understanding the relevance of Dutch religious education makes it necessary to know something
about Dutch education in general.
Religious education in schools.
Each primary school has the subject teaching world religion and worldviews (teaching about
religion). The subject, introduced in 1985, aims to enhance tolerance in Dutch society.
Dr Vincent Tabak would have been of Primary age then, so It's more than likely he had some form of Religous Education
http://mmiweb.org.uk/eftreold/reeurope/netherlands_2013.pdf
(D) The Professional Seeker – Prisoners loosely classifiable as agnostics who do
not ascribe to a particular faith, but attended a wide range of services and most
chaplaincy classes and events,(E) The opportunist – Prisoners who openly claim not to be interested in faith or
religion but value chaplaincy as a safe space; an escape from the wings.
‘ You don’t have to necessarily believe in God to come here; to enjoy a service. It is a
place for anyone to get away; enjoy some peace, sing a song or two and have a
cuppa and a digestive.’
‘The chaplain, you know, they help me escape prison. Not just this prison but my own
prison, you know? You can trust the chaplain, you know. Tell them stuff you wouldn’t
tell noone else.’
The Reason that Brotherton Claimed it was Ok for him to inform on Dr Vincent Tabak was because of his lack of faith....
So it would appear that Dr Vincent Tabak would be aware of the neutrality of the Chaplain Service Provided.
Or he wouldn't of decided to confess all to a CHAPLAIN...
Indeed it is quite common for non believer and believer to turn to a CHAPLAIN...
‘When you are in prison you are locked up for some long stretches of time and I think
it is a natural inclination for a man isolated from his world to look for God, to start to
strive for something beyond himself.’
(Prisoner, 2010)
These experiences were consistently reported as being largely facilitated by
incarceration itself, in that the individual has a lot of ‘time’, and in many ways often
feels forced into asking existential questions; in particular about their life and its
direction. In that sense the isolation inherent in incarceration seems to be closely
linked with a pull towards some kind of spiritual or religious reflection that eases the
pains of prison life.
The final commonly expressed value of prison chaplaincy was its provision of an
escape from the prison regime - in particular the prisoner’s cell and the wings. This
was expressed both in terms of the chaplaincy area as a safe, human or neutral
space, and the figure of the chaplain as a safe confidant, largely as a result of their
perceived neutrality, or independence.
3.6. Chaplaincy as Safe Place
‘the wings can be pretty ugly places and for many men, even those of no religious
belief, this place is a God send – if you will pardon the pun!’
(Prisoner, 2010)
Another distinctive aspect of the contribution made by prison chaplaincy, reported
across participant groups, was its provision of a relatively unique safe place within
the prison. Importantly the devout, returners, converts, professional seekers and the
eternally opportunistic all reported valuing the safety this place accorded. The safety
of the prison chaplaincy space seemed to be related to its perceived non-prison
status and the neutrality described earlier
So if Chaplain Brotherton lead to Dr Vincent Tabaks supposed confession and susequent signed confession of which.....
I'd love to see him sat with his lawyer having been explained to that the Chaplain would not likely divulge such sensitive material. And advising not to sign...
The written Confession was typed... And had not more information other than a plea of guilt... `to manslaughter, with no specific details regarding the action taken to come to this conclusion...
In my opinion I find that suspcious in it's self...
In a typed statement signed
by Vincent Tabak in September 2011, Tabak claimed that he didn't intend death or serious
It is alleged that Tabak made a confession2
to an unlicensed prison chaplain, who was not
called to give evidence, a most pertinent point.
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
How can thsis be?????/
The Salvation Army comes under The Free Church group:http://www.freechurches.org.uk/Articles/385438/Free_Churches/Activities/Prison_Chaplaincy/Blog/Salvation_Army_Chaplains.aspx
Eligibility to work as a Prison Chaplain: If you are from a Free Churches background and wish to work as a Chaplain in a prison in England and Wales then you need to be eligible to do so. This means that you must be a minister, either lay or ordained of a Free Church denomination which is either a member of the Free Churches Group, or Churches Together in England or Churches Together in Wales (eligible denominations listed here). You must have studied biblical or pastoral studies to a level acceptable to your group or denomination and be accredited as a minister by them.
So if in fact Chaplain Brotherton did not seek advice from the Free Church, who did he seek advice from as regards Dr Vincent Tabak??
And if his confession to the chaplain is null and void, then his supposed written confession is too, because it was gained under false pretences.... IN MY OPINION......
-
Not sure how you work out his confession should be null and void when he followed through with the process at his trial, crying and saying sorry. To me that says his confession was the truth and something he wanted to be known
Not sure also how you know what was explained to him by the Chaplain and what his lack of faith can to do hinder his actions
Having spoken at length to someone who often had dealings with a Prison Chaplain in more than one Prison, I know they CAN and Do disclose anything that can be harmful to someone else.
-
Having spoken at length to someone who often had dealings with a Prison Chaplain in more than one Prison, I know they CAN and Do disclose anything that can be harmful to someone else.
Is this person a Prisoner/former Prisoner?
What capacity do they have within the Prisons system??
-
Salvation Army...
Ensure that confidential information is not disclosed to a third party unless there is a clear justification which may include
1. The valid consent of the individual (which may well have happened)
2. Where there is risk of serious harm to self or others
3. The prevention, detection or prosecution of a serious crime!
4. And when required by law or by order of a court or other public body that has jurisdiciton
-
I'm surprised he hasn't asked to serve his sentence in Holland as the regime there has many more benefits.
http://www.damncoolpictures.com/2011/08/resort-like-prisons-of-netherlands.html
That is an extremley good question John????
Why hasn't Dr Vincent Tabak asked for his sentence to be served in his native country of Holland??
I would really like to know that too....
Especially as his family are there and his Mother is an old lady....... There is nothing for him in this country and nobody supporting him he knows......
So why hasn't he asked to be TRANSFERRED!!!!!
-
If you read the PSI for foreign prisoners it explains about sex offenders and their relevance to the process beginning
-
Salvation Army...
Ensure that confidential information is not disclosed to a third party unless there is a clear justification which may include
1. The valid consent of the individual (which may well have happened)
2. Where there is risk of serious harm to self or others
3. The prevention, detection or prosecution of a serious crime!
4. And when required by law or by order of a court or other public body that has jurisdiciton
6.2. CHAPLAINCY
6.2.1. This has been a year of great challenge for the Chaplaincy. With
eighteen registered faiths, a depleted team has coped valiantly to provide
daily pastoral care and appropriate religious services.
6.2.2. During a three month period three of the longest serving Christian
Chaplains retired and, although the Roman Catholic Chaplain was
replaced reasonably soon, it has taken some time to fill the other two
vacancies. Their security clearances are now awaited. In the meantime,
the depleted Chaplaincy Team have been faced with ever increasing
pastoral duties, including an unusually heavy number of recently bereaved
prisoners.
6.2.3. The Board would like to commend the dedication and extreme hard
work shown by this temporarily diminished department.
I know this refers possibly to a Chaplain who's entire career was served at Long Lartin... But.. what if it means A Chaplain who is the longest serving prison Chaplin as a career??? http://www.imb.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/long-lartin-2011-2012.pdf
again I can't find Chaplain Brotherton http://www.ukbhc.org.uk/civicrm/profile?gid=5&reset=1&force=1&search=0
Before I answer your question Jixy..... I'm looking at Chaplain Brotherton whom has been a prison Chaplain since 1975
https://www.channel4.com/news/tabak-planned-to-plead-guilty-trial-hears
Chaplain Brotherton looks like he is close to retirement if he hasn't already retired, and there been suggestions on the Internet that he may have retired.
But....... because of the high profile of the case, I thought that i would be able to find one article on Chaplain Peter Brotherton.
But i'm finding it difficult... The only other Chaplain Brotherton I can find is.........
http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/scooter-boy-chaplain-bids-navy-farewell/story-12898361-detail/story.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/wear/features/2004/07/chaplain.shtml
And when I try and search anything to do with CHAPLAIN PETER BROTHERTON, I fail to find anything...
Unless it's related to The Joanna yeates case and Dr Vincent Tabak...
AND..... when searching other sources i find this..... https://www.crockford.org.uk/searchresults?term=Brotherton&type=C&contains=0&WW=1&cat=9Living
SO....... Where is Chaplain PETER BROTHERTON...... Micheal Brotherton is there??????
In My Opinion, I find that quite Odd......
Could you please link me to where you got your information from Jixy,... I like to read what else it says thankyou
Then I can as accuratley as i can reply to your questions...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
If you read the PSI for foreign prisoners it explains about sex offenders and their relevance to the process beginning
Links Please Jixy
He was not classed as a SEX OFFENDER, when he supposedly confessed to the Chaplain!!!!
But please show me the links
He hadn't been convicted of "ANY CRIME" at that time...!!!!!
If it relates to sex offender jixy.... they were abit late in convicting him of that crime...
Was that to back themselves UP!!!!!
-
I have another question that niggles me:........
Why wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak ever given the ability to speak to a Dutch National???
The reason I say this is as follows:
When incarcerated in a foreign prison you would expect that Dr.Vincent Tabak would yearn to hear his native tongue....( feeling isolated an alone with no support)...
So for him to refuse the possibility of being able to speak to anyone who is a Dutch Natiional, seems unlikely to me....
The judge established that Tabak, who works at an international design company in Bath, did not need an interpreter.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jan/25/joanna-yeates-accused-vincent-tabak-remanded
Yet he was flanked by one.... this implies he always had access to a Dutch National...(And it looks fair in the media)(IMO)
But..... that In My Opinion, says we've covered the bases.. no one will question it...
Clearly Dr Vincent Tabak did not Have a Dutch National to Advise him of what happens in a foreign country... Which for the FAIRNESS of a Trail.. seems to be the least he could have....
And surely as his family were trying to raise money for his defence, he would have had at least Dutch legal representation!!!!
They just had a good time together as a family – totally normal, nothing strange.”
His comments came after the first appearance in court by Mr Tabak, 32, who is accused of the murder of Miss Yeates, 25.
On Monday, staff and students at Eindhoven Technical University, where Mr Tabak studied architectural engineering, announced the creation of a fighting fund to aid his defence..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8280005/Joanna-Yeates-murder-suspect-Vincent-Tabak-enjoyed-normal-family-Christmas.html
If a British Citizen was arrested and charged in a forgeign country.. surely they would go to the British Embassy for advice and support....
Where is the evidence that Dr Vincent Tabak was afford the same luxury??????????
Surely whilst he was in Long Larton he would have asked for a dutch national to talk to???
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350176/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Vincent-Tabak-dock-towering-interpreter.html
I thought he'd stated he didn't need an interpretator?????
So why provide one at Trial to make it look like evry aspect of the Prisoner right was being adhered too????
Ever press report aims to confuse... And they sure do that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
why did he get an interpretor in the dock but not as an official confidant????
-
I think you need to rewind a bit.
I mentioned him being a Sex Offender, not in relation to him talking to anyone or confessing but in reply to your comment about him returning to his home country
-
As you have been editing your posts, I think you have lost the plot
-
I think you need to rewind a bit.
I mentioned him being a Sex Offender, not in relation to him talking to anyone or confessing but in reply to your comment about him returning to his home country
You still haven't supplied me with links to back up your arguement Jixy....
Being a Sex offender, wouldn't be a problem returning to his own country.... as far as i'm aware.. The Dutch don't have "A Sex Offenders Register"......
-
As you have been editing your posts, I think you have lost the plot
I would like to make it clear... that all i do when i post a statement is that i back it up with the evidence I can find to support any statement I may make... (occasionally I edit my posts)
I am simply an oldish lady.... That has an issue with what IMO I see as Unfair and Unjust... Hasn't anything that I have said in my post pricked your ears up and gone.....
Well that is weird?????????????
-
excuse me but I don't need capital letters and lots of exclamation marks to get the point. you asked about him returning home, I started to explain one of the reasons
No I think lots of things are weird but not about the case
-
The Sex Offenders Register and point of view that so fascinates you, you need to read up further and any prisoner returning to their home country has a list of things that will disqualify them.
They pushed for the Sex Offences to be put before the court so on release, his potential danger if he was to returned to his home country would be fully logged
A poor woman died but you seem to defend him and all that he is including his preferences for searches on the internet
Me? im disgusted!
-
Instead of editing my last post I'll write another........
From day one, the case against Dr Vincent Tabak has concerned me....
I have this ability to annoy my family for the past 6 years we are approaching... to pose questions i have about the case that was made against Dr Vincent Tabak....
My husband is currently pulling his hair out... my daughter allows me one question a day on the subject.... Something about this case has pricked my concious about what happened.. And as I have stated previously...
When it doesn't add up somebody is lying...
I've been asked on this forum.. why not look at other cases that apparently more deserving?
But what makes one case more deserving than another....
I cannot help the fact that every so often... This case sends me in the direction to try and find the TRUTH...
And I have spent years finding forums on and off that have this particular case available for me to comment on...
All the original forums I had expressed an opinion on this case have been REMOVED from the internet!!!
As I said before I don't understand why??????
What is so wrong trying to find out WHAT REALLY happened in the Joanna Yeates Case?????
Again I hold my hand up and say Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent... I cannot see where the due process came...
God help any foreign National in his position in the future...
WHAT IS WRONG WITH FAIR...HONEST AND OPEN???? That's all I'm saying ... Thats all I require....
Ok then.... Lets give Dr Vincent Tabak a re-Trail.. based on the so called evidence the prosecution presented!!!!!
And I would like to thank mrswah for starting this topic as most other forums regarding Dr Vincent Tabak.. NO LONGER EXIST.....
-
The Sex Offenders Register and point of view that so fascinates you, you need to read up further and any prisoner returning to their home country has a list of things that will disqualify them.
They pushed for the Sex Offences to be put before the court so on release, his potential danger if he was to returned to his home country would be fully logged
A poor woman died but you seem to defend him and all that he is including his preferences for searches on the internet
Me? im disgusted!
I find that quite offensive... I am more than aware Joanna Yeates lost her life and her families agony must be intolerable.....
I could never imagine and prey to God that I am not ever in their position to feel such pain and anguish
-
My post is neither offensive or untrue. A poor lady died and you defend him at every turn. That is fact not offensive. You write it, I have read it and at every turn you have an excuse, a reason for his behaviour, something to over rule his admission of guilt
None of which he has said himself and the rest you fill in on your assumption. None of that is offensive There is much more that could be classed as that, none of which I have posted
-
My post is neither offensive or untrue. A poor lady died and you defend him at every turn. That is fact not offensive. You write it, I have read it and at every turn you have an excuse, a reason for his behaviour, something to over rule his admission of guilt
None of which he has said himself and the rest you fill in on your assumption. None of that is offensive There is much more that could be classed as that, none of which I have posted
Offensive yes.... As if I have forgotten that a poor young lady lost her life... her family are still living with that...
I am merely pointing out that with the evidence I have gathered that the POLICE did not have evidence to charge Dr Vincent Tabak...
Whether you go from Chaplain Brotherton Confession
To... The PARTIAL DNA. which could only rule out a suspect..
To The sobbing woman whom contributed to the evidence the police had against Dr Vincent Tabak....
And the spurious searches on google.. wiki ..etc..
What evidence did the Police have to take this man to court???
-
One point to remember things can be far more transparent than the story teller believes.... added detail to set the scene can just confirm it 8(0(*
-
If Dr Vincent Tabak is indeed guilty of the Charges that have been laid against him... And a show trail..
Prove it... Prove it with hard Evidence and Facts..
Show me Evidence that SHOWS intent...
Show me Evidence that he even came into contact with Joanna Yeates..
The Partial DNA only rules a suspect out... to match it the would need a relative..
When a crime-scene DNA sample matches a profile in the database at most, but not all loci, the individual from the database is excluded. However, it is very likely that a close relative is the source of that DNA rather than a random, unrelated individual. These partial matches can be used by investigators to find the individual who left the DNA at the crime scene
David Bruce Bowen - in 1979 eight year-old Kenneth Conrick was tortured and murdered; the case went unsolved for 30 years. Investigators recently obtained a DNA sample from Bowen’s sister, which showed enough similarities to DNA found on the victim and his clothing at the crime scene to allow investigators to obtain a warrant for Bowen's DNA. Bowen’s DNA profile matched the profile from semen on cords used to strangle the boy. Bowen pled guilty and admitted that he strangled and stabbed the victim after molesting him.
The sample was PARTIAL... not a full DNA profile......
Show me that they approach a relative for a sample of DNA..
That's all I require... Facts!!( And other people who have expressed concern over Dr Vincent Tabaks conviction)
Did Dr Vincent Tabaks family member provide a DNA sample that could either rule him as the supplier of that DNA sample or Rule him out......
Show me that he INTENDED to murder somebody.... Anybody!!
Show me and all the other people who have doubts about Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction that he was indeed THEIR MAN...
And again I'm editing my post,...
Because when you supply the Hard evidence that prove Dr Vincent Tabak commited this Crime...maybe people like me and other who have questioned how Dr Vincent Tabak was treated ... will stop asking about this CONVICTION....
-
Sorry Nine, VT admitted his guilt now let him serve his sentence in peace. His family aren't banging on and pleading for a miscarriage of justice and his girlfriend of that time certainly isn't. She and her family are just thankful that she didn't meet the same fate as the victim, FACT! No matter what anyone says on here, if they don't conform to your way of thinking then you shout them down or worse still, you go and find a link to suit your own belief. Sorry but anyone can produce a link to agree with the ridiculous to the sublime. You mention about other forums that you have commented on having been taken down, have you sat back and asked yourself why? After reading some of the stuff on this board it isn't too hard to see why. Oh and the repatriation of him to his own country, I recommend you take a look at what Jixy mentioned, PSI for prisoners. Another thing to consider, his home nation can decline any request from him to be sent back. Oh and the other thing Jixy mentioned, the Salvation army that's another good read. At least you can read from two legitimate and credible websites. Just a little question if I may, do you and mrswah know each other? I only ask as at times when you've both been posting it is as if you were in the same room. My mistake if not.
-
Sorry Nine, VT admitted his guilt now let him serve his sentence in peace. His family aren't banging on and pleading for a miscarriage of justice and his girlfriend of that time certainly isn't. She and her family are just thankful that she didn't meet the same fate as the victim, FACT! No matter what anyone says on here, if they don't conform to your way of thinking then you shout them down or worse still, you go and find a link to suit your own belief. Sorry but anyone can produce a link to agree with the ridiculous to the sublime. You mention about other forums that you have commented on having been taken down, have you sat back and asked yourself why? After reading some of the stuff on this board it isn't too hard to see why. Oh and the repatriation of him to his own country, I recommend you take a look at what Jixy mentioned, PSI for prisoners. Another thing to consider, his home nation can decline any request from him to be sent back. Oh and the other thing Jixy mentioned, the Salvation army that's another good read. At least you can read from two legitimate and credible websites. Just a little question if I may, do you and mrswah know each other? I only ask as at times when you've both been posting it is as if you were in the same room. My mistake if not.
Hi kayden..... There are many questions you have posed and you think that all I want to do is shout people down and provide links to support my arguements....
I thought that when you posted on forums that instead of just spouting, you actually could provide links with quotes to substanciate what you are saying...
That is all I am trying to do... I was taught in a previous job, that I needed evidence too support any claims that were made... Maybe that is why I always use links and quotes.....
I'm not shouting people down per say.. I'm very passionate about how I feel.....
And that just covers part of your post...
Please provide me with Tanja Morson.... I would love for her to make an offical statement ( on oath)as to her relationship at the time with Dr Vincent Tabak and his behaviour during the time prior to his arrest...( also whether she harboured suspisions about him)
Oh and on the question of mrswah another forum contributor... I don't know her from Adam....
-
I haven't been around tonight, and I see some of you have been very busy!!!!
Kayden, it is true that Nine and I do not know each other-----at all. Also, I will state (although nobody has actually asked me) that I am in no way connected with anyone involved in the case!
I believe Jixy is right about people on the sex offenders register not being eligible for the Early Removal Scheme (ie back to one's home country). I'm not posting a link, because (I am ashamed to say) I do not know how to copy and paste links----not very good at IT, I'm afraid. However, I found it on the prison reform website.
If VT is serving out his sentence "in peace" because he knows he is guilty, then all well and good. If, however, he is not guilty, there is NO WAY he will be serving out his sentence in peace!
We don't actually know that his family and girlfriend all believe he is guilty, even though we don't hear about them, and even though they all issued apologies/condolences to the Yeates family after the trial (which I thought was odd, as one doesn't usually hear about the families of convicted criminals doing that). There has been very little reported in the press since the trial (apart from the child porn conviction), so we don't know exactly what is going on. I suspect there is a reason why the press is being so quiet, but then, I am a suspicious person! I also strongly suspect there is a reason (other than believing in VT's guilt) why his family and friends are not protesting his innocence.
I also suspect that it is in the interests of the powers that be over here to keep VT in this country. If he was back in Holland, he might just start talking, and so might his family. Just my opinion, of course! I will be very interested to see what happens when he has done his 20 years---whether they will find a reason to keep him in prison for longer, or whether they let him return to Holland. I hope I live long enough to find out.
By the way, not all the forums have been taken down: Websleuths and Bowland Central have good ones, and they make very interesting reading from back in 2011.
I have no faith in VT's confession, I am afraid, and I think his conviction is very dodgy, as the evidence does not stand up. However, there is very little that I can do about it. I only hope, that one day, somebody with some real power questions this case.
BTW, a few people have suggested that I investigate "more worthwhile" cases where there may be a MOJ. Apart from one person suggesting I look at Mark Alexander (which I am doing), nobody has suggested which ones they think are worth looking at. Well????????
-
I can see why Kayden Paradox would think you know each other, your style of posts use of capitals ???? brackets and speech marks are almost identical. Easy mistake to make I guess
Was it people on this forum who suggested you look at other cases Mrswah? I know I suggested it to Nine. Maybe ask others which cases would be worth time looking further into. There are at least a couple of solid obvious miscarriage of justice cases even by the Judges comments alone
-
Thanks Jixy
I hadn't noticed that my style of writing/use of punctuation was like "Nine"'s!! There is, however, one important difference: Nine knows how to copy and paste, and I dont---at least, not on a Chromebook!!
I have become interested in the cases of Colin Norris and--indeed--Mark Anderson. Would be interested to know who you (or any other poster) consider to be wrongly convicted.
-
AAAGH!!! Sorry, I meant Mark Alexander!
-
Was it people on this forum who suggested you look at other cases Mrswah? I know I suggested it to Nine. Maybe ask others which cases would be worth time looking further into. There are at least a couple of solid obvious miscarriage of justice cases even by the Judges comments alone
What other Cases do you suggest Jixy? I'd seen a documentary on TV about the thread you've started Sadie Hartley...
I unfortunatley always come back to this one...
There are so many things that don't make any sense..... Apart from Dr Vincent Tabak not having a Motive!!!
The crime scene is extremeley weird...
Who has a door with a letter box but no hole to put the letters through???
There more I look the more I see.... It's completely barking mad!!!
Any ideas?????? I've downloaded a pdf on PSI you were talking about, just need a minute to look at it closely.
-
The Sadie Hartley documentary was horrific, not a case to concentrate on
-
I was looking at an old case which always bring me back to the JY case..
I remember early on in the investigation, that they were looking to see if their was a link between Joanna yeates and Glenis Caruthers..
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/the-unsolved-murder-in-the-dark/story-29916468-detail/story.html
Jixy what cases are you most convinced that an innocent person is in prison???? I'm guessing your a he Jixy??
And what would you do to try and prove their innocence????
Infact this case on Glenis Caruthers should interest you jixy... there's glasses in it.... Didn't they find part of some glasses???
But the glenis Caruther case... never solved... Did they have any DNA from that case?
I think the connection is a possibility, It's very curious indeed....
It would make more sense than to have Dr Vincent Tabak as their man???
Why doesn't the Pictures make sense... ( It looks like an artist drawing. . )The connection to Clifton surely couldn't have been ignored by the Police??? she too had no socks on... And what happened too her bag and coat????
Didn't i read somewhere she was going to ring someone at a phone box ?? (think it might have been her boyfriend)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/8463395.stm
They mention body fluids... That was never mentioned in the Joanna Yeates case... If she was killed in her flat as they say... where are the body fluids??
And on the first link I've made available,, she does have a Look of Joanna Yeates....
Did they ever chase the lead up on Glenis Caruthers with regards the Joanna Yeates case?????
Dr Vincent Tabak wouldn't have been old enough then... ( infact he wasn't even born...)
Again a couple on the park... In the Glenis Caruthers case...
A couple at a party in the Joanna Yeates case...
Didn't Glenis Caruthers go missing from a Party??
And what about the workman's van that was seen in the middle of the road... The night Joanna Yeates went missing??? there was work going on at the house next door to Joanna yeates....
where there any work going on near where Glenis Caruthers was staying???
What other similarities do you think these cases have??
That picture they show of tabak after his arrest looks doctored his eye brows are all wrong... They are trying to make him look like an evil monster!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055938/Vincent-Tabak-kept-sick-trophy-murder-Jo-Yeates-4ft-wall-helped-captured-killer.html
Another question why didn't Dr Vincent Tabak have any psychatrists at the trial????? He was after all on suicide watch... Did he ever undergo a psychiatric evaluation??
If so wouldn't that have given him mitigating circumstances??? they could have determinded if he had any underlying psycholgical issues...
That surely would have Added to the manslaughter charge and cast Doubt on the murder conviction???
Did they ever chase the lead up on Glenis Caruthers????? It all seemed to go Very quiet once they had Dr Vincent tabak in the frame...........
-
The police did question Chris Jefferies re Glenis Carruthers, I believe, as he was living in the area at the time, and would have been old enough to have been involved.
The murder of GC is a "cold case" from 1974. This is why I have said that CJ was in a dangerous position when they arrested him: they could have stitched him up for both.
-
If I can take you back to the posts concerning Vincent Tabak's confession to the cleric for a moment. It has been suggested that the cleric somehow broke a confidence by reporting the confession. If he did so what?
The breaking of a confidence between a prisoner and a cleric is not something which can overturn a conviction on a technicality. Tabak saw the need to confess to what he had done, no doubt he has a conscience and needed to confess to somebody.
On another point, Tabak has freely admitted to manslaughter although unfortunately for him the CPS was having none of it and brought a murder charge against him. If Tabak accidentally strangled Miss Yeates he should have accepted his fate instead of attempting to hide her body and evade justice.
-
If I can take you back to the posts concerning Vincent Tabak's confession to the cleric for a moment. It has been suggested that the cleric somehow broke a confidence by reporting the confession. If he did so what?
The breaking of a confidence between a prisoner and a cleric is not something which can overturn a conviction on a technicality. Tabak saw the need to confess to what he had done, no doubt he has a conscience and needed to confess to somebody.
On another point, Tabak has freely admitted to manslaughter although unfortunately for him the CPS was having none of it and brought a murder charge against him. If Tabak accidentally strangled Miss Yeates he should have accepted his fate instead of attempting to hide her body and evade justice.
How do we know that Dr Vincent Tabak freely admitted to manslaughter????
Did he not tell the Chaplain he'd done something??
Maybe he was going to admit to the porn... Because of Tanja...
Without knowing what was actually said in confidence to the Chaplain.. we don't know...
His representation changed, was he preared fully for what was about to face him.... Why was he not evaluated??
If he was in a depressive state, why would a clergy man want to push him over the edge??
Surely prisoners confess all the time to the Prison Chaplain...... Thought as Ive said before that they were neutrel..
And only report if there is risk to other prisoners or themselves...
Would have thought it was more of a Risk to Dr Vincent Tabak who was in a depressive state to even report it......
Confidants are need in prisons, it strike a bit of a balance for the harsh realities of the prisoner confinement..
A Chaplain with a tendancy to divulge information is hardly a confidant.... Pastrol care is a vital source in a prison enviroment..
It helps the prison itself if the prisoners have an outlet this in turn protects prison staff,, a relatively happy medium..
There could not be a Chaplaincy program within a prison, if prisoners themselves felt that they could not look to them for guidence and support and someone who they might divulge their inner most secrets...And who in turn would keep that information to themselves..
It would also make the Chaplaincy more vulnerable to violent attacks from unstable prisoners...
Why would you want to risk, putting yourself in that position???
Prisoners talk and therefore it put Chaplains at risk, And if theres no confidence in the Chaplaincy program... It wouldn't run.
After his supposed confession, why wasn't he given a medical assessment? what fair treatment did Dr Vincent Tabak recieve????
-
Why on an earlier picture of the Flat Joanna Yeates lived in the is an intercom/ door bell there yet removed later??
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1344610/Joanna-Yeates-snatched-killer-went-check-post.html
Door on 6th January intake with letter box....
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02024/front-door_2024941i.jpg The intercom / doorbell is missing????
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/21/article-2051786-0E58C21700000578-967_634x405.jpg
https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/1390286.main_image.jpg?strip=all
Why does the picture on the 6th january show the intercom but not later... You would have thought if that was evidence it would have been removed sooner to protect it from the element......
The collect their post.... I have questions regarding this:
Joanna yeates flat has a peep hole, Greg says she always double locks the door... If she was uncomfortable with being on her own, why would she open the door to a man she had not seen/meet or didn't know...
I do not believe it is possible to kill someone in 20 seconds... yet have a slow lingering death..
How is that possible...???
It is possible how every for Joanna Yeates to go to the communal hall to collect mail etc....
Who else had access to the communal hall....??
That would take her out of her flat..... Because evidence of a violent struggle in the flat seems to be lacking....
The fact she was strangled by one hand i envisage that it's someone who is angry with her... Grabbing her by the throat in a violent threating manner....
Could have pinned her up by the throat.....
The prosecution do not know what happened to Joanna Yeates or where it happened to Joanna Yeates..
They just summised what took place....
Just like I have summised a possible senario....
What made her mum think she was abducted...?????
Another curious case I found was of a clifton teacher (not CJ) who appeared in court in Tauton...
Theres always Pizza beer and some sort of games involved... (shard of console at Joanna yeates flat) And child porn!!
Whats with the Pizza????
Jonathan Thomson-Glover was a teacher for 31 years at Clifton College
He was jailed last year after admitting filming 130 children over 16 years
New report reveals three headteachers ignored parents' complaints
Parents complained as early as 1998 about 'unsuitable rewards' including beer, pizza and computer games nights held at German teacher's home
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3743153/THREE-headteachers-33-000-year-private-school-failed-act-pervert-teacher-jailed-videoing-130-children-secret-cameras-tied-chair-half-naked-times.html#ixzz4QdWceUa9
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
-
How do we know that Dr Vincent Tabak freely admitted to manslaughter????
Tabak, a 33-year-old engineer, denies murdering 25-year-old Yeates but admits manslaughter. The prosecution alleges Tabak murdered Yeates at her flat in Bristol before dumping the body on a roadside verge three miles away.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/18/joanna-yeates-vincent-tabak-admission
-
Vincent Tabak 'told chaplain he would admit killing Joanna Yeates'
Vincent Tabak told prison chaplain Peter Brotherton: 'I've something to tell you that's going to shock you', court told.
A prison chaplain has described the moment Vincent Tabak told him he would admit to killing the landscape architect Joanna Yeates.
Tabak was in the health unit at Long Lartin prison in Worcestershire because of fears that he could kill himself while being held over Yeates's death, Bristol crown court heard on Tuesday.
Tabak asked to speak to chaplain Peter Brotherton and told him he was feeling "so-so", the court heard. He went on: "I've got something to tell you that's going to shock you." Brotherton told the jury that he replied: "You tell me and we'll see."
Brotherton said the prisoner told him: "I'm going to change my plea to guilty." Brotherton asked him if it was "concerning the young lady from Bristol". Tabak replied that it was, the jury was told.
The court was told that the chaplain asked him if he was sorry for what he had done, and Tabak replied that he was. He went on to say he would find it "very difficult" to tell his girlfriend, the jury heard.
According to the chaplain, Brotherton offered to say a prayer with him but Tabak declined. He gave Tabak a handwritten prayer, shook hands with him and left.
The chaplain said he told his superior what Tabak had said and it was reported to a security officer. Later when they met again Tabak appeared "angry" at Brotherton and told him he would not tell him anything else, the court was told.
Cross-examining Brotherton, William Clegg QC, for Tabak, suggested the chaplain was wrong in claiming the defendant had said he was going to "change his plea".
Clegg suggested his client had simply said: "I'm going to plead guilty." He had already told his lawyers that he had killed Yeates, Clegg said, adding that Tabak was "a depressed and distressed man unburdening himself".
The conversation between Tabak and the chaplain took place on 8 February, three weeks after he was arrested, the jury heard.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/18/joanna-yeates-vincent-tabak-admission
-
Tabak, a 33-year-old engineer, denies murdering 25-year-old Yeates but admits manslaughter. The prosecution alleges Tabak murdered Yeates at her flat in Bristol before dumping the body on a roadside verge three miles away.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/18/joanna-yeates-vincent-tabak-admission
Often, the original conviction stemmed from an admission of guilt. Now, new research looks into why innocent people confess.
Within the confession and subsiquent statement, there where no details regarding how this crime took place..
“Being in a police interrogation is a very powerful situation,” Guyll said. “If you wear a person down you can probably get false confessions.”
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2015/07-08/upfront-crimes.aspx
In 1966, false confessions seemed like a rare problem. Fifty years later, we have seen hundreds of exonerations of innocent defendants who confessed to terrible crimes after they received Miranda warnings.
The National Registry of Exonerations has collected data on 1,810 exonerations in the United States since 1989 (as of June 7, 2016). They include 227 cases of innocent men and women who confessed, 13 percent of the total, all after receiving Miranda warnings (at least according to the police). Nearly three-quarters of those false confessions were homicide cases.
http://europe.newsweek.com/why-people-confess-crimes-didnt-commit-470227?rm=eu
http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/09/12/why-people-confess-even-if-they-didnt-do-it/59450.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exonerations-2015_us_56ac0374e4b00b033aaf3da9
People DO confess to a crime they didn't commit and once you confess, there is no way out...
So a confession is a none starter...
The DNA was partial...
And the dodgy Searches that aren't evidence as they can't prove intent..
Where was the hard evidence to prove DR. Vincent Tabak committed the crime???
-
As he pleaded guilty there would be no need for evidence to prove his guilt. his own admission did that
-
Yes, and more's the pity.
If he hadn't pleaded guilty, we would have had a better trial, with ALL the evidence and more witnesses!!
-
As he pleaded guilty there would be no need for evidence to prove his guilt. his own admission did that
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/76
(b)in consequence of anything said or done which was likely, in the circumstances existing at the time, to render unreliable any confession which might be made by him in consequence thereof,
Without medical evaluation and representation of such at court before he made his plea....
-
Something I don't understand:
VT first spoke to the chaplain on 8th February.
The public didn't hear anything about VT's "confession" until 5th May or thereabouts.
VT didn't sign his "enhanced statement" until 22nd September, shortly before the trial.
-
Paul Cook, VT's lawyer, did not apply for bail when he had been expected to. That is one mystery-------!! Shortly afterwards, he stopped acting for VT.
I wonder why.
-
The Mirror might have just made a mistake. I have read quite a few newspaper articles where they have got their facts wrong!
However, as I have said before, nobody knows exactly WHEN, WHERE, or WHY Joanna was murdered, so I don't really know how they could prove VT's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
-
Surely they will be a court record stating that?
-
The charge was that he murdered her between 16th and 19th December.
-
The charge was that he murdered her between 16th and 19th December.
Why from the 16th Dec??
-
The Mirror might have just made a mistake. I have read quite a few newspaper articles where they have got their facts wrong!
However, as I have said before, nobody knows exactly WHEN, WHERE, or WHY Joanna was murdered, so I don't really know how they could prove VT's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
No i think it might have been me...
-
Something I don't understand:
VT first spoke to the chaplain on 8th February.
The public didn't hear anything about VT's "confession" until 5th May or thereabouts.
VT didn't sign his "enhanced statement" until 22nd September, shortly before the trial.
Tried searching for press or any announcements for that:
date range Jan to end of may https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=vincent+tabak+confesses+to+chaplain&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=859&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A24%2F01%2F2011%2Ccd_max%3A31%2F05%2F2011&tbm=
custom range Jan to August: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=vincent+tabak+confesses+to+chaplain&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=859&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A24%2F01%2F2011%2Ccd_max%3A31%2F08%2F2011&tbm=
jan to Sept custom range: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=vincent+tabak+confesses+to+chaplain&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=859&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A24%2F01%2F2011%2Ccd_max%3A30%2F09%2F2011&tbm=
Its not until you go to Oct in the custom range that i have found anything: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=vincent+tabak+confesses+to+chaplain&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=859&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A24%2F01%2F2011%2Ccd_max%3A31%2F10%2F2011&tbm=
-
As he pleaded guilty there would be no need for evidence to prove his guilt. his own admission did that
Indeed and he did admit to manslaughter. If that was not the case he could have changed his plea at any time.
-
Indeed and he did admit to manslaughter. If that was not the case he could have changed his plea at any time.
Hi john
I don't understand why they didn't give him bail??? What evidence had they held him on?
CJ was released...... and he was still on bail until March, I think it was..
So you have 2 men on bail for the same murder and one of them is on remand..
They could have taken his passport off him if they thought he was a flight risk.
I do not understand why they had Dr Vincent Tabak on Remand??
Why did he not appear in court on think it was Tuesday 1st Feb2010 for his Bail hearing???
His lawyer leaves him...
There are plenty of odd things happening,
I do not know why he changed his plea to guilty...... But he was at loss of liberty for a long time, do not know what kind of pressure he was under or his mental state...
Interogation and have adverse effects on people...
Nobody knows why he pleaded the way he did....
But I believe the man should have been given bail...And been given a chance to get his defence together in a proper manner....
Why was CJ released.... Dr Vincent Tabak was not??
Dr Vincent Tabak had no previous.... they still need to gather evidence....
I wish I had seen the evidence they had at his first hearing that they used to charge him with...
As we know the crying girl story appears to be just that... A story.....
The DNA could only rule him in... but they need more to prove it came from Dr Vincent Tabak as it was partial...
The time available for him to do the crime , is not there (IMO)....
And they were originally looking for someone for the murder for the Saturday, because of the CCTV of a car going over a bridge...
The defence didn't get the tim line folder until day of trail... If they had gotten that soner, his lawyer would havee been able to see he didn't have the time..
How can you cross reference all those timelines and check that the evidence in a 1300 page document is correct..
His Lawyer may have believed he was innocent, but he too needed the time and effort to prove he was....
If the evidence against Dr Vincent Tabak was accurate, WHY with hold the 1300 page time line..
Half of the trial the actual times do not get mentioned.... Why?
Maybe he couldn't as the timeline folder wasn't available and his defence didn't have the proper information before them to prove other wise..
And I still stand by if they say it was him, he had NO reason to move the body from one place to 3 others.... very
risky!!
We don't know why he hasn't asked for repatriation, which I find extremely weird... What is stopping him doing at least that,..
John, do you not find it strange the range of date that he was charged between?
16th to the 26th Dec?? The charge, when it came, was all the more jarring, therefore – that between Dec 16 and Dec 26 he had murdered Joanna Yeates.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8280005/Joanna-Yeates-murder-suspect-Vincent-Tabak-enjoyed-normal-family-Christmas.html
She was alive on the 16th and not on the 26th...
Also John is there anything in this case that strikes a chord regards Dr Vincent Tabak..,
Imo.. the scene was staged...
The important clues they had: The Pizza ( given as a treat or reward)
The ski sock, ( there is a jump in skiing called the Pizza) oddly enough..
The Shard of console..... which was never explained
Plus the piece of evidence that was handed in that was significant.....
I've discovered Pizza is used in grooming young people....
Also that child porn images can be pseudo... Which I'll come back to...
There was no evidence that Dr Vincent Tabak groomed young people...
Maybe the Pizza WAS more of a clue than they first thought!!
-
In My Opinion...
The police need to charged someone for the crime as there was mounting pressure from the public at the time to charge someone over this horrendous crime..
CJ ... had good lawyers and friends...
Dr Vincent Tabak had nothing.....
With the evidence they had at the time, they acted on it.... rightly or wrongly, they charged Dr Vincent Tabak..
(IMO) they rushed to have someone in custody as they had let CJ go...
The British public were already baying for blood... there would have been uproar, if another suspect was released...
-
In My Opinion...
The police need to charged someone for the crime as there was mounting pressure from the public at the time to charge someone over this horrendous crime..
CJ ... had good lawyers and friends...
Dr Vincent Tabak had nothing.....
With the evidence they had at the time, they acted on it.... rightly or wrongly, they charged Dr Vincent Tabak..
(IMO) they rushed to have someone in custody as they had let CJ go...
The British public were already baying for blood... there would have been uproar, if another suspect was released...
I agree they were under pressure after going after the wrong people and subjecting one in particular, Chris Jefferies, to some awful publicity.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5788.msg205702#msg205702
-
I don't think there is anything unusual about not giving a murder suspect bail. Its the norm but thankfully not for Mr Jefferies
-
I don't think there is anything unusual about not giving a murder suspect bail. Its the norm but thankfully not for Mr Jefferies
With foreign nationals there is always the possibility of flight risk.
-
With foreign nationals there is always the possibility of flight risk.
Agreed..... But they can always take his passport, surely that would remedy the possibility of leaving the country.....
-
im not sure why you think he deserves such special treatment compared to others arrested and charged with murder?
-
Special treatment? I don't believe he has had any!!!
I agree with Jixy that one person convicted of murder should not be treated any better than another, but the last few posts have only been about whether or not VT should serve his sentence in the UK or in Holland (his own country). Most convicted prisoners in this country ARE serving their sentences in their own country, after all.
-
Sorry, didn't read properly: bail has been discussed too, and, for all I know, it may well be usual for people charged with murder not to be given bail, particularly if they are thought to be dangerous.
What I don't understand though, is why VT's lawyer WAS going to make a bail application, and then didn't.
I also don't understand why he was held on remand in a Category A prison, when people on remand are normally held in their local prison or a category C one----after all, they may need to be held in prison if they are thought to be a danger to the public, but remand prisoners have not actually been convicted of anything.
-
I think expecting a murderer to be given bail is special treatment. lots of application can be made even when there is no real prospect.
As for being dangerous, I think a murder falls into that bracket don't you
-
I think you need to do some more research on just how many foreign prisoners are serving sentences in this country.
over 10,000 isn't a few even if other countries have more foreign prisoners than we do!
-
Sorry, didn't read properly: bail has been discussed too, and, for all I know, it may well be usual for people charged with murder not to be given bail, particularly if they are thought to be dangerous.
What I don't understand though, is why VT's lawyer WAS going to make a bail application, and then didn't.I also don't understand why he was held on remand in a Category A prison, when people on remand are normally held in their local prison or a category C one----after all, they may need to be held in prison if they are thought to be a danger to the public, but remand prisoners have not actually been convicted of anything.
Why a prisoner maybe held on remand:
Why has my family member/partner been remanded into custody?
A prisoner may be held in custody leading up to a trial vary for a variety of reasons. The prosecution can indicate one or more of the following as reasons a person should not be released on bail:
The individual has previous convictions for similar offences.
There is reason to believe that the individual may fail to turn up at the trial.
There is reason to believe that the individual may interfere with witnesses.
There are reasonable grounds to believe an individual would commit further offences before their trial.
Where should a remand prisoner be held????? Normally the local prison.....
Where will my family member/partner be taken if they are remanded into custody?
Most courts will send those convicted to one specific local prison. The solicitor handling the case should be able to tell you the name of the prison to which your loved one has been taken.
http://www.offendersfamilieshelpline.org/index.php/remand-into-custody/
Well he wasn't afforded that basic privelege, Tanja was his closest family at the time in the UK
What did his Lawyer do to help his client regards staying close to a relative? Was he prevented in someway with this??
This may explain why his Lawyer had such difficulties: t is not possible once a hearing is complete and an individual has been remanded into custody or sentenced for relatives or partners to have contact with their loved one. In the time immediately after the hearing the individual who has been remanded or sentenced will be taken to the cells in the court building and from there will be transferred to a local prison. It is often the case at court that not even solicitors are allowed to visit the prisoner directly after a hearing.
So his Lawyer wouldnt have access straight away to Dr Vincent Tabak, I dont know how long after they are at a local prison the lawyer gets access??
And the difficulities facing the Lawyer when they move him TWICE again!!!
Catergories are usually determined on this bases:What is Categorisation?
All adult male prisoners are classified on
reception into prison and put into one of
four security categories based on the
likelihood of escape and the risk to the
public if they did escape. The categories
are:
The catergories are determined as follows:
♦ Category A: prisoners who would be
highly dangerous to the public, police or
national security if they were to escape.
♦ Category B: prisoners for whom the
highest security conditions are not
necessary, but for whom escape needs
to be made very difficult.
♦ Category C: prisoners who cannot be
trusted in open conditions but who are
unlikely to make a determined escape
attempt.
♦ Category D: open conditions, prisoners
who can be trusted not to try and
escape.
http://www.prisonadvice.org.uk/system/files/public/Categorisation.pdf
The question is.... Are Remand prisoners usually catergorised?
Are remand prisoners categorized?
Unless they meet the criteria of category A,
remand prisoners are not categorized.
They are usually treated as category B.
Unconvicted women and young people will
be held in a closed prison.
This is an interesting sentence made by the above document:
How does the security category affect
the prisoner’s sentence?
The category determines where a prisoner
will serve their sentence as prisons are
usually designated as category A, B, C, or D
and they will be placed in a prison
appropriate to their category. If they
request a transfer, they can only be
transferred to a prison of the correct
category. The lower the category, the
more freedom a prisoner will be allowed.
In category D Prisons (also known as open
prisons) they may leave the premises for
work, education or town visits. Security
will be much tighter in category A prisons,
with visitors and mail subject to more
stringent checks.
So now we need to follow what happens next:
He appears at Bristol crown court on the court on Monday 24th January 2011
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jan/24/vincent-tabak-court-joanna-yeates-murder-charge
On the 26th January, he was transfered to a prison in Gloucester??? (That ones news to me)
THE man accused of murdering Jo Yeates was moved to a different prison
yesterday amid fears for his safety.
Vincent Tabak had spent less than 24 hours in jail in Bristol before the
30-mile switch to Gloucester.
HMP Gloucester
Address : Barrack Square,
: Gloucester
: GL1 2JN map of location
: England
Gloucester Prison is a catergory B: Prison,
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/330342/tabak-jail-switch-over-attack-fears/
Then 24 hours later he was moved again to Long Lartin Prison..... why??
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/332161/jo-suspect-on-suicide-watch-in-tough-jail/
He was in Long Lartin by the 27th January: Address:
South Littleton
Evesham
Worcestershire
WR11 8TZ
You have to make an application to have a prisoner moved, so why move him twice??? In such a short space of time!!!!
Category A prisoners are routinely moved from time to time for security reasons
For their own safety if they are being bullied
If their main visitor has a medical problem making visits impossible.
Does a prisoner have a legal right to be transferred to a different prison if they wish?
What determines the catergorization of a prisoner????
Are remand prisoners awaiting trial categorised?
Prisoners held on remand awaiting trial are not normally categorised but would generally be treated as category B. However, if the Prisoner is assessed as a category A prisoner, they will be held in this way.
Can a Prisoner on remand awaiting trial be transferred?
A prisoner on remand is not usually transferred. They are usually held in the local prison nearest the court they will appear.
What special rightss do remand prisoners have:
Remand Prisoners have the following rights:
Access to reasonable facilities to seek release on bail and to prepare for trial.
The right to preserve their home and job i.e. to make arrangements in case they should be convicted.
The right to maintain contact with family and friends.
http://www.jigsawvisitorscentre.org.uk/remand-prisoners/
Why may a prisoner be transferred?
Their security category has changed
So when did this change??? If his original remand was in a catergory B prison... why the change???
Nothing had happened within 24/48 hours...
But by moving him he suddenly doesn't appear in person for his next COURT appearance...
Can a prisoner request a transfer?
The prisoner can request a transfer via the prison request system, or on a form provided by the prison service.
It is usual for transfer requests not to be considered unless the prisoner has served a few months at their current facility.
The prisoner should expect to receive a response within 7 days of application.
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/prison-law/transferring-prisons/
Dr Vincent Tabak didn't request a transfer... someone went to great lengths to transfer him Twice in 24/48 hours of his court appearance..
Dr Vincent Tabak was no more dangerous from his initaial court apperance to his last court appearance..
It has taken FOUR days from his first court appearance :
(1)...24th Jan 2011.. appears in Bristol crown court
(2) 26th Jan 2011.. moved to Gloucester Prison
(3) 27th January... moved to Long Lartin
(4) 31st January.. .. appears for preliminary hearing?? via video link WITHOUT his solicitor who is at Bristol Crown court.. ( The same day Jo,s body is released to the family) (what happened to applying for BAIL????)
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/event/vincent-tabak-preliminary-hearing-for-the-murder-of-joanna-yeates-108632844#vincent-tabaks-defence-lawyer-paul-cook-leaves-bristol-crown-court-a-picture-id108634508
{quote] But at the prelim, the prosecution only has to show probable cause that the accused committed the charged crime(s). In other words, enough evidence to justify a belief that a crime occurred and the defendant committed it.[/quote]
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/the-difference-between-preliminary-hearing-trial.html
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jan/31/joanna-yeates-funeral-vincent-tabak
Why a video link??
How much contact had his Lawyer had in these 4 days??
I cannot find when his Lawyer changed...
but theres NO reference for this until May 2011(have done range of dates)
He then confessed to the chaplain 8 days later:
It makes you wonder what pressures he was put under to make this apparent confession??
How much REAL time did he have with his original Lawyer?
When did COOK stop representing him???
When did CLEGG take over??
These question can give reason as to why someone may plead guilty to a crime they did not commit!!
-
And fundimentally... I can't find where the application for bail was made?
-
Not sure what point you are trying to make but you do highlight he was moved and there were fears for his safety. That has to be considered a good thing if he was in danger?
-
Where does it state he (VT) was Cat A ?
Just because he was in a Cat A prison doesn't mean he was Cat himself sometimes Cat B prisoners are housed in Cat A prisons .
-
Why was no application for bail made in the preliminary hearing??
Dr Vincent Tabak was presumably expecting this... (any prisoner would want bail)
The procesution stated at the hearing tha:
Prosecutor Nigel Lickley QC said he would serve papers on the defence by 1 April. There would then be a plea and case management hearing on 4 May. The judge said he had pencilled in a trial date for 4 October at Bristol.
The judge told Tabak that his counsel would have a chance to speak to him later today and see him this week. He said today's hearing was designed to make sure the trial process worked efficiently.
Treacy added that Tabak's next appearance would be on 4 May, by which time papers would be served that would make it possible for him to see "in detail" the case against him.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jan/31/body-of-joanna-yeates-released
So.... Application for bail anyone????????
So from the 31st January to the 4th of May 2011 NO APPLICATION FOR BAIL was made????
Doesn't that strike you as odd??
Surely an application would be made whether or not it was denied??
A Foreign National in a foreign prison not having an application for bail made....???
Its not even that an application for bail was ever actually made (IMO)as far as I can see....
Surely this would have been the first course taken!!!!!!
So from the time of his arrest to WHEN he appeared changing his plea.... NO application for bail was ever made (IMO)..
I cannot see why an application was not made as the defence did not recieve the prosecution papaers at this time..
And surely in his clients best interest an application for bail should have been made..
Dr Vincent Tabak was of good character and had no previous convictions...
And wasn't a threat to National sercurity..
So why no application???
Does this not seem odd??????
yes... i've edited it: because.....
What is bail?
Bail is an important pre-trial matter. When deciding whether bail should be granted the courts will ask themselves whether the defendant, the person on trial, shall be allowed back into the public whilst awaiting trial or shall be remanded in custody until the trial date.
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/bail/
PRE TRAIL..... why no Bail hearing???????????
-
I think when you look at presumption with crimes like rape and murder you may understand why he didn't get bail and no one asked for or was expecting it
-
wow do you really believe all you are writing? surely not?
-
Under s. 4 of the Bail Act 1976, on each occasion that a person is brought before a court accused of an offence, or remanded after conviction for enquiries or a report, he must be granted bail without condition, if none of the exceptions to bail apply.
Prosecutors must keep the issue of bail under review throughout the life of the case.
Conditions of bail may only be imposed where necessary to ensure that the exceptions to bail are addressed. Only where conditions are not sufficient to address the exceptions to bail should a remand in custody be sought.
Under s. 5 of the Bail Act 1976, the court or officer refusing bail or imposing conditions must give reasons for their decision.
Exclusions to the right to bail
The general right to bail does not apply in the following circumstances:
Murder
The power of magistrates to consider bail in murder cases, whether at first hearing or after a breach of an existing bail condition, is now removed by s. 115(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. This does not apply to attempted murder or conspiracy to murder.
Where a person is charged with an offence of murder or attempted murder, and has previously been convicted in the UK or court of an EU Member State of an offence of murder, attempted murder, rape or a serious sexual offence (as listed in s. 25(2) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994), he shall only be granted bail where there are exceptional reasons, which justify it.
Section 114 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 amends Schedule 1 to the Bail Act 1976. Section 114(2) provides that bail may not be granted to someone charged with murder unless the court is satisfied that there is no significant risk that, if released on bail, that person would commit an offence that would be likely to cause physical or mental injury to another person. In coming to that decision, the court must have regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, the suspect's character and antecedents and his record in relation to previous grants of bail.
Manslaughter and Serious Sexual Offences
Where a person is charged with an offence of manslaughter, rape or a serious sexual offence, and has previously been convicted in the UK or court of an EU Member State of an offence of murder, attempted murder, rape or a serious sexual offence (as listed in s. 25(2) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994), he shall only be granted bail where there are exceptional reasons, which justify it.
Note: Where a person charged with one of the offences referred to above has a previous conviction for manslaughter or culpable homicide in the UK or EU court, he shall only have his right to bail restricted where he received a sentence of imprisonment or detention upon conviction.
Class A Drug Users - Designated areas only
In certain parts of the country, Paragraphs 6A to 6C of Part I of Schedule I of the Bail Act 1976 apply which set out the exception to bail for adult drug users where their offending is drug-related, and where they have been required to undergo drug testing but have failed to comply with that requirement.
Exceptions to the right to bail
The grounds for refusing bail are set out in Schedule 1 to the Bail Act 1976.
A person may be denied bail if there are substantial grounds for believing that any of the exceptions in Schedule 1 of the Bail Act 1976 are made out. Different exceptions will apply depending on the category of offence and the flow charts at Annexes One - Six set out the approach to be taken by the court in deciding whether to withhold bail to a person charged with a particular category of offence.
Annex One: Adult Defendant: Indictable Only or Either Way Imprisonable Offence
Annex Two: Adult Defendant: Summary Imprisonable Offence
Annex Three: Adult Defendant: Non-Imprisonable Offence
Annex Four: Youth Defendant: Indictable Only or Either Way Imprisonable Offence
Annex Five: Youth Defendant: Summary Imprisonable Offence
Annex Six: Youth Defendant: Non-Imprisonable Offence
Note:
In cases involving criminal damage where the court is clear that the value involved is less than £5000, these offences are treated for the purposes of bail as if they were summary only: see Section 22 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.
Certain exceptions to bail are subject to the "no real prospect" test where a remand should not be sought for an un-convicted defendant who has no real prospect of receiving a custodial sentence. In less serious cases prosecutors should give careful consideration to the surrounding circumstances of the offence, the defendant's antecedents and any relevant sentencing guidelines in deciding whether there is a "real prospect" of a custodial sentence. Where this is not clear cut, it may be more appropriate to leave it to the court to decide and to make objections to bail in the usual way.
It is vital that prosecutors note that this is not a consideration in cases involving domestic violence or any other risk of physical or mental injury to persons associated with the defendant.
Post-conviction applications.
Pursuant to section 4(2) of the Bail Act 1976, there is no general right to bail for convicted persons.
However where a person has been convicted and is then brought before either the magistrates' or Crown Court to be dealt with for breach of the requirements of a community order or breach of certain youth community orders (s. 4(3)); or a court adjourns a case for enquiries or a report (such as a pre-sentence report) to be made in order to assist the court in dealing with the offence (s. 4(4)), the right to bail remains. Accordingly, in these circumstances, prosecutors should make appropriate representations (including any objections) as to the grant of bail.
By inference the presumption to bail does not apply to those defendants who appear before a court post-conviction where proceedings are adjourned for any other reason, for example committal for sentence.
In this situation, prosecutors are reminded of their duty to assist the court in providing information that may be relevant to their decision.
-
wow do you really believe all you are writing? surely not?
I am a just an oldish woman no experience with court or procedings.. I have said before that I have had doubts on this conviction and arrest from the begining, I am trying to understand what the process is to get from Arrest to Conviction....
And I'm not completely sure if due process was followed (IMO) because I don't do law....
The constant movement of Dr Vincent Tabak soon after his arrest is a cause for concern..
I believe ordinarily a prisoner request to be transferred and this can take 7 days..
Well all this happened in less than 7 days and I don't believe Dr Vincent Tabak made the request...
Do prisonerrs ordinarily get moved so soon after arriving as a remand prisoner???
Even when they are under threat from prisoners etc???
Surley these processes take time????
Example of a different Prisoner who was held on remand:The man was remanded in to the custody of HMP Altcourse in March.
Despite a history of harming himself and substance misuse, he was assessed
as presenting no risk to himself at the point of reception. He was prescribed
medication to help with his substance withdrawal and was taken to a wing
used to manage prisoners going through detoxification. On 11 March, he
requested to be moved to the vulnerable prisoner unit as he felt threatened by
other prisoners. As there was no room in the unit at that time, he was
relocated to the care and separation unit (CSU, also called the segregation
unit by staff).
2. Suicide prevention measures were begun on 16 March when a chaplain
reported that the man told him he was thinking about harming himself.
However, he was primarily concerned about the type of sentence he might
receive and, when these fears were allayed, the measures were stopped. He
stayed in the CSU until 18 March when he was located in the vulnerable
prisoner unit (VPU).
http://www.ppo.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/004-11-Death-of-a-male-prisoner-4-4-11-Altcourse.pdf
It took time to assess this Prisoner who felt theatened by other inmates:
So..... surely there would have been measures for Dr Vincent Tabak which would take longer than 24/48 hours of him being in 2 prisons..
I don't see what assessment need to be made to class him as a vulnerable Prisoner and if the assessment where made that he was vulnerable to threats why move him so soon!!! Doesn't make sense ..
This was indeed SPECIAL treatment that Dr Vincent Tabak recieved as ordinarily they wouldn't just move a prisoner...
How many prisoners are vulnerable???
And how many do they move..??
They can't move all of them, they haven't the space or facililities.. So why was Dr Vincent Tabak cases so SPECIAL they had to move him twice in 24/48 hours..
Had Holland intervened?? If so why where they not representing him..
There seems no real justifiable reason to move Dr Vincent Tabak over any other prisoner at this time...
-
If prisoners are charged with a crime that is sexual in nature, they must also be segregated for their own protection.
The Basic Point is This...Every human being, be they prisoner, detainee, terrorist or asylum seeker has the basic human right to be treated with dignity and respect. They have the right to food, housing, protection, education and assistance from the law. They have the right not to be exploited, tortured or intimidated. As a country we have agreed to abide by the European Convention on Human Rights, as a nation we have the Human Rights Act to protect us from those who would seek to harm us or prevent us from enjoying our civil liberties.
-
really? lol ok...
For an 'oldish' lady you seem to have a long list of what should happen yet you say that you don't know about proceedings
You don't know the goings on and as members of the public we don't have a right or need to. Its a murder case not open for us all to see every twist and turn of what happened to him, what he said or didn't say.
-
Under s. 5 of the Bail Act 1976, the court or officer refusing bail or imposing conditions must give reasons for their decision.
Exclusions to the right to bail
The general right to bail does not apply in the following circumstances:Murder
The power of magistrates to consider bail in murder cases, whether at first hearing or after a breach of an existing bail condition, is now removed by s. 115(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. This does not apply to attempted murder or conspiracy to murder.
Where a person is charged with an offence of murder or attempted murder, and has previously been convicted in the UK or court of an EU Member State of an offence of murder, attempted murder, rape or a serious sexual offence (as listed in s. 25(2) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994), he shall only be granted bail where there are exceptional reasons, which justify it.
The problem is that an Application for Bail didn't even happen not whether he had a right to Bail...(IMO)
That I really do not understand!!
-
He is a murderer.... its plain and simple. Why should he get bail? why is that so hard for you to accept
-
If prisoners are charged with a crime that is sexual in nature, they must also be segregated for their own protection.
He wasn't charged with a sexually related crime...
That only came after they decided that it wasn't manslaughter and the prosecution needed to prove motive, thats when it became a Sexually Motivated case, and not before......
Joanna Yeates had not been Sexually Assaulted (FACT)
The Prosecution used Searches to establish that it had been a sexually motivated Attack.. (searches do not prove intent).....and that was after the initial charge!
The Sexual Intention was not brought up in his original charge?? that I am aware of (IMO)
So what were they protecting him from?????
He was basicallly someone who had a murder charge against him.... nothing was proven at this point...
No need for segregation as a prisoner charged with a Sexually Motivated Crime..
So why in late January when he had made 2 appearances in court was an application for bail not filed?
-
that is a quote for all kinds of situations. Not sure why we keeping having to focus on sex offences.. You Drew our attention to this case, Not quite sure what your AIM is but you seem to think it is all one big con.
Points to consider
Apart from in cases involving Murder or Rape there is a presumption in favour of Bail under s4(1) of the Bail Act 1976
Apart from.... there is NO right to be given bail as you seem to think that he was being badly done to
But apart from a murder, a poor man was accused previously and publicly assassinated by the press etc. Feelings were running high, as proven when he went to prison, he was in possible danger.
Remanding him into custody is the NORM anyway but also to protect him!
-
really? lol ok...
For an 'oldish' lady you seem to have a long list of what should happen yet you say that you don't know about proceedings
You don't know the goings on and as members of the public we don't have a right or need to. Its a murder case not open for us all to see every twist and turn of what happened to him, what he said or didn't say.
I'm not here to Justify my reasons for having an interest in this particular case..
As I have reiterated many times, this case bothers me..
I want to understand how Dr Vincent Tabak came to change his plea to Manslaughter, because we don't know..
Prisoners falsey admit to things that they didn't do...
Yes the public should not have willy nilly access to anything they deem they may need to investigate or prove that a persons trial is fair or not...(that is for the Lawyers)..
But to bring any case to a Lawyers attention you need to find facts or New Evidence that will change the course of events..
And looking into cases costs time and money..
Who's to say that someone isn't looking into this case and the way in which it was handled.. We don't know!
Stefan Kizkos mother.. spent years trying to prove her Son was innocent of the crime he was committed for...
She didn't have the luxury of the internet to help her in her process...
Or forums with people asking questions regarding her sons predicament...
And as we know ... that poor man was innocent, there was No question that he was innocent..
The Police of the day were under pressure to have someone ...anyone in prison for the murder of Lesley Molseed.
They knew that he couldn't possibly be the killer...He was Sterile..
Yet he went to court and Prison for this crime..
And served 18 years I think...
So as the title of the forum suggests.. People are looking into what they think is a miscarriage of Justice,..
-
I cant see anyone asking you to justify your reasons yet you quoted me.
-
wow do you really believe all you are writing? surely not?
I believe he was unfairly treated....(IMO)
I believe alot of smoke and mirrors were used... (IMO)
I believe Dr vincent Tabak did notknow if he was on his arse or elbow (IMO)
I believe The Defence should have been furnished will all relevant papers pertaining to the crime before trail (IMO)
I believe April 1st would have been a start....(IMO)
I believe Dr Vincent Tabaks defence should have been given more than a day to counter act the 1300 page document that was presented in court on the day of trail... (IMO)
I believe if the jury understood this 1300 page document they may have come to a different conclusion(IMO)
I believe that asking the jury to add a note to a printed document saying "DEFINITION" prejudiced their view of Dr vincent Tabak..(IMO)
I believe that if the word that changes the interpretion of an action which wasn't originally there, should not be added after... (IMO)
I believe what i consider as the Confession to the Chaplain the only evidence they had he had committed a crime ...(IMO)
I beleive the original evidence brought to convict him was not used at trial ...(IMO)
I believe if DR Vincent Tabak had influencial friends and money for a Lawyer he would have been on bail..(IMO)
I believe the sexual motivation wasn't part of the original charge ..(IMO)
I believe they thought the crime had been committed on the Saturday... (IMO)
I believe that is why they arrested CJ.. (IMO)
I believe the CCTV of a car on Clifton Suspension bridge was on the Saturday and not the Friday (IMO)
I believe because it was Saturday for the CCTV.. it suddenly became grainy... (IMO)
I believe they identified the car on the CCTV and either arrested or contacted the owner....(IMO)
I believe the crying girl was a ruse... not produced in Trail... (IMO)
I believe nobody fingered DR Vincent Tabak of this crime... (IMO)
I believe there was a reason not to show the Asda Time Stamp....(IMO)
I believe that moving him several times in 24/48 hours constitues duress... (IMO)
I believe if Dr Vincent Tabak had searches such information about the difference between manslaughter and murder charges.. he would have definetly made an appeal for bail...(IMO)
I believe if it's possible to see the 1300 page document it would show that Dr Vincent Tabak did not have enough time to commit this crime...(IMO) on Friday 17th Dec 2011
I believe as a foreign National there should have been some intervention or communication by the Dutch Authorities..(IMO)
I believe the Police were under pressure to convict someone after the CJ fiasco....(IMO)
I believe he should at least be in a dutch prison so his family can visit... (IMO)
I believe that there isn't anything wrong with questioning something you have concerns over.... (IMO)
-
And his confession?
I believe there are very good reasons for most of what you quoted but im sure you will disagree
So his confession is wrong, the fact he cried in court and said sorry is wrong also
He would not have been given bail no matter what money he had!
Maybe he was moved for his own safety - would that be wrong to you too?
There is never anything wrong with questioning things that don't make sense. What I don't understand is that even when alternative scenarios are offered you ignore and dig deeper to prove his innocence, his ill treatment while taking none of it on board!
-
My goodness, people have been busy on here again!!
I'm afraid it was me who originally started the thread and drew people's attention to the case. I am unhappy about it for many of the same reasons as "Nine " is. I am also an old-ish woman, by the way!!
I did not say that VT SHOULD have been given bail, and I understand that people accused of murder are usually not. However, the understanding was that VT's solicitor was going to APPLY (he might not have been successful), and then he didn't. I am wondering what (or who) changed his mind, and why he stopped representing VT shortly afterwards.
I believe some murderers are more dangerous than others: terrorists and serial killers are more dangerous than somebody who kills his or her spouse, for example, because somebody who murders for a personal reason, eg jealousy, or because their spouse was having an affair, is not as likely to murder again as somebody who kills randomly, or for political reasons. That is (presumably) why some murderers are given longer tariffs than others, and why some are given whole life tariffs.
I did read that VT was moved from Bristol prison for his own safety, very shortly after being placed on remand, but I hadn't realised he had been moved twice. I cannot help believing that his meeting with Brotherton was deliberately engineered.
I also did not realise that so many foreign nationals were in UK prisons----thank you to the poster (dont remember who it was) who passed on that piece of information.
-
My comments were all very important figures of speech that when read properly make total sense. Im not surprised you are similar to Nine, not at all
Firstly as for dangerous murderers. Hmmm he pointed the finger at an innocent man which in turn turned the attention on to himself
On his laptop they also found explicit videos of a blonde woman being throttled. What an unfortunate coincidence
Poor man, what are the chances
Considering how Joanna died, I would say yes he is dangerous very dangerous wouldn't you?
-
Conspiracy theories...please!
Maybe he did have an ounce of shame, remorse or another reason for talking in prison but a conspiracy I just don't buy it!
-
I agree with most of what Nine has said in her last post.
I don't have a great deal of faith in VT's confession, and never have, I'm afraid. The fact that he cried in court, and apologised to JY's family is odd too: one doesn't usually hear of defendants doing that, paricularly people on trial for murder, and it sounds like someone who had a mad moment, with tragic consequences, and who really regretted it afterwards.
Or, somebody who was so confused that he was no longer sure whether he had killed Joanna or not.
No doubt, some people on here will say it was all crocodile tears, and done in order to make himself look better than he actually was!!!!!!!
We just dont know, do we, and that is why we have different views about the case.
I have applied to write to VT in prison, and I strongly suspect that I will be told that he doesn't want to hear from me. I do know that a couple of people tried to write to him while he was on remand (not me or Nine, by the way), and were told exactly that. Maybe he really does not want to hear from anyone, and maybe the powers that be dont want him corresponding with anyone. Who knows?
-
And his confession?
I believe there are very good reasons for most of what you quoted but im sure you will disagree
So his confession is wrong, the fact he cried in court and said sorry is wrong also
He would not have been given bail no matter what money he had!
Maybe he was moved for his own safety - would that be wrong to you too?
There is never anything wrong with questioning things that don't make sense. What I don't understand is that even when alternative scenarios are offered you ignore and dig deeper to prove his innocence, his ill treatment while taking none of it on board!
His confession was just that.... Not recorded or anything.. . We don't know what was said in the confession and whether the priest was being accurate with the content...
I would like to see the 1300 page document to assertain wether it was possible in the time allotted...
I can think of other scenario's that do not include Dr Vincent Tabak that I can not say:
What reason other than Sexual did Dr Vincent Tabak have to committ this crime??
When we've discussed that the searches were not relative and didn't show intent...
when Joanna Yeates was not Sexually Assaulted...
When you already have doubt as to why the information was brought to trial, but not relevant and his Solicitor didn't recieve the 1300 page document before trail.. So he could object to the relevance of the information that was within the 1300 page document..
If he didn't know of it's exsistence before Trial had commenced how could he make an object to it???
I dig because this is a discussion forum.. we all have differences of opinion,..
Let me see the document, I'm sure that there is something in there that holds important relevant information as Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction..
And another issue is if the judge originally thought that the trail would take 4 weeks... why did it only take 2 weeks??
What evidence was not examined fully and what evidence was omitted.......
-
aw bless him shall we have a collection and send him a postal order or send it quicker via the online service?
Just for your information most people don't strangle their neighbours implicate an innocent man and dump the body after watching videos of a woman looking very much like the victim
Have you thought that he was crying tears for himself? like what have I done? The years flashing before his eyes all due to liking/watching poor women being strangled
Yes my heart bleeds
Show some respect for the victim. He has moved prisons. has he put in any claims of being mistreated?
Years down the line what has he done to let the world know he is innocent after confessing . Both you are Nine are really really good at asking questions ignoring all the answers that don't suit how badly done to and innocent he really is
Its like you are fighting your own battle.
As for it being a set up to allow him to confess to a murder you say he didn't do to a Chaplain when he isn't religious. How the heck would that be possible? If he was innocent why would anyone expect him to confess to anyone?
-
I don't believe VT pointed the finger at an innocent man at all, but I have said this in a previous post and given my reasons, so I won't repeat myself.
As for the videos of women being throttled, I would like to know who has actually seen these, and whether anyone would testify under oath that they existed. I have no doubt that VT looked at some legal porn (probably behind his girlfriend's back), but I wouldn't be at all surprised if the other stuff was concocted.
I could be wrong , of course, but then, I have never denied that I might be wrong.
-
Conspiracy theories...please!
Maybe he did have an ounce of shame, remorse or another reason for talking in prison but a conspiracy I just don't buy it!
A conspiracy theory is always a good word to bandy around when someone is simply asking question:
A conspiracy theory tends to have an alternative account of what has taken place..
I haven't given an alternative account of what has taken place. And neither has mrswah that I am aware of on this disscussion of the case.
I have simply looked at whats available and as Mrswah said...
I did read that VT was moved from Bristol prison for his own safety, very shortly after being placed on remand, but I hadn't realised he had been moved twice. I cannot help believing that his meeting with Brotherton was deliberately engineered.
If mrswah wasn't aware he had been moved twice,and in quick succession..
And mrswah has taken an interest in this case for quite a while I bellieve...
Then what else do we not know about Dr Vincent Tabak and his treatment...
-
maybe you are forgetting yourself lol Mrswah said it was deliberately engineered and I was replying to 'her' and that comment not you or yours or was I?
So if you read it again, it wasn't me who said it but you jump in once again pointing the finger at anyone who disagrees but never at the Dr hmm
-
Still while you are deflecting about naughty Chaplains telling tales you don't have to answer the question about the videos and the events that followed. you know, the important stuff.
-
Just for your information most people don't strangle their neighbours implicate an innocent man and dump the body after watching videos of a woman looking very much like the victim
Firstly your correct.... most people do not murder their next door neighbour that they have never meet..
Statistically moving a strangers body from the scene of a crime is not done.. this has been touched upon on earlier posts...
Moving a body 3 times is even less likely statistically i would imagine(IMO)
And the evidence that he watched the fore mentioned video was not produced as evidence in court..
Therefore there is no evidence that the information on what Dr Vincent Tabak watched is true:...
A still picture from a video is not an image... what film and what context was the picture taken from....
I posted regards the man whom was arrested about the pseudo video that was thrown out because the image was a still and the video was pseudo and when watched in context the man had done nothing illegal.
I'm sure there are many murder mystery films,TV series etc... that could show some poor lady tided up in the boot of a car....
Context is what is needed.....
-
I think you should read the Felicity Gerry article. Im sure Mrswah has read it before as there is a comment in her name.
You will find the reasons why certain things were said in court and others weren't so it can be ruled out of the argument
http://thejusticegap.com/2011/10/vincent-tabak-and-the-law-on-bad-character/
‘Bad character’ evidence is evidence that the defendant has carried out reprehensible behaviour other than the offence charged. It is not limited to criminal convictions. Tabak had no criminal history. The judge concluded that the possession of strangulation pornography was reprehensible and later sentenced on the basis of sexually motivated murder but excluded that material from the consideration of the jury during the prosecution case.
‘A difficult balancing exercise’
It was a difficult balancing exercise for the judge but, in my view, the right one: The only issue in the trial was intent and not sexual motive. That depended on the level of force and the time it would take to kill. In the end the pornography could only support a suggestion that he liked violent sex. This would have been admissible if he had denied killing, but he didn’t. In addition, the evidence was that most viewing of pornography was after the killing so, on balance, viewing strangulation pornography after the event would be more prejudicial than probative in a trial as it could cause the jury to leap to a conclusion rather than reaching a verdict on the evidence. Tabak’s sexual conduct online and with prostitutes could also have been used to rebut his assertions that he was morally correct but he was obviously such apoor witness that, as the verdict shows, it was better to reach a safe conviction on direct expert evidence than one based on an examination of his character and leave the now proved motive to the judge when setting the sentencing tariff.
nail on the head! and no reason to say that because it wasn't used means it didn't happen!
-
haha im gonna leave you to your mad ideas. Im sure you would see good in anyone especially if there were sex offenders involved. that much is obvious
-
Nine why when asked questions do you never give a straight answer you go around the houses or deflect things away from them by raising more questions is it because you are making things up to suit your posts and comments Andrew or is it just simply the way you like to post and comment to make it look like you are intelligent & know what you are talking about when really you are just a crank or so it appears
-
In addition, the evidence was that most viewing of pornography was after the killing so, on balance, viewing strangulation pornography after the event would be more prejudicial than probative in a trial as it could cause the jury to leap to a conclusion rather than reaching a verdict on the evidence.
I have to look at your statement in pieces:
And if after the killing you say that he looked at this porn, what did he put in the search engine???
"S&M particularlly a girl wearing a pink t shirt....
Now that may have swayed things...
It is ludicrous to imply as the media did that Dr Vincent Tabak looked at images such as this and committed the said crime....
It is also more ludicrious to suggest he happened upon an image of a girl in a pink t shirt in the boot of a car... Just after he had committed the crime or searched for the said image......
-
Nine why when asked questions do you never give a straight answer you go around the houses or deflect things away from them by raising more questions is it because you are making things up to suit your posts and comments Andrew or is it just simply the way you like to post and comment to make it look like you are intelligent & know what you are talking about when really you are just a crank or so it appears
Who's Andrew??
-
Felicity Gerry is rubbish too
Ignore all the facts that make him guilty and wave your banner for sex offenders
How many names have you posted under ? Are you even allowed to be doing this?
-
Felicity Gerry is rubbish too
Ignore all the facts that make him guilty and wave your banner for sex offenders
How many names have you posted under ? Are you even allowed to be doing this?
I will look further into what you have said jixy...
And I can assure you I am only posting as me alone "Nine"... is my only username on this forum..
What would be the point of me having two or more usernames...
I want other people other than myself to look and see what they think... if i wanted an arguement with myself I can find a mirror..
I don't and am not debating with myself publically....
-
@)(++(*
-
@)(++(*
It's nice to see you laughing, I'm sure it was for the Who's Andrew comment....
Bad character’ evidence is evidence that the defendant has carried out reprehensible behaviour other than the offence charged. It is not limited to criminal convictions. Tabak had no criminal history. The judge concluded that the possession of strangulation pornography was reprehensible and later sentenced on the basis of sexually motivated murder but excluded that material from the consideration of the jury during the prosecution case.
http://thejusticegap.com/2011/10/vincent-tabak-and-the-law-on-bad-character/
How does that work???
There was no proof of sexual intent how can he be sentenced on it being a sexually motivated murder????
When also NO sexual Assault took place????
-
Who's Andrew??
Do you not remember you once offered to fix my boiler as you were claiming to be a heating engineer /plumber at the time ,a little like you claimed to be a solicitor & now a para legal were these all courses you did while you were away ?
-
Do you not remember you once offered to fix my boiler as you were claiming to be a heating engineer /plumber at the time ,a little like you claimed to be a solicitor & now a para legal were these all courses you did while you were away ?
Maybe you are meaning to private message someone???
-
I want to know who Andrew is too!!!
Jixy, why do you think Felicity Gerry is rubbish? I thought you would have agreed with what she says. And, yes, you are absolutely right: I did read her piece and comment on it.
I might not agree with the "official line", but I can assure you (and everyone else) that I am in no way a nutter or a crank (at least, nobody has called me one yet, and I've been around a long time, LOL). I have thought out my reasons why I think VT MIGHT be innocent-------and I said MIGHT !!
I am NOT disrespectful of ANY victim's family. Why should I be?
And, I certainly have no time whatsoever for anyone I KNOW to be a sex offender.
-
What on earth is all this Andrew fixing boilers business???????
-
I don't think Jinx was saying she was rubbish but think she was being sarcastic
-
I was indeed
-
jixy sorry not jinx
-
Ah, I see !!! Fair enough. I am not always good at understanding sarcasm, I know that!!
-
What on earth is all this Andrew fixing boilers business???????
The only plumber involved in this scenario is the plumber that CJ mentions in the Honour of Christopher Jefferies..
And I think if i remember correctly, he fixed the plumbing issue on the 16th Dec 2010..
But I don't remember him being referred to as Andrew!!!!
-
Just another little niggle:
What use is the 6th Jan 2011 to google rubbish collection??
At Line 422 of the prosecution chart
At 9.10 am (at work)
Tabak searched for press articles on the murder.
Then he Googled the words
‘DNA test’
‘Waste recycling’
‘rubbish collection’
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
when the police halted rubbish collection by the the 23rd Dec 2010 as i recall ... i will come back to this... something else has caught my eye whilst searching...
-
Please correct me if i am incorrect... And I make my profuse apologies in advance..
I thought Joanna Yeates body was discovered on the 25th Dec 2010.. i've looked at so much info I cannot remember the exact date, but I was sure it was The 25th Dec 2010...
Whilst looking for the bin information I stumble across this report:
Police searching for missing architect Jo Yeates discover a woman's body
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
CREATED: 14:38, 24 December 2010
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1341452/Jo-Yeates-murder-Police-search-missing-architect-finds-womans-body.html#ixzz4QrnF88cp
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook[/quote]
Because the BBC report that on 25th Dec 2010 the body of a woman was found..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12079050
So which one is correct... And if the mail knew a day before....... how???
Maybe they released her named on the 25th Dec and found her the day previously...
I must admit I'm uber confused....
If it was the 25th Dec 2010 she was found... how can a newspaper report the day before it happened that she was found????
I'm completely bemused....
The family was preying on Christamas Eve.. she surely wasn't found....
From same BBC link On Christmas Eve churchgoers in Bristol were praying for the safe return of Miss Yeates, who was remembered during midnight mass at Christ Church in Clifton.
I'm at a loss....
-
I don't know if there is a glitch with the forum, but I have tried to edit my post twice and , it has not changed...
So I will continue on another post...
What i was trying to say regard editing my post was that on the BBC video
-
I was looking back at BC forums, and as i said in an early post.. I thought that HW was kingdom who had testified at the trial..
Well HW is not Kingdom,... Kingdom was never called to give a witness, statement, he'd contatcted police several times and they said he might not be called... I'll quote what he says
kingdom
BC Member
kingdom's Avatar
Joined
Jan 2011
Posts
278
Likes
100
OCT
26
2011
Default Re: Did Harry Walker change his story about the screams he heard?
- they newspaper seems to be incorporating several people's experiences in that article.
I only found out about Harry Walker's witness statement 10 days ago and have only read the details for the first time on this thread. What i experienced was during the day time - this is what i explained to the police on the 21st of December and to an Evening Post journalist a few days later.
(I'm the person in one of three flats - not Harry Walker - whose bedrooms back onto both CJ's drive - and with one having an oblique view of Tabak's door -- HW is in the same development but in the main house).
What i heard - on what i NOW believe to be saturday mid morning - probably between 10am - and 12.30 pm - was what sounded like a female voice shout out - 'Why won't someone help me!' very loudly. I only clearly caught the last two words 'help me!' - looked outside and there was no one about and assumed it was someone actually calling to someone else on Canynge Road and that i'd misheard - what i thought i'd heard).
It definitely wasn't on the friday night - i was in on the friday night and can't recall hearing anything undue - although i do recall hearing raised voices one evening of that week - which could have been an argument or could equally have revelers). I have a TV in the bedroom so it feasible that any scream might have been blocked out by the sound of that - (i seem to recall there was a turbulent episode of Eastenders on that evening).
I spoke to the DC last week who i had spoken to back in January and she said that as i hadn't been called as a witness they had probably concluded that what i heard was not relevant to the case. (Which i took to mean that the police have concrete forensic evidence that Jo was murdered on the friday night and that what i heard could not have been her on the saturday morning).
Personally i disagree. I'm not a fantasist or prone to a wild imagination and it would be a spectacular coincidence if the shout had not been Jo as at the time i thought the timbre of the voice sounded very odd.
I have contacted the police about this issue on at least 4 occasions specifying that i had heard this during the brightest part of that day -
I don't know why the defence didn't have this evidence... it was he who saisd he heard the words HELP ME.... no one else ,
But I don't know what the witness's said in trial... if help me was refered too ??
-
There's something about the crime scene i find parculiar...
Everyone believes that Joanna Yeates answered the door to a complete stranger whilst on her own, the Friday 17th Dec 2010..
I always find that odd..
Why would you answer the door to a complete stranger?
You wouldn't...
I wondered if the door had a spy hole so she could check to see who was at the door..
When i looked at the door i found some puzzling pictures:
http://legacymedia.localworld.co.uk/275775/Article/images/13540011/3247412.png
the above picture is inside the front room... it looks like an intercom
http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/an-interior-view-of-the-living-room-of-the-flat-of-joanna-yeates-on-picture-id129063062
The red thing on the tv table in the corner looks more like a telephone:Modern telephones tend to have docking stations and a big plug to power them...
Question: why was the grey intercom box removed??
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02024/front-door_2024941i.jpg
Because it was there on the 6th January??
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1344610/Joanna-Yeates-snatched-killer-went-check-post.html
So we have 4 pictures that show there could possibly have been an intercom to answer, rather than directly answering the door, plus the possibility of a spy hole in the door..
I don't understand why the grey box was removed after the 6th Jan 2011..
Surley if it had evidentary value it would have been removed sooner??
And the door to her flat definetley does not have an opening on the otherside for letters, even though there's a letter box on the door...
Found a link for 11th Oct which shows the grey box missing...
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/835252/inside-jo-yeates-murder-flat-the-christmas-she-never-saw/
-
There's something about the crime scene i find parculiar...
Everyone believes that Joanna Yeates answered the door to a complete stranger whilst on her own, the Friday 17th Dec 2010..
I always find that odd..
Why would you answer the door to a complete stranger?
You wouldn't...
I wondered if the door had a spy hole so she could check to see who was at the door..
When i looked at the door i found some puzzling pictures:
http://legacymedia.localworld.co.uk/275775/Article/images/13540011/3247412.png
the above picture is inside the front room... it looks like an intercom
http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/an-interior-view-of-the-living-room-of-the-flat-of-joanna-yeates-on-picture-id129063062
The red thing on the tv table in the corner looks more like a telephone:Modern telephones tend to have docking stations and a big plug to power them...
Question: why was the grey intercom box removed??
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02024/front-door_2024941i.jpg
Because it was there on the 6th January??
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1344610/Joanna-Yeates-snatched-killer-went-check-post.html
So we have 4 pictures that show there could possibly have been an intercom to answer, rather than directly answering the door, plus the possibility of a spy hole in the door..
I don't understand why the grey box was removed after the 6th Jan 2011..
Surley if it had evidentary value it would have been removed sooner??
And the door to her flat definetley does not have an opening on the otherside for letters, even though there's a letter box on the door...
Found a link for 11th Oct which shows the grey box missing...
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/835252/inside-jo-yeates-murder-flat-the-christmas-she-never-saw/
He wasn't a complete stranger, he was a neighbour who lived in a flat in the same building.
-
He wasn't a complete stranger, he was a neighbour who lived in a flat in the same building.
I far as I was aware he had been away working on business in the USA .... I don't think they ever meet..
He had been away on business for weeks.
2.8. Dr Tabak had returned from Los Angeles to the United Kingdom on 11 December
2010. He returned to office at Buro Happold18 in Bath, England, on 14 December 2010.
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
So after 6 days home he decides to kill the neighbour he's never meet???
It was literally his first week back at work....
I still say she wouldn't answer the door to a complete stanger in the dark, even if she suspected it might be a neighbour she hadn't meet..
What about the Pictures Alfie???
-
I have another query reqards the time line...
I can only reference the Sally Ramage papers for this information:
Defence Counsel: Can you look at item where you sent message to Tanja ‘missing you’
Can you remember if you sent it before you decided to go to Asda.
Recapping- you come off the Internet at 7.37pm (our entry 47) & remain in your flat until
9.29pm (our entry 88).
How soon before that did you left your flat?
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
If the prosecution claim that Joanna Yeates had been inside Dr Vincent Tabaks Flat for an hour that would make it 8.30pm that Joanna yeates should have been inside Dr Vincent Tabak's flat..
There lies the problem.. she wasn't even at home at 8.30pm she was on her way home and she was tlaking to her friend Rebecca Scott..
The 1300 page document is most important...
why didn't anyone see THIS timeline????
-
I far as I was aware he had been away working on business in the USA .... I don't think they ever meet..
He had been away on business for weeks.
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
So after 6 days home he decides to kill the neighbour he's never meet???
It was literally his first week back at work....
I still say she wouldn't answer the door to a complete stanger in the dark, even if she suspected it might be a neighbour she hadn't meet..
What about the Pictures Alfie???
What pictures?
Tabak was Joanna's next door neighbour. How long had they each lived in their respective properties? And - in the unlikely event they had never met he could have knocked on the door, smiled and announced himself as her next door neighbour - if she'd seen him by sight before then why wouldn't she welcome him into her flat? It's what neighbours do.
-
Morning Alfie
According to Sally Ramage, Vincent and Tanja had been lliving in their flat for a year (i believe it was just over, actually, I read somewhere that they started living together in the summer of 2010). VT went to the States on business for 5 weeks in late 2010, returning to the UK on 14th December. While he was away, Greg and Jo moved into their flat. So, unless VT and JY had met before (and no evidence was produced in court to say they had), they would not have known each other at all, other than by sight.
The scene in "The Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies", where CJ takes Greg round to meet Vincent, is fictional, as far as I know.
-
What pictures?
Tabak was Joanna's next door neighbour. How long had they each lived in their respective properties? And - in the unlikely event they had never met he could have knocked on the door, smiled and announced himself as her next door neighbour - if she'd seen him by sight before then why wouldn't she welcome him into her flat? It's what neighbours do.
Maybe he went to borrow a cup of sugar?
-
Maybe he went to borrow a cup of sugar?
Wasn't he bringing Joanna's cat back?
-
What pictures?
Did you not click the links Alfie? Do they not work??
A confusion I have and so must Dr Vincent Tabak have had , was they held his Pre trail at The Old Bailey..
Miss Yeates’s parents, David and Teresa, were in Court 2 of the Old Bailey to witness Tabak – who was appearing by videolink from Long Lartin prison where he is on remand – admit to killing their 25-year-old daughter.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8496027/Dutch-engineer-Vincent-Tabak-admits-I-did-kill-Jo-Yeates.html
I cannot understand why?? Only to prove they have more power than he does...
What about his family seeing him... What ever happened to the bail request..
Personally I believe, the constant moving of Dr Vincent Tabak... the difficulty his family faced getting access to him, and the seperation he felt must have put him under tremndous strain..
I genuinely do not believe he was treated fairly... (IMO) and with the other posts I have made about his early treatment, it is more than a fair assumtion he was under duress..
Maybe that is why he pleaded the way he did, maybe he thought when he got to court the evidence would actually show he was innocent of the crime that he was on trial for..
But .... unfortunateley they didn't bring 1300 pieces of evidence to trail till the day it started.. And many many witness's also..
People who could defend his character or whom had witnessed events that weekend...
Family or friend
Tanja Morson
Chris Jefferies.
Evidence showing time stamps.... ( I was in Asda's the other day and asked them about their CCTV and if it always had a timestamp... The answer was YES)
The famous CCTV of him in the centre of Bristol say it's 18th Dec 2011 so it's not the 17th when he was supposed to have got rid of her...
That'll be when he's going to get Tanja probably...
The discrepencies in the timeline at court: If his own Lawyer says Joanna got hone 8.37 or there abouts...
That quite frankly is NOT helping his client... We know that joanna Yeates was in tesco then..
But if the jury are making notes, which i'm sure they are... they would add an extra 5mins + probably to the time available to him to commit this action .....
And that's his defence saying that!!
Not to mention when his defence called him horrendous..!!
The Jury are probably thinking..... Well even his defence thinks his guilty!!
Like i've said from the begining... I like Fair....
And if this is an example of how most prisoners are treated then it's a shame on our system.....
-
What pictures?
I have attached the Pictures Alfie ,so you can see for yourself.... the one with the grey cover in place is taken by the telegraph , it was on the 6th January 2011
Cover in tact 6th January 2011
I'm unsure when this picture was actually taken, but there is no mention of it being broken, the Telegraph printed it.... like i said on the 6th Jan 2011
But CJ was always good at fixing things (he had the plumber round) (Andrew) who ever he is... (wry smile)
And safety for Joanna would have been paramount....
-
I have to do each one seperate..
Intercom on the wall.....
When you look at Vincent tabak's door he has on also....
I got confused when i saw The Honour of CJ... He rings it like a door bell... thats what at first I thought it was...
But is definetly an intercom (IMO)
-
Another ...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
last one....
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Dr Vincent Tabak's door..
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Wasn't he bringing Joanna's cat back?
Maybe he went to borrow a cup of sugar?
It was not verified in court that the cat had got out of the house before Greg left.. I would imagine Greg making sure the cat was indoors before he left, as the weather was so bad...
He could have....But if she wasn't wanting to answer the door because she was afraid, why didn't she use the intercom and so she didn't have any..
alternatively, he had sugar... or he didn't take sugar
`I like mine with no sugar and no cow juice....
But these senario's could apply to anyone trying to gain access.....
-
The idea that VT was bringing Joanna's cat back is speculation: it is merely one of the possible explanations put forward for why he might have gone round there.
The missing timestamp from the ASDA CCTV is very worrying, as far as I am concerned-------and it is hardly likely to have been VT who removed it!
Who did, and why?
-
The idea that VT was bringing Joanna's cat back is speculation: it is merely one of the possible explanations put forward for why he might have gone round there.
The missing timestamp from the ASDA CCTV is very worrying, as far as I am concerned-------and it is hardly likely to have been VT who removed it!
Who did, and why?
It is very worrying..... I thought when I went and asked them at Asda they might have thought i was casing the joint... My husband and daughter were like............. No..... your not gonna ask...lol
The Tesco video had a timestamp... I cannot imagine Asda being behind their competitors....
But there is also the timestamp from the CCTV image of when he's driving through Bristol... like I said, it has 18th Dec 2010 on it,.... Again... where is that time stamp
Time and Time lines are paramount to this case... that is where the truth lies....
-
I know alot of forum members think my style of writing, might not be to their taste..
And some may think that, I do not answer direct questions..
But all i'm trying to do, is... support any questions, I have with quotes and links.. ( i was told that how you did it on a forum)..
And I could say that sometimes when I've posted people ,don't comment on what maybe I have found that doesn't make sense..
If you take the plea away... what have you really got left??? Nothing!!
So all we are really disagreeing with is did he plead guilty because he was.... Or was he under duress to do so??
That is what I've tried to show.. it happens People plead guilty to a crime they haven't committed..
I have no connection to anyone in this case what so ever...
And I cannot help if I feel deeply concerned about this case....
I gain nothing by publically saying Dr Vincent tabak is innocent...
And have been ridiculed before, when I have said so...
And i'm certainly not here to gain attention...
We all have an interest in someones unfair treatment.....
I can only apologise for my style of writing, but I will not apologise for what I believe is wrong....
-
I'd like to add another query i have:
The dates the Police have for Joanna Yeates death was between...
16th Dec 2010 and the 26th Dec 2010....
We know she arrived home on the 17th Dec 2010..
And originally her mother thought she had been abducted...
But it keeps popping into my head....
What phone did Joanna Yeates have?
Was it a smartphone?
Did it run apps?
Did it do facebook?
Did it do Twitter?
Did she listen to music on it?
Did it get Alerts?
Did she text frequently?
Did she ring frequently?
Did she charge it regulary?
Did she play games on it?
Did people text her?
Did people ring her?
How many texts and phone calls were missed on 17th Dec 2010? (and that whole weekend)
All this usage drains battery life......
And what was the battery life like???
That's the question that is interesting, alot of smartphone then and now, battery life is shocking...
That's why it surprised me that after all weekend from possibly Friday morning, the phone hadn't been charged?
Would it still be working on the Sunday 19th Dec 2010 ? at 9.00pm when her boyfriend rang it?
Just a puzzling question, that's all... (not saying that it didn't ring then... just that it may have been charged after the friday...)
And the prosecution never asked Dr Vincent tabak if he had charged Joanna Yeates phone!
-
Another reason I do not think that the defence helped their client is Park Street:
5.3. The judge and the jury retraced the route that Joanna Yeates took that evening of 17
December 2010: up Park Street and past the Bristol Ram public house, where she had met
work colleagues and had had a few drinks with them.
The jury was more than aware that Joanna Yeates had been on Park Street.. that would stick in their minds.
So why does the defence keep referring to Park Street?
Defence Counsel: We can see the journey to collect her. We can see you turn right at
Park Street into a lane that does not lead anywhere. Two minutes later- you came out.
Why did you go there?
Tabak: I was not paying attention to where I was going- so I took a wrong turning and
then to Park Street.
Defence Counsel: We can see the video of you going out of Park Street. Then you made a
call to Tanja. That was to ask her directions as to where to collect her?
5.3. The judge and the jury retraced the route that Joanna Yeates took that evening of 17
December 2010: up Park Street and past the Bristol Ram public house, where she had met
work colleagues and had had a few drinks with them.
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Now Park Street is important to the Prosecution, I wonder why the defence keeps it in the jury's mind...
Did the prosecution bring up the possibility that Dr Vincent Tabak new she had been on Park Street??
-
Sorry to be at it again, but how can the judge include the So called images on his laptop if it was never proven that the images were there and they were not brought into evidence???
http://www.lawpages.co.uk/court-cases/vincent-tabak-7570-1.law
Following the verdict the jury heard how he had viewed violent pornography on the web.The judge agreed with the defence counsel that disclosure of his internet use following his victim's death was not proof that the crime was premeditated. Videos and pictures found on his laptop and work computer depicting a man holding a woman's neck during sex and images of woman tied up in the boot of vehicles
I thought A MURDER CHARGE was supposed to be PREMEDITATED??? ( i don't know) searches don't show intent!
( The Judge is even saying it wasn't PREMEDITATED) ??
So... Manslaughter it is then...
On my reckoning 10 years for Manslaughter, do half 5 years for good behaviour..
Dr Vincent Tabak should be out now !!
I have touched on what stills are..
Which picture were on his laptop and which pictures were on his work computer?
Who had access to Dr Vincent Tabak's work computer..
Why say Vehicles... the media only ever showed one photo, which happened to be a girl in a pink t-shirt.
(Did everyone forget.... she was inside a bicycle bag and not in the boot without... now if the image was of a girl in the boot of a car in a bicycle bag, it may have thrown up other questions...(IMO)
The image was used to imply to the public that he had an image of a girl in a pink T-shirt to get the general public's sympathy... (its her parents who need sympathy.. not manufactured evidence)
How can he tell the jury he had viewed porn?/
I could understand the judge making a comment if Dr Vincent Tabak had previously been convicted of a crime, and that was relevant to the case before him...
But how can he say something that was never proven or brought as evidence...
Now I don't know law but surely you can't say something that hasn't been substanciated.... Or brought in as evidence...
The Judge said " I think there was a sexual element to this killing......in my view you are dangerous. In my opinion you are thoroughly deceitful and dishonest and manipulative
( was this said when he directed the jury or when he was passing sentence?? Big difference..)
Wow... when was it proven that it was sexually motivated attack as Joanna yeates had not been sexually assaulted..
again, if internet searches cannot prove intent and the pornography was not introduced into evidence... Joanna Yeates was not Sexually Assaulted.....
How can it be a Sexually Motivated Attack??????
-
If as you keep saying VT had been unfairly treated and was innocent etc and I don't believe for one minute that he was. Then can you explain why his gf's father who is a lawyer, didn't notice a stitch up,help find alternative legal counsel or even start shouting from the rooftops etc? I know I would want to help my daughters partner, then again could it be that his gf's family had realised and I know you find it difficult to believe..GUILTY as hell!
-
It makes me wonder what exactly what was going through his mind at the time of the offence. The disturbance of clothing dna location etc
He chose to google the definition of sexual assault. Now why would that be? Strange considering it was ruled as a sexually motivated offence but you say it wasn't.
-
Murder isn't only murder when its premeditated. That can be a mitigating factor when it comes to sentencing.
10 years out in 5 does a life really mean so little to you?
Aggravating features to me. 2 for starters?
pointing the finger at an innocent man
dumping the body
-
It makes me wonder what exactly what was going through his mind at the time of the offence. The disturbance of clothing dna location etc
He chose to google the definition of sexual assault. Now why would that be? Strange considering it was ruled as a sexually motivated offence but you say it wasn't.
"Sexual Conduct" was what he apparently googled,..
At this point the jury on Wednesday morning 19 October 2011, were invited to write into
their copy of the prosecution chart where they see the words typed in by Tabak
‘definition’ before the words ‘sexual conduct’. The jury were invited to write the word
‘definition’, so that this entry is more accurate, the prosecution counsel Nigel Lickley said,
because these words were missed out when the prosecution constructed the chart of
evidence.
And the prosecution asked for the jury to add the word "definition"..
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Keyden i will come back to your question, on my ipad .. not as easy to use as my comp..
-
I know what he googled but once again you change it and play it down!
Vincent Tabak did online research on sexual offences after killing Joanna Yeates, Bristol crown court heard on Wednesday.
Among the phrases Tabak Googled were "sexual offence explained" and "definition of sexual assault", the jury was told.
-
And the reason he pleaded guilty, is not the reason you suggest but one of helping himself. He had time to think, knew the net was closing in and opted and hoped for a manslaughter charge. As you say get sentenced to 10 years do 5. Far better for him than life in prison!
-
I know what he googled but once again you change it and play it down!
Vincent Tabak did online research on sexual offences after killing Joanna Yeates, Bristol crown court heard on Wednesday.
Among the phrases Tabak Googled were "sexual offence explained" and "definition of sexual assault", the jury was told.
Well you appear to have more information than I have to hand Jixy... because i cannot find that on the document that I have used . Please quote it and link it... thank you
I may have more information to look at once you do...
-
it was you who posted it originally im sure or Mrswah. your posts are so similar I cant be sure
for your reference. Here is the link
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/19/vincent-tabak-joanna-yeates-death
-
Murder isn't only murder when its premeditated. That can be a mitigating factor when it comes to sentencing.
10 years out in 5 does a life really mean so little to you?
Aggravating features to me. 2 for starters?
pointing the finger at an innocent man
dumping the body
I wasn't trying to make a mockery or devalue anybody's life... Life is precious...
But the point of this thread is about what happened to Dr Vincent Tabak....
Tell what you think the aggravating feature are jixy?
And who said he pointed the finger at anyone.. where is the phone recording of Dr Vincent Tabak trying to implicate anyone else in this Crime.
-
I never mentioned a telephone call but why did he blame stress for implicating Mr Jefferies if once again he didn't do it?
No telephone call,
Questioned at Bristol Crown Court about why he made that statement to police, Tabak told jurors: “I shouldn’t have said that about Chris Jefferies.”
Asked why he implicated his and Miss Yeates’s landlord, Tabak replied: “Probably just to deflect attention away from me.”
-
Morning Alfie
According to Sally Ramage, Vincent and Tanja had been lliving in their flat for a year (i believe it was just over, actually, I read somewhere that they started living together in the summer of 2010). VT went to the States on business for 5 weeks in late 2010, returning to the UK on 14th December. While he was away, Greg and Jo moved into their flat. So, unless VT and JY had met before (and no evidence was produced in court to say they had), they would not have known each other at all, other than by sight.
The scene in "The Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies", where CJ takes Greg round to meet Vincent, is fictional, as far as I know.
"(Joanna Yeates) and Reardon moved in at the start of October 2010 and he (Tabak) left for a business trip in California on 6 November, only returning on 11 December, six days before the killing"
Ample time for their paths to cross at least once or twice and establish that they were close neighbours.
-
Jixy, Nine and I might have similar views on the possible innocence of VT, but our writing styles are not similar at all, as far as I can see!!
-
Alfie
According to the Independent and the Evening Standard, Jo and Greg moved into their flat on 25th October.
-
Oh, and I believe one can get a life sentence for manslaughter-----it might not happen very often, but according to the sentencing council, it can happen.
-
I have just read a report that agrees with what Alfie has said. They did move into the flat at the beginning of October.
Back to similar postings. You do post very similar and both ignore major points that confirm his guilt
-
We might ignore points that "point" to his guilt. That is because we are not sure he is guilty.
Others ignore points that point to his innocence (or possible innocence), because they don't believe he is innocent.
Fair enough---everyone on a discussion forum should respect each other's views.
We may have similar views, just as people who think he's guilty have similar views!
I dont think we have the same style of writing, though---and that is because we really are two different people !
Actually, the "guilty " lobby have an easier time of it: people like Nine and I are in a very definite minority, there are only about 10 of us in the country who think like us!!!!
And, no, I am not asking anybody to feel sorry for us.
-
By the way, Jixy and Alfie, where did you get the info about Jo and Greg moving in at the beginning of October? Of course, I am willing to consider it if it is true!
-
I have not read one point that says he is innocent. In fact all the stuff I have read including his own explantions not to mention his confession just prove his guilt.
So what do you make of his own words explaining why he tried to frame an innocent man?
-
I feel sorry for Joanna. another point he raised is that he waved to her and she waved back so the issue about opening the door to a complete stranger isn't valid either
-
I don't believe him, Jixy.
I certainly believe VT is guilty of one thing, and that is lying in court (which, you may argue, is a crime in itself). I don't believe he was trying to implicate CJ. I think he (and his girlfriend) were merely trying to help the police by offering extra information (which the police had invited all the neighbours to do).
Tanja was part of this too----some accounts actually say she telephoned the police, rather than VT. What do you make of that? Surely, you dont think she was guilty of anything?
CJ has never said (as far as I know) that his car wasn't moved. Even if it was, it does not implicate him. He might have turned it round to make it easier for him to drive out the next day, or perhaps somebody (innocently) borrowed his car. We don't know. He wasn't called as a witness, so we never heard.
It could be argued that CJ himself "implicated" people by saying that he thought he saw two people with someone who might have been Joanna. After all, if VT committed the crime, CJ could not have seen her with two people, could he?
There are too many "dont knows" in this case, which is why I have doubts. And, of course, you might be right, and I might be wrong.
Have a good look around all the old forums, etc. Nine and I are not the only two people in the world who have these doubts!
-
I feel sorry for Joanna too, and I don't believe she ever encountered VT that night. I think his "confession" was a lie, and he said in court what he had been told to say.
I think poor Joanna was murdered by somebody else-----and I could not name names even if I wanted to, as I haven't a clue who it might have been, when it happened, or why it happened.
-
I feel sorry for Joanna. another point he raised is that he waved to her and she waved back so the issue about opening the door to a complete stranger isn't valid either
Waved... not beckoned..... different meanings...
I wave all the time to people.... doesn't mean i want them in my house..!!!!!
If i remember correctly Mrs Yeates commented on the fact that Dr Vincent Tabak said he waved and did not show as he was demonstrating that Joanna beckoned him.... he was demonstrating a wave ...
-
I feel sorry for Joanna too, and I don't believe she ever encountered VT that night. I think his "confession" was a lie, and he said in court what he had been told to say.
I think poor Joanna was murdered by somebody else-----and I could not name names even if I wanted to, as I haven't a clue who it might have been, when it happened, or why it happened.
I completely agree mrswah....
I do not think that Dr Vincent Tabak encountered her either....
Somebody definetley did.... but who is the question...
There is no point having someone serve time in prison for a crime they didn't commit, just to satisfy the public's idea of Justice....
-
Smoke an mirror's ......
If you use enough of them to confuse people who are happy to agree with what the media say, then you have created enough doubt or proof for the public to agree it must have been him....
The funny and not in a humrous way is... when people say that Cj was vilified by the media...
Well...
Doesn't the same apply to Dr Vincent Tabak??? They just thought they could do this after they thought it was safe to do so....
After they put him in prison!
-
OMG you two really have a sick fascination with murder don't you?
Firstly smoke and mirrors? Hmmm so anyone quotes a word from the court case and its smoke and mirrors and we are believing the media yet you two can both make up quotes scenarios thoughts and feelings that don't even appear anywhere but inside your head, and that isn't smoke and mirrors? really?
Chris Jefferies was INNOCENT. Vincent Tabak is NOT! He admitted it. His DNA was on her body yet you say he never saw her that night? wow how does that happen
I say they waved to each other. You say no one beckoned. Im sorry but who and where does it imply anyone did that? smoke and mirrors to distract from your argument that she opened the door to a total stranger and wouldn't do so!
As Alfie has already pointed out, they were neighbours who at the very least were aware of each other and 'waving' proved it. But oh no he lied about that too
So lets think about it. He lied about going to the flat, waving, thinking she wanted a kiss but didn't so he panicked and strangled her then dumping her body. He lied about Chris and his activities but when he explained he was stressed and wanted the heat off of himself that too was lies. Oh and when he said sorry for putting Joanna's family through a week of hell, that too was a lie
He came up with that in the hope of being convicted of manslaughter, getting a lighter sentence. Not because he was being tortured pressured or drugged or any other mad scenario you two have dreamt up with nothing, not one thing to back it up! Its all in your head
There is no reason to do any of the above other than to save your own skin, which he tried and failed
Nothing you have posted helps prove anything but guilt. Your smoke and mirrors routine/double act is quite boring and by replying with what we know to be truth is just giving a platform to carry on the charade
His DNA on her body? now that is one thing he couldn't possible make up.
Not for one minute can you compare the treatment of Tabak to an innocent landlord dragged into it by someone with an ulterior motive!
Poor Joanna Poor Mr Jefferies.... Vincent Tabak got exactly what he deserved!
-
Absolutely spot on Jixy! 8@??)(
-
I certainly do NOT have a "sick fascination with murder", Jixy.
If you do not want to give Nine and I a "platform" as you put it, why are you still bothering to reply to us? There are lots of other threads on this site: we have even "met" on one or two of them.
I get it: you believe the official version. Fair enough. I don't. Also fair enough. I respect your views, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them.
To say that someone has a sick fascination with murder is rude.
I am not rude to you.
-
Defending his every move wanting to write to him? denying what is so obvious to everyone else including Tabak hence his confession. That's not sick and its not an obsession?
I actually value life and don't think anyone has a right to murder someone then dump their body
You obviously don't. Happy writing to a murderer. why would you want to. That IS sick!
The reason I replied to your horrendous comments is in the name of an innocent girl murdered for no real reason
You still haven't answered any questions in full but once again deflect back to posters.
Given all that has been stated why is he innocent again? come on real answers please....if you can? start with the DNA...go on lets!
-
I've replied in the fullest possible way when, when i have made comments, I have never made it personal about anyone on this forum, that is not how I behave,
I obviously disagree with your view jixy, and if you actually read what Ive written I quite often have answered your questions..
I'm not here to be abused, but that in itself won't stop how I see things..... or posting..
I am not unaware that an Innocent girl lost her life... And to suppose that is naive of you...
And I'm not here to have an online arguement....
Ive simply tried to show that Dr Vincent Tabak is innocent in my opinion... as i have said before we obviously disagree... And you are not prepared to even believe that Innocent people do and have pleaded guilty to crimes that they have not committed...
Youve suddenly started shouting jixy, you obviously feel passionate about it too....
Because most people seem to have forgotten about poor Joanna yeates, because when you mention it, there reply is virtually always....
Oh, you mean the one where the Landlord got arrested... CJ is who they remember, not an Innocent girl that was murdered....
-
Jixy
Believe it or not, I don't think anyone has a right to murder someone and dump their body either.
Many people DO write to people in prison in order to try to find out the truth----I was on a thread the other day where someone was putting questions to a prisoner. Can't remember whether or not you were also on it; perhaps not.
I object to being called "sick". Nor do I write "horrendous comments". Nor am I rude to you, but you are now being rude to me.
As to your wanting to talk about DNA," enhanced" DNA, which is what they had in the Tabak case, is not as foolproof as you might think. Go onto You Tube, and listen to Professor Dan Crane.
He knows what he is talking about , even if I dont.!!!!!!
-
My apologies: it is Dan Krane !
-
So how do you explain why VT's gf's father who is a lawyer and most probably in a better place than you and I to see any wrong doings by the authorities and yet he obviously didn't see any impropriety in how VT was dealt with? In fact at the end of the trial he was extremely grateful that his daughter hadn't become another victim .
-
We dont actually know what he thinks: we only know what was reported in the papers!
-
once again no answers that back up your view. No surprise there any more than when one of your appears the other soon follows saying exactly the same.
im not shouting, I was following your lead of using capital letters when you are getting your point acroos. Neither have I been rude. I state things as they appear, looked at both sides etc something that you seem not to do
Naïve? far from it but then I don't post with a hidden agenda or with 'wrongs' on my own mind that clearly can be an issue and cloud the views of others
Lets pretend because we seem to like doing this...
So he is mistreated by a bad man or woman who forces him to confess? so he goes into detail offering information that he didn't need to along with explanations for his actions (to save himself) even goes to the point of explaining why he did what he did to Mr Jefferies and saying sorry to the parents.
That goes way beyond what he would need to if a confession was beaten or drugged out of him. Isnt it kind of him to leave his DNA on Joanna then make himself fit the movements of the real killer without having any knowledge of Joanna or the crime.
You carrying on cancelling out all the evidence his confession his internet searches, go ahead. He is guilty and can stay in prison dealing with that fact. Thankfully justice has been done and you wont be able to change that will silly ramblings
-
Kayden, the Father was able to do that as a sensible level headed man, who looked at the case and all the facts and realised what kind of man he is
Pleased that his Daughter was safe he had no further job to do!
-
Now if you were a lawyer and could see your daughters bf being set up, as you seem to think and god knows why. You would be shouting from the highest hill, getting alternative legal counsel, in fact you would be doing just about everything possible to show this. So why don't we see any of this...easy answer, there is no miscarriage of justice. Well only in the eyes of you two. By the way, it just goes to show how you both are still just picking and choosing from the media/internet etc just so it fits into your own scenario.
-
I certainly do NOT have a "sick fascination with murder", Jixy.
If you do not want to give Nine and I a "platform" as you put it, why are you still bothering to reply to us? There are lots of other threads on this site: we have even "met" on one or two of them.
I get it: you believe the official version. Fair enough. I don't. Also fair enough. I respect your views, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with them.
To say that someone has a sick fascination with murder is rude.
I am not rude to you.
I agree with this insinuation is being rude regards Mrswah.
There are many reasons why people want to communicate with convicted murderers, one of them being a sick fascination, others reasons are: they are related to the person, and in denial,some because they believe a mis carriage of justice has taken place. On a personal level, I would not ever conduct a communication with such people.
I accept without exception that the right person for the crime of murder is in the correct place.
-
Tabak's fan club should write to him and see if he writes back protesting his innocence. I doubt he will somehow and I doubt that even if he wrote back and said "actually I did do it" that it would make any difference to these ladies ( I assume you're ladies?)
-
Thanks Alfie a voice of reason once again. My posts weren't meant to be rude but I have to say I am truly offended by the words in defence of a man clearly guilty and not just by his own admission
Maybe I have my own personal reasons too and watching them blunder on is very disrespectful for many reasons
-
Jeezuz H Christ, I really cannot cope with long posts. They do my head in, so I tend to skip them. Yer, yer, but i do remain entirely capable of spotting an insult or Libel in these diatribes. Keep it short, could you? There is always another reply to be had.
The Media coverage was utterly disgraceful. I can't think of anything better to say.
-
Thanks Alfie a voice of reason once again. My posts weren't meant to be rude but I have to say I am truly offended by the words in defence of a man clearly guilty and not just by his own admission
Maybe I have my own personal reasons too and watching them blunder on is very disrespectful for many reasons
You could place them on ignore if it is affecting you this badly.
They are entitled to their opinion, one whch I disagree with. You are taking offence which is not directed at you ie inventing it. Why not give us your many reasons they are being disrespectful to you.
-
Oh trust me I could give many reasons. I wouldn't be alone either. Some things just aren't worth the effort and the powers that be will deal with as they have previously. Thank you
-
Tabak's fan club should write to him and see if he writes back protesting his innocence. I doubt he will somehow and I doubt that even if he wrote back and said "actually I did do it" that it would make any difference to these ladies ( I assume you're ladies?)
What? Ladies? Yer, well, probably better that I don't comment any further. It's a hard old life being a Moderator. One is restricted somewhat, which might well have been the purpose. But I ever was a sucker for a complement.
There is no doubt in my mind that they eventually got the right person. I am only grossly offended by what The Media did to totally innocent people. Yet gain.
-
Oh trust me I could give many reasons. I wouldn't be alone either. Some things just aren't worth the effort and the powers that be will deal with as they have previously. Thank you
Jixy your post sounds quite threatening, is the powers that be something official?
You've already told me in a private message that people are watching what ive posted and are very interested in it..
I assumed it was because you were of a similar opinion to me but, clearly I was mistaken.....
So I am allowed to have an opinion as long as I don't express it... is that what it is... because I really dont understand...
and I will look further into what you have said trust me im on it and so are lots of other people
I asked you how i was supposed to take this... I understood it to me that you were looking at what had happened to Dr Vincent Tabak, but clearly i was mistaken....
There are many unanswered questions regarding this case, but you obviously are trying to keep me quiet.....
I wonder why that would be??
-
haha trying to keep you quiet? you second guess me and assume all that I am when you have no idea. Keeping me quiet now that is a great idea
oh PS... show and tell makes for interesting reading @)(++(*
-
Like i said i find things about this case not quite as straight forward as they first appear...
The police originally went to holland to talk to Dr Vincent Tabak as a witness..
When you put that idea together it sounds unlikely... Maybe that is what they told him, but for what ever reason they treated him as a suspect from the minute they arrived in Holland..
Why didn't they have their little chat with him at his mothers home?
That's what you would think would happen if he was a witness to an event,.. He wasn't implicating his landlord nessisarily, by saying he'sd seen the car move position.. I believe it was just an obsevation..
But I never could understand why they had him at a hotel and interviewed him for 6 hours..
Again seperated him from his family and the 6 hour coisidently is the time that police in holland question someone who isn't under arrest or being charged for something..
The hotel was nice... the couldn't very well take him to a police station (he was supposed to be a witness)and the would have to follow Dutch protocol with regards questioning a suspect..
So they obviously treated him as a susspect from the outset, the question is why??
They had no DNA at this time and no warrant to get his laptop.. so why was he suddenly a suspect in their eyes?/
Ive never known the police to knock on peoples doors looking for witness's carry a DNA kit with them ,just on the off chance.
Police may stop and question any suspect whom they believe to be involved in a violation of law. Temporary detention is limited to 6 hours before the suspect is either released or arrested.
https://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/rwinslow/europe/netherlands.html
-
Oh trust me I could give many reasons. I wouldn't be alone either. Some things just aren't worth the effort and the powers that be will deal with as they have previously. Thank you
I will treat this post with contempt. You have accused posters that they are being disrespectful to you,then refuse to explain this. Also threatening posters that people are watching them because they do not share your opinion,is rather uncouth imo.
-
Im sure further info on this wouldn't be welcome by Nine. I stand by my comments regarding this post and the guilt of Tabak. Nothing has changed
-
And I really don't know what you are talking about...jixy
I don't know who you are and you don't know me either...
I am at a loss...
-
8((()*/
-
Jixy, you have every right to believe that VT is guilty, and I have never condemned you for that.
If I have offended you, as a result of things that have happened to you, then I am really, really sorry. You obviously have reasons for your attacks on people who believe VT to be innocent, I only wish we could know what they were, so that we could all have respect for each other.
I bear you no personal malice, whatsoever. On the contrary, I wish we could all have a civilised debate, even if we have different views.
I will repeat again, Nine and I have no connection with each other, and we do not know each other at all.
-
He is guilty and my reasons have been made very clear on that. We have had a debate. Point have been put to you and you don't accept them even when they are directly from Tabak and confirm his guilt
There really isn't any more to discuss on this. Im sure there is no need to carry on stating points for his innocence that contradict all we know and all he says himself
Defending a guilty murderer will never sit comfortable with me and for that I make no apology whatsoever
-
In that case, i assume you will no longer be contributing to this thread.
I have done all I possibly can to have an amicable relationship with you.
-
Please dont assume anything. If a new point is put forward I may just reply but i doubt that will be the case as getting a straight direct answer always seems to be such a struggle
-
Right , Okay. Is anyone saying that this man is innocent?
-
I think he possibly is----but I have always said that I could be wrong.
-
I think he possibly is----but I have always said that I could be wrong.
Really? Bloomin hell. Right. Who else could it be?
Oh, and just by the by, what was he doing driving across that bridge at precisely the right time.
I will always fight for anyone if I think there is half a chance, but you are going to have to go some on this occasion.
-
hi Eleanor..
I don't believe there is any footage of him going across the bridge..
I think who ever went across the bridge did so on the Saturday..
-
The reports I have read talk about two men in a car going over the Clifton suspension bridge-----on the Saturday.
I also read that they could not make a positive identification of the car's occupants or the registration number, as the footage was "too grainy"
VT picked up his girlfriend from the coach at about 1.30 on the Saturday morning, as she had been to a party. Assuming she knew nothing about the murder, he must have driven across the bridge between midnight and 1.30.
Don't think anything was mentioned at the trial about the car on the bridge: it was assumed that VT (alone) went to ASDA with Jo's body in the boot of his car, then disposed of the body before collecting Tanja.
I would like to know what made the police think they had seen the right car on the CCTV, AND the right occupants, if the footage was too grainy to have been of any use. And, who was the other man? It was assumed at the trial that VT had committed the crime alone.
No comments, Eleanor, about who else could have done it. Don't do libel, and anyway, I have no idea.
-
Ms Reddrop said Tabak had also used the internet to conduct "in-depth research" on the case in a bid to "keep one step ahead of the investigation".
In the days following the murder Tabak read news articles on her disappearance and searched Google Maps for information on Longwood Lane, where he had left her body.
Why did he do this? how did he know what street to search?
-
Right , Okay. Is anyone saying that this man is innocent?
I believe he's innocent Eleanor....
-
I also am not prepared to get into debates with people who are abusive...
I think once you start being abusive to someone because you may not agree with what they say, you have lost your arguement.
-
There were suggestions made (don't remember by whom) that VT and Tanja were due to go to a party in the Longwood Lane area in the week following the murder, and that is why he used Google maps for that area, as it was not an area he knew.
Why would he google Longwood Lane after the murder if he had already dumped the body there?
-
There were suggestions made (don't remember by whom) that VT and Tanja were due to go to a party in the Longwood Lane area in the week following the murder, and that is why he used Google maps for that area, as it was not an area he knew.
Why would he google Longwood Lane after the murder if he had already dumped the body there?
Tabak just happened to be invited to a party in the very same road that his next door neighbour's body would be discovered? What are the chances of that happening, eh?
-
Taken from another site, here are a list of searched Tabak made on his computer before anyone even knew that Joanna was missing:
(1)Definition of Sexual assault
(2)How many silver Renault meganes in UK
(3)he looked up details of household waste collection in Bristol.
(4)What are the differences between Manslaughter and Murder in the UK
(5)"How does forensic identification work?"
(6)"body decomposition time"
(7) an article about a man who strangled his wife and pleaded diminished responsibility.
(8) the location of CCTV cameras in Canynge Road,
-
very good points Alfie and Nine you don't get into a debate with clear answers with anyone who disagrees with you whatsoever so that is fine.
You take my comments and say they are abusive but then you would whatever I write
Alfie isn't abusive and made further comments. I await the discussion
-
Maybe he was checking out the possibility of the body being found. AS we know there was an attempt to lift the body over the wall, where most likely it may have never been found
8 points of searching all connected to the murder dna and a confession. wow
-
Taken from another site, here are a list of searched Tabak made on his computer before anyone even knew that Joanna was missing:
(1)Definition of Sexual assault
(2)How many silver Renault meganes in UK
(3)he looked up details of household waste collection in Bristol.
(4)What are the differences between Manslaughter and Murder in the UK
(5)"How does forensic identification work?"
(6)"body decomposition time"
(7) an article about a man who strangled his wife and pleaded diminished responsibility.
(8) the location of CCTV cameras in Canynge Road,
Hi Alfie i have touched upon these topics
(1) The word "Definition" was actually added by the prosecution whilst in the court room.. he asked the jury to add the word because it was missing.... I cannot see how you can add a word which changes the context of a possible sentence.
(2) That was apparently done on the dutch wiki.. and when you search % of meganes in Uk it doesn't have an answer .. .. I believe that would be a pointless exersise.
(3) He looked in january for what reason I do not know.. but I believe they had already stopped collect of household waste by 23rd Dec..... he could have been follow the case just like I did at the time.
(4) Again I cannot answer that.... the search could be in relation to anything he was viewing.. he hadn't admitted to anything at this point... I wish his lawyer had counter acted alot of these searches but he didn't..
(5) Could be looking at that for a varying reason, not related to his neighbour.
(6) I might have been interested in that if it had included thawing... when anything is frozen, decomposition time is irrelevent.
(7) People click on articles on the web when looking at news.. I do it all the time.
(8) That would be handy to know... but all he really needed to do was take a walk outside of his own neighbourhood to locate them if need be,..
Alfie can I ask you something...?
When the police went to Holland to talk to Dr Vincent Tabak... Did they go to speak to him as a witness or a suspect??
May i also add.. That Joanna Yeates was not sexually assaulted, so why would he need to check the definition?
-
Joanna Yeates's killer tearfully apologised today for putting her family through hell.
Vincent Tabak said his actions were "horrendous" as he showed jurors with his own hand how he strangled his next-door neighbour
Tabak, who was shown pictures of Miss Yeates's injuries, wept as he said he would be haunted for the rest of his life
He denied touching her and the DNA was a result of moving her body but who knows what he actually did or what was going through he mind especially as he had googled the difference between murder and manslaughter (with the sentence in mind) and also the definition of sexual assault. Makes sense to say he didn't rather than turn the crime into a sexual one by his own admission
-
Alfie
I would have expected that the police checked out whether or not VT and TM did go to a party in the Longwood Lane area.
What the answer is, I dont know.
-
Hi Alfie i have touched upon these topics
(1) The word "Definition" was actually added by the prosecution whilst in the court room.. he asked the jury to add the word because it was missing.... I cannot see how you can add a word which changes the context of a possible sentence.
(2) That was apparently done on the dutch wiki.. and when you search % of meganes in Uk it doesn't have an answer .. .. I believe that would be a pointless exersise.
(3) He looked in january for what reason I do not know.. but I believe they had already stopped collect of household waste by 23rd Dec..... he could have been follow the case just like I did at the time.
(4) Again I cannot answer that.... the search could be in relation to anything he was viewing.. he hadn't admitted to anything at this point... I wish his lawyer had counter acted alot of these searches but he didn't..
(5) Could be looking at that for a varying reason, not related to his neighbour.
(6) I might have been interested in that if it had included thawing... when anything is frozen, decomposition time is irrelevent.
(7) People click on articles on the web when looking at news.. I do it all the time.
(8) That would be handy to know... but all he really needed to do was take a walk outside of his own neighbourhood to locate them if need be,..
Alfie can I ask you something...?
When the police went to Holland to talk to Dr Vincent Tabak... Did they go to speak to him as a witness or a suspect??
May i also add.. That Joanna Yeates was not sexually assaulted, so why would he need to check the definition?
You seem to be making excuses for each of his internet searches but not looking at the picture they cumulatively paint, searches done by a man sat at his computer in the time between Joanna's death and her body being found. I don't know the answer to your question but I don't see the relevance to the internet searches. There may have been no signs of sexual assault on Joanna's body but that does not rule out the reason for her murder being sexually motivated, eg: rebuffed advances leading to rage and violence, then murder.
-
Alfie
I would have expected that the police checked out whether or not VT and TM did go to a party in the Longwood Lane area.
What the answer is, I dont know.
Then it's just speculation and if there was no party then what other reason could he have had for googling Longwood Lane? There is a wealth of evidence against this man, and zero evidence that anyone else was involved, so why you are so keen to defend a convicted murderer is quite baffling to me.
-
and baffling to me too hence the frustration in my posts
-
Why when points of interest are raised that challenges your opinions that you never answer them clearly or openly Nine & Mrswah is it that you don't know but just like to cause discussions or spout your beliefs and that you are always right & everyone else is wrong ?
-
Paul
I simply said that I would assume that the police would have checked whether or not VT and TM did go to a party in the Longwood Lane area, and that I didn't know what was the result of this check.
I said I didn't know.
I have never said I am always right.
In fact, I have said, on several occasions that I might be wrong.
Nine and I both have doubts about VT's guilt, but we are two different people and we write different posts.
-
not forgetting supporting real miscarriage of justice cases and seeing how they along with their families struggle to try and clear their name, the length of time it takes and the pure battle to find new evidence or a new argument to progress. Often followed by set back after set back...
Tabak isn't claiming to be innocent and its obvious he isn't, it just makes for painful reading
-
Paul
I simply said that I would assume that the police would have checked whether or not VT and TM did go to a party in the Longwood Lane area, and that I didn't know what was the result of this check.
I said I didn't know.
I have never said I am always right.
In fact, I have said, on several occasions that I might be wrong.
Nine and I both have doubts about VT's guilt, but we are two different people and we write different posts.
Where did I say you & Nine are the same person I don't think I did & who is to say that they never checked if they were both at the party or were they in that area for some other reason ?
Why is it only you 2 on the who forum who are trying to say he is innocent when all the points raised point to him being guilty that is all , i'm not having a go , being rude or aggressive i'm just curious why you want to defend a murder ?
-
Paul
Yes, Nine and I are in a minority: and a very small one . I only know of around 10 people in the country who have doubts about VT's guilt. I am neither proud nor ashamed of being part of this minority: it is just the way it is.
Also, this thread is hardly likely to have been started by someone who believes VT is guilty, is it?
If you read the very first post on this thread, you will find out why I have doubts about VT's guilt, and if you can answer any of my questions, I would be very happy to hear from you. Nobody yet has been able to explain why fire engines and a crane were needed to retrieve Joanna's body, for example, and only one or two people have attempted to explain why none of VT's DNA or fingerprints were found in Joanna's flat (after all, he said this is where he killed her), or why none of Joanna's DNA was found in VT's flat (he said he took the body there).
I am also suspicious that VT was arrested just before a review of the case was due, and police from another force would have been drafted in to help. (reported in the Daily Mail, 13th January 2011).
-
Jixy, if it makes for painful reading, then why are you bothering to read it?
There are dozens of threads on this site, after all.
-
I am free to do what I want. I didn't ask you to comment on how painful it is for me. I see the pain of families day in day out and hope one day you will see sense. Don't you worry about me, maybe think about the victim and the family who have lost a loved one. Im doing just fine thank you and my thoughts and prayers will stay with them, the people who need and deserve them
-
Paul
Yes, Nine and I are in a minority: and a very small one . I only know of around 10 people in the country who have doubts about VT's guilt. I am neither proud nor ashamed of being part of this minority: it is just the way it is.
Also, this thread is hardly likely to have been started by someone who believes VT is guilty, is it?
If you read the very first post on this thread, you will find out why I have doubts about VT's guilt, and if you can answer any of my questions, I would be very happy to hear from you. Nobody yet has been able to explain why fire engines and a crane were needed to retrieve Joanna's body, for example, and only one or two people have attempted to explain why none of VT's DNA or fingerprints were found in Joanna's flat (after all, he said this is where he killed her), or why none of Joanna's DNA was found in VT's flat (he said he took the body there).
I am also suspicious that VT was arrested just before a review of the case was due, and police from another force would have been drafted in to help. (reported in the Daily Mail, 13th January 2011).
How did her dna ended up on his trousers and her chest , everything points to him and is backed up with dna and a confession what more proof is need ?
-
Paul
Yes, Nine and I are in a minority: and a very small one . I only know of around 10 people in the country who have doubts about VT's guilt. I am neither proud nor ashamed of being part of this minority: it is just the way it is.
Also, this thread is hardly likely to have been started by someone who believes VT is guilty, is it?
If you read the very first post on this thread, you will find out why I have doubts about VT's guilt, and if you can answer any of my questions, I would be very happy to hear from you. Nobody yet has been able to explain why fire engines and a crane were needed to retrieve Joanna's body, for example, and only one or two people have attempted to explain why none of VT's DNA or fingerprints were found in Joanna's flat (after all, he said this is where he killed her), or why none of Joanna's DNA was found in VT's flat (he said he took the body there).
I am also suspicious that VT was arrested just before a review of the case was due, and police from another force would have been drafted in to help. (reported in the Daily Mail, 13th January 2011).
Why would "fire engines and a crane" make it less likely that Tabak did it? Totally irrelevant to your arguement IMO. As for the DNA or lack of it, one could speculate that it's because he cleaned up, wiped surfaces down etc. I don't know. But conversely how, if they had never met do you explain his DNA on her body?
-
As it was a December night could it be he wore gloves hence why no finger prints ?
-
This forum is called miscarriages of Justice..
I was just saying that I believe that they arrested and convicted the wrong man (IMO)..
There are many strange things about the case..
And the reason i'm on this forum is to see, whether anyone else has questioned the way it unfolded..
-
I would have thought that finding his DNA/fingerprints in her flat would be very important evidence.
Enhanced (or low copy) DNA can be unreliable. I am not a scientist, and do not understand these things . However, Professor Dan Krane talks about it on You Tube, and there are several newspaper articles about it.
Lots of people have confessed to crimes falsely. I would have had more faith in VT's confession had he made it at the police station, when he was first arrested, rather than after having been on remand for several months. We don't know how he was treated in Long Lartin, after all.
-
Why would "fire engines and a crane" make it less likely that Tabak did it? Totally irrelevant to your arguement IMO. As for the DNA or lack of it, one could speculate that it's because he cleaned up, wiped surfaces down etc. I don't know. But conversely how, if they had never met do you explain his DNA on her body?
I believe that it was a partial DNA... it wasn't definatley Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA..
When did he have the time to clean all the surfaces down?
Why wasn't any evidence of him found on the ear-rings that one was found in the bed and one on the floor?
The strangulation marks did not show signs of gloves as far as I am aware..
-
Paul
I thought about gloves too, but they said they found finger marks on Joanna's neck.
Alfie
Of course the presence of fire engines and a crane make no difference to who committed the murder, but my point is that they would not have been needed if the body was left where the police said it was left. It leaves me wondering whether we have been told the truth about where the body was actually found, that was my point.
-
AS Alfie previously posted, 8 points searched on the internet LINKED to the death of Joanna along with DNA a confession, a statement saying how he will be haunted for life due to his own actions that night but the most telling part about it.... in all the years that have passed, where is his appeal? his claim he has been wronged in anyway not to mention forced into a confession, to explain the night and associated feelings that went along with it
I know more than one case where a prisoners was seriously abused far beyond anything you can dream up happened to Tabak yet they never once gave up maintaining their innocent. He hasn't even started
-
So how did Joanna's blood get on the top of the wall? he said he tried and failed to lift it up so surely you aren't saying that is another lie?
-
Alfie, can I ask what you think to the document, that wasn't presented to the defense counsel, until the day of , Trail..
A document that was some 1300 pages long, and containing some 556 events, these pertained to all movements, texts, phone calls, searches ... etc..
The defence did not have the available time to cross reference what was contained in the folder, so could not counter what the prosecution were claiming..
Why did the prosecution not furnish the defence in ample time so that they could properly look at this evidence..
Maybe more acurate answers would have been given to these questions put before his clinent..
Also I believe, it would clearly show how much time Dr Vincent Tabak had to do anything that evening and what he was precicely doing at specific times..
I believe if the defence had the time to study the documents, then I'm sure he would of advised his client to change his plea..
I think alot of the disagreements would change , if people were aware of this..
This Document contained what...
Joanna Yeates did
Dr Vincent Tabak did
Greg Reardon did
Tanja morson did
Anyone else who text /rang
-
She then texted Peter: “Where are you?”
Peter replied “On my way to a wedding. Where are you?”
She replied: “At home- on my todd”.
She texted a third male friend.
I believe if the prosecution said what time she replied to Peter's text.. we would have a more accurate picture of what time she was at home.
She had left Tesco's at 8.40pm and have a 5 minute walk home.. meet the priest.
I believe the time the text was sent from home is vital..
-
Paul
I thought about gloves too, but they said they found finger marks on Joanna's neck.
Alfie
Of course the presence of fire engines and a crane make no difference to who committed the murder, but my point is that they would not have been needed if the body was left where the police said it was left. It leaves me wondering whether we have been told the truth about where the body was actually found, that was my point.
A cover up and conspiracy by the police you mean? To what end?
-
Alfie, can I ask what you think to the document, that wasn't presented to the defense counsel, until the day of , Trail..
A document that was some 1300 pages long, and containing some 556 events, these pertained to all movements, texts, phone calls, searches ... etc..
The defence did not have the available time to cross reference what was contained in the folder, so could not counter what the prosecution were claiming..
Why did the prosecution not furnish the defence in ample time so that they could properly look at this evidence..
Maybe more acurate answers would have been given to these questions put before his clinent..
Also I believe, it would clearly show how much time Dr Vincent Tabak had to do anything that evening and what he was precicely doing at specific times..
I believe if the defence had the time to study the documents, then I'm sure he would of advised his client to change his plea..
I think alot of the disagreements would change , if people were aware of this..
This Document contained what...
Joanna Yeates did
Dr Vincent Tabak did
Greg Reardon did
Tanja morson did
Anyone else who text /rang
What document are you referring to? Do you have a link?
-
What document are you referring to? Do you have a link?
Here's the link and a couple of quotes referring to the Document and what happened or didn't... Alfie especially read 3.5 and 3.2
3.2. The jury was sworn on 7 October, 2011. The trial was postponed for a day because
Vincent Tabak's defence team, led by William Clegg, QC, pleaded o he judge for extra
time to read an additional 1,300 pages of documentary evidence which the prosecution had
disclosed to them at the last minute.
The quotes are on page 10
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
3.5. When prosecution counsel Nigel Lickley opened the case, he produced copies of an
A3- bound document which consisted of colour-coded pages of the timeline of the alleged
murder: every incident from emails, mobile texts, landline telephone calls, travel,
shopping, etc of the parties involved, ieJoanna Yeates and her cohabitee; and Vincent
Tabak and his cohabitee. Importantly, these schedules also include alleged internet
searches by Dr Tabak. This A3 document looked dauntingly complex and one wonders if
all members of the jury followed this document; were on the right page at the right time as
narrated by prosecuting counsel Mr Lickley.
I would love to see the document... but its only referenced here by Sally Ramage Lawyer
-
How difficult is it to move a dead weight?
-
in evidence.... The court was happy to accept that Dr Vincent Tabak had strangled Joanna Yeates with one hand and that this took 20 seconds..
20 seconds seems awful short, but...Marks on the 25-year-old’s body were said to be consistent with her being pinned down and strangled with both hands by her 6ft 4in neighbour Vincent Tabak. Tabak admits the manslaughter of Miss Yeates but denies her murder.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2047800/Vincent-Tabak-trial-Joanna-Yeates-suffered-43-injuries-slow-painful-death.html#ixzz4RJShOPUV
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
and here it says: The pathologist added there were ‘injuries to all four quadrants of the neck, front and back, left and right’, which he said indicated the position of the killer’s hands changed during the ‘dynamic’ attack.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049094/Vincent-Tabak-trial-Joanna-Yeates-blood-stained-body-photos-shown-court.html#ixzz4RJS25acq
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Changed how???
Four quadrants of her neck suggest two hands were used to strangle Joanna Yeates... Not one..
Either it was two hands and she tried to defend herself,(or one defending herself) hopefully inflicting some damage on the suspect...
Or we are expected to believe that one hand was used that change position..
Dr Vincent Tabak says he used his other hand to keep her quiet, so how were all four quadrants of her neck injured??
If all 4 quadrants were affected how would you explain that .. sounds like 2 hands not one..
If one hand wasn't kept in one postion, were there finger marks front and back from the killer?
To move one hand , you would go round the neck, switching hands, doesn't seem likely.
I'm sure Joanna Yeates have fought back somehow? maybe kicking scratching , grabbing assailants hair.. Does she not grab hold ,pulling the assailants hand/hands from around her neck?
The position of hands changed... thats plural..
And to keep changing position suggests longer than 20 seconds.... or grabbing her more than once
The time of the attack seems alot longer than has been suggested ......
-
This document is about all the fire engines, etc sent out to recover Joanna's body.
The document is the result of a Freedom of Information request (not asked for by myself, but by a friend, who does not post on this site).
It tells us nothing about who may or may not have committed the murder, but I think it tells us a lot about where Joanna's body may or may not have been found.
If any poster has a good explanation as to why all these fire engines and pumping tenders might have been needed, please let us know!!
-
If the attachment doesn't work, please say so---I have never claimed to be any good at IT!
-
This document is about all the fire engines, etc sent out to recover Joanna's body.
The document is the result of a Freedom of Information request (not asked for by myself, but by a friend, who does not post on this site).
It tells us nothing about who may or may not have committed the murder, but I think it tells us a lot about where Joanna's body may or may not have been found.
If any poster has a good explanation as to why all these fire engines and pumping tenders might have been needed, please let us know!!
thanks for the pdf mrswah, I'll do one question at a time, so my posts not too long...
At the bottom of the pdf I think it's page 5
How did they know that the person was strangled, when a post mortem had not taken place?
-
hi mrswah...
Why did it take so long for them to deploy the fire services?
Incident category: Special Service
Number of appliances deployed:
Attendance
8
Victims involved: Yes
Type of property: Outdoor > Grassland, woodland and crops > Roadside
vegetation
Attack on firefighters: No
Special Service Incident Type: Recovery of body
Evacuation involved: Yes
Late call: No
Date/time closed: 29 December 2010 13:55:15
Date/time of stopped message: 25 December 2010 16:23:22
25 December 2010 13:01:46
Timings
Time of call:
Incident type at call: Assist other agency
Origin of call: Other
Call
'Over the border' incident: No
Incident status: Published
FRS Incident Number: 019064-25122010
Recording station: Bedminster Fire Station
I
That's 4 hours after she was discovered??
-
As to how they knew she was strangled, I think the incident report must have been written up later, as it mentions 29th December.
Why they were not called until 4 hours after the body was found, I have not a clue----------.
-
Really odd, they say verge and then ditch??
A white tent was erected over the ditch where the discovery was made earlier today.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1341520/Missing-architect-Jo-Yeates-Police-womans-body.html#ixzz4RO6mXMKH
| DailyMail on Facebook
Thats closer to the entrance of the quarry....
Police have also brought in assistance from the fire brigade, believed to be helping aid the recovery of the body.
Where the tents erected, there isn't a wall???
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
As to how they knew she was strangled, I think the incident report must have been written up later, as it mentions 29th December.
Why they were not called until 4 hours after the body was found, I have not a clue----------.
Some were there till 9.44pm? Deployed from Home Station: Avon > Avonmouth Fire Station
Pumping - Water tender
Time mobile: 25 December 2010 21:17:57
Time at scene: 25 December 2010 21:31:14
Time available: 25 December 2010 21:44:03
Demounted resource:No
Number of crew:4
Why would they need to be that late mrswah?
Thats page 2
-
Don't know!!
I assume they were looking for evidence.
I am confused by the boat-----they must have been dealing with a pond/water. However, this was never reported, as far as I know. Why not, I wonder--------.
-
Don't know!!
I assume they were looking for evidence.
I am confused by the boat-----they must have been dealing with a pond/water. However, this was never reported, as far as I know. Why not, I wonder--------.
It's very weird.....
Lifting & Hydraulic - Lifting & animal harnesses, straps 2
stretcher 1
Equipment
When I first looked at this I thought they might have used animal harnesses, but i think they must mean straps...
But every time I look i'm not sure....
I suppose it depends how you read it....
-
http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article85122.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/jo-yeates-image-3-423243833.jpg
Quote below is from Greg:
She was really looking forward to Christmas. We had put up a tree and she was due to bake some mince pies.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340586/Boyfriend-missing-architect-Jo-Yeates-sobs-I-want-Christmas.html#ixzz4RQoFvYn7
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
So were is the christmas tree in the photos, when the jury visited the flat????
I was under the impression the flat looked like it did when Jo disappeared... but it looks incredibly tidy, and the tree is missing...
What else should be there???
Infact I don't remember the christmas tree being mentioned in court.......
Did Dr Vincent Tabak mention the tree???
-
when the jury visited the flat, I heard that it was as it had been, except that Greg had moved his things out.
Dont know whether or not they had a tree.
-
when the jury visited the flat, I heard that it was as it had been, except that Greg had moved his things out.
Dont know whether or not they had a tree.
Well he said in that interview they had a christmas tree.... on the link i had with the quote above your post....
I also thought that and greg had bicycles and a Sking equipment,...
If she was keen on motorbikes did she have one in bristol or was that just at her parents home???
They were both really sporty...
But the flat is lacking sports equipment.....
-
The bicycle bag that Joanna Yeates was supposed to have been transported in, is something of an enigma..
What type of bag was it??
Because Tanja Morson was never called to trail we do not really know whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak even owned a bicycle bag...
A few questions here about it.....
(1) Wouldn't have there been transfer from the bicycle bag to joanna Yeates?? (fibres etc)
(2) What type was it? Did it have handles and how strong would they be... bicycle bags tend to carry lightweight aluminum frames? making lifting it with someone inside really problamatic..
(3) what type of Bicycle did dr Vincent Tabak ride?
(4) Would he actually own a bicycle bag?? I say this because unless he took it with him flying and travelling all the time , there's no point owning one.. Flying you have extra weight control and charges??
(5) Was it waterproof??
I say about it being waterproof because I can't see how joanna yeates blood ended up in the boot of the car....
she had a bleed from the nose, but... he apparently had her in his house for 1 hour, so how could any blood get into his car, I would have thought the nose bleed would have stopped by then????
Even if it wasn't waterproof , you would need to loose alot of blood in an hour after the event for it to stain the boot of the car....(or leave anything, no matter how small)?? Blood hadn't been left in Dr Vincent flat..
So how did it get into the car??
If the bicycle bag had blood seeping, with him being so devious as he has been called , you would have thought he'd have put plastic down to stop transfer.
Just a thought
-
Yep. I have made this point on several occasions: we needed to know from Tanja whether or not she or Vincent owned a bicycle bag, and whether one was missing after the weekend of 17th-19th December.
I believe Vincent owned a mountain bike. One was removed for analysis when he was arrested, but we were not told whether or not anything significant was found on it.
The idea that Joanna was transported in either a suitcase or a bicycle bag is supposed to account for the fact that there was very little forensic evidence in the car: just that tiny blood spot. I assume Vincent must have volunteered this as part of his story, or else it was suggested to him: will have to look up what he said at the trial.
-
I'm not sure you get bicycle bag's for mountain bikes...
The frame would be too cumbersome and the wheels are quite heavy...
The only ones i've seen are for mountain bikes that fold..
Did Dr Vincent Tabak's mountain bike fold?????
-
One further post from me, outlining some comments made by Sally Ramage, a lawyer, and editor of a legal journal, who was present at the trial.
www.philpapers.org/archive/RAMTMT-4.pdf
This is the long version, and a lot of it repeats itself: I guess that Ms Ramage wrote several articles after the trial to be published in various journals, and they have all got lumped together. Don't actually know, however, as I do not know her.
However, being a lawyer, and having been at the trial, (as an observer) I would guess she knows far more about the case than I do. Incidentally, she does not say that VT is innocent.
Here are some quotes taken from her account. They have influenced me in my opinions about the case.
"The majority of the prosecution evidence, apart from the post-mortem, was circumstantial, and the only real evidence was the post mortem result and the oral evidence out of the mouth of the defendant hiself, who seemed in an automated state and psychiatrically distressed state, in the author's opinion, totally ignored by his defence barrister, William Clegg, QC, by the judge, Justice Field, while the prosecuting counsel, Nigel Lickley, QC rudely and crudely, verbally and psychologically badgered the defendant for hours and hours in the witness box."
""Ensuring Dr Tabak on a Sex Offender's Register after the murder trial was a way of stopping any appeal or retrial of his case."
"Perhaps Vincent did use the terms "fraud" and "forgery" very coherently if he felt that the police had taken his innocent hard drives, which he evidently did not seek to hide (which is very significant, surely), found some data relating to innocent searches he had made and then added fabricated evidence on to it (pertaining to the weekend of Jo's murder) to make it look as if all his searches on the computer were suspicious."
Wont quote any more, as I know people don't like long posts. Anyone interested can read the account for themselves, should they wish to.
I find it interesting that a lawyer can consider the possibility of police falsifying computer evidence.
-
I've been looking at that paper mrswah....
I find the searches most revealing.....
At Line 267 of the prosecution chart
at 15.00 pm on 21 December 2010, Tabak searched the words
‘Extradition of Dutchman’
‘Jo Yeates’
I wonder if that was all he searched , it implys that by just having those two searches, I cant see him just doing two searches...
If he was so worried about being caught, you think he'd have spent alot more time doing these searches, It doesn't say whether the searches yielded results???
I've just done a search for "Extradition Dutchman" for the relevant time and the results were: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=extradition+dutchman&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=1006&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A20%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A22%2F12%2F2010&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:20%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max:22%2F12%2F2010&q=extradition+dutchman+
The only dutchman I could find at the time, going around the houses was........
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=extradition+dutchman&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=1006&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A20%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A22%2F12%2F2010&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:20%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max:22%2F12%2F2010&q=Joran+van+der+Sloot
The Process To Extradite Joran Van Der Sloot From Peru Has Begun!
http://perezhilton.com/tag/joran_van_der_sloot/#.WD6sd6KLRQN
Was this whom Dr Vincent Tabak was looking for??
So did he go around the houses to find out about this Dutchman, or did he just do 2 searches, they obviously didn't have everything that Dr Vincent Tabak searched for or accessed on that day...
He was an avid weather watcher, it was something he looked at everyday:
Tabak: I always access the Internet for weather reports even whilst in Los Angeles. I had
my computers set up for that.
That is not there, on that day his weather search.... But it is the day after..
Plenty of people in the country were searching about Joanna Yeates, and as she was his next door neighbour I imagine he was doing the same..
Again if the defence had been furnished with the 1300 page document in ample time, they too would have found these searches not applicable..
All the prosecution needed to do was "Imply" that Dr Vincent Tabak was looking at extradition of a Dutchman, which I have said before, he could have easily stayed in Holland when he went to visit his family, if he had committed this crime..
Why search 2 days after she was missing, the relivance of the "extradition of Dutchman "... doesn't make sense..
If he had stayed in Holland when he was there in late December they would either have had the trial there, or insisted that he was returned after trial , to serve his sentence back in Holland...
The prosecution, allowed people to make a descision, based on cherry picking searches, which we have touched upon before, they do not prove intent....
Maybe he had been searching or reading about this dutchman whilst he was in America?
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/18/natalees-mom-to-van-der-sloot-i-cant-close-the-book/
This had been an ongoing case.....
But.. the prosecution didn't show all of his searches....!!!
The Defence should have looked into this..??
-
The Car........ I was looking for the bike bag and found this site where they talk about the case:
http://palinstravels.co.uk/static-51-6?topic=14056&forum=9
And I hadn't really thought of it before, but now it springs to mind....
He then went to get his car, placed the body in the boot of his car, went to Asda, a trip he
formerly planned, and drove aimlessly around whilst deciding what to do.
From the Sally Ramage pages:
Now the prosecution made much of Dr Vincent Tabak taking his time driving around Bristol looking for somewhere to dump Jo...
The car that Dr Vincent Tabak drove that evening, actually belonged to his girlfriend,I don't know how much he drove it...
I say this because I do not think Dr Vincent Tabak drove a great deal, i believe he rode his bike because it was easier for him, and he could nip across roads to get to the station for work...
His defence was lack luster at best....
Why didn't he draw the Jurys attention that Dr Vincent Tabak was Dutch and as a Dutch man he was used to driving on the opposite side of the rode to what we do in England....
This would explain why he got lost on PARK STREET!
Not that he was going down there for a purpose.,, he probably drove without being totally aware of where he was going..
Bristol's part one way system would make this even more difficult for someone who naturally drove on the opposite side of the road...
I think that he would have struggled to negotiate the roads with a car opposed to a bicycle where he could have just crossed at any point...
Again... how would he be able to find Longwood Road if his command of driving in the UK might have been poor at best...
He did ring Tanja for instructions of where to pick her up..(how long was this call... did he ring more than once?)
Defence Counsel: We can see the journey to collect her. We can see you turn right at
Park Street into a lane that does not lead anywhere. Two minutes later- you came out.
Why did you go there?
Tabak: I was not paying attention to where I was going- so I took a wrong turning and
then to Park Street.
Defence Counsel: We can see the video of you going out of Park Street. Then you made a
call to Tanja. That was to ask her directions as to where to collect her?
Maybe he just wasn't able to follow the road system.... And not that he was looking for somewhere to dump a body!!
Maybe if Tanja had appeared as a witness, all these questions would have been cleared up(IMO)
-
The Trip from Adsa:
Dr Vincent Tabak, was at Asda ,and the prosecution have us believe, he did it for an alibi...
I was looking to see how he could manage this trip to Longwood Lane, for a man who not only possibly find driving on the wrong side of the road difficult,.But was supposed to be in a mind set as to determine how to get rid of a body...
The roads are bad with the snow and there must be plenty of traffic around as its the party season...
I used google maps to assertain time of travel:
His Drive from his home to Asda in Bedminster, a journey that would take some = 14 minutes:
He's seen at Asda around 10.30.. we know this from the texts he sent, but we don't know how long he was there for, he went into Asda twice, So roughly = 10 minutes
For his Asda trip: ( no time stamp)
Defense time line 111: a journey that would take you home: Another 14 minutes:
Defence Counsel: In our Timeline 108 to 111- a journey that would take you home. Is that
where you went? As the timeline suggests?
Tabak: Yes.
Defence Counsel: In our Timeline 113, when your car is seen at Clifton Down- after a
period of 20 minutes or so. How did you feel?
Tabak: In a state of despair; panic; unbelief at what had happened.
Defence Counsel: When you left where did you drive then?
Tabak: I drove away from home; I drove in the direction of the airport; and ended up in
Longwood lane.
=20 minutes:
Clifton Downs to Long Ashton = 17 minutes
Long Ashton to Failand is around =7minutes
When he arrives in Longwood lane how long does he spend, trying to manover a bicycle bag out of his car with a body inside? = 5 minutes to get the bag from the boot?
Takes body out of bag= 5 minutes: can't be easy
Then he has to try lift the body up over the wall, which is another 5 or maybe 10 minutes, i'd say...
This is where I get confused.... If the body is in the foetal position when he tries to lift her over the wall, then how could he have pushed up her pink top.. wouldn't her arms have been in the way,how would he lift her?? (foetal position, indicates curled up).. And wouldn't that in itself, made the task extremely difficult??
She would need to be in a tight foetal position, to fit inside a Bicycle Bag..( knees near chin?)
It would suggest rigor mortis ..if not then it would suggest that Dr Vincent Tabak put her in the foetal position and this was not established in court!!
He finds it too heavy to lift, so he sets about covering up the body with leaves= 5 minutes
He also says he saw 2 or 3 cars pass.. he'd of had to stop what he was doing, =2minutes
He has to put the bag in the car, and the Bicycle bag in the boot, get in car and probaly take a deep breath =3 mins..
Before setting off back home... he arrived at home at about 12.10am
He has the journey time back from Longwood lane to Canygne Road... which direction did he drive back? The same way??
That comes to about 1hour and 51 minutes.. Brings us too 12:21am (not including journey time home)
This is not including his journey home or difficulties driving in bad weather and not knowing where he was going, He's already used up all the time available.. And 11 minutes more....
Is it really possible??
And the timeline shows he was at home at 12.10am even recieving a text from Tanja at 12:18 am and a call on landline:
And if he stumbled upon Longwood Lane, then he didn't know where it was... So couldn't possibly have googled it later to find out where he supposidly had left Joanna Yeates.
-
Right i'm back to the Bike Bag:
We have to guess what type of bike bag, Dr Vincent Tabak may have owned (even though it wasn't proven he did own one..)
He was 6ft 4 " Tall, so he would have a large frame:
It was a mountain bike:
How big was the bag and what material was it made from?
It is not likely that this supposed Bicycle bag was a hard case, the reason I would say this is because he was supposed to have put in in a Bin with the Pizza and the sock..
So we could safely guess it has to have no rigid parts to it and be deep enough to fit a body into this...
I've been looking for bags that may be used in this way and the one I found which is closest is..
http://www.skinzprotectivegear.com/bicycleproduct/travelcases.html
of course its not perfect because I dont know what it was supposed to look like :
Apart from the difficulty he may face closing it up, it is also quite a size..
Would it fit comfortable in the boot of his girlfriends Renault Magane?
Would he need to move parcel shelf?
Would he need to put the seats down?
If he put the seats down to put the Bicycle bag in the car boot, what happened to his shopping?
Did he put it on the front seat?
When he put the empty Bicycle bag back inside the boot, did he put the seats back down,
If he struggled to put the body in the car inside a material Bicycle Bag:
Did it catch?,
did it rip?
Did it leave fibres on the boot or edge of boot?
In court they refer to it as a Bicycle cover:(but it has been refered else where as a bicycle bag) Defence Counsel: What did you do next?
Tabak: I decided to put her body in my bicycle cover.
( I think this maybe the defences trying to say he didn't own a bicycle bag..)
Tabak carried Miss Yeates's body in his arms back to his flat next door and put her in his bicycle bag. In a bizarre twist he then went night shopping in Asda with her in his car boot.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tabak-guilty-of-joanna-yeates-murder-2377119.html
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bicycle+cover&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=1006&site=webhp&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjv0Yz6sdHQAhVpK8AKHTZ3BHQQ_AUIBygC
If it was something of this natural, surely he would have to secure it as not to leave evidence ..
So did he tie it up???
Where's the real evidence he diid this???
-
There isn't any real evidence!! So called "confessions", made after several months on remand, and small amounts of enhanced , inconclusive DNA, and computer searches, are not necessarily reliable evidence, and they do not prove beyond reasonable doubt that he murdered Joanna. He could have done it, of course, and we have to remember that he might be guilty, but juries are supposed to convict beyond reasonable doubt.
That is the trouble with the whole case. Had he been seen on CCTV with Joanna, or following Joanna, or going into her flat, or buying cleaning stuff in ASDA, we would have seen better evidence!
If we had his DNA and fingerprints all over Joanna's flat, or hers all over his, or her DNA all over his car, or on his clothes, that, too would have been better evidence.
Very easy to convince the general public (and probably easy to convince juries too). Most people believe what they hear and read in the media. Don't you remember a time when most people seemed to think Chris Jefferies had done it??
-
Oh, and most people trust the police one hundred per cent, they trust lawyers one hundred per cent, and they believe DNA evidence , of any kind, is foolproof.
I am sure most people believe all the stories about the porn and the prostitutes too, particularly now VT is on the sex offenders register. He apparently admitted having indecent pictures of children, but there should have been an independent witness to verify this-----at his trial. Was there?? Well, perhaps, but we never heard, and there certainly wasnt a jury. We don't know whether this was proved beyond reasonable doubt, or whether it was a way of tying a double knot, just in case the stitches started unravelling!
The police never investigated the prostitutes, so we don't know that their stories are true, or if they are talking about the same man. The newspapers would have paid them well for their stories.
-
I know why the bag and cover are confusing:
His defence counsel said this: He then put her body in the bag that he used to cover his bike.
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf page 15
Well... was it a bag or a cover???
Massive difference again.....
All the evidence is set to confuse like mrswah has said, there is nothing straight forward in this case..
If its a bag, did she fit in it?? was it a struggle to get in boot?
If its a cover did he bind it??
What help are the defence when they have they appear to have concluded (IMO) that he's guilty!!
Which means they didn't really investigate where or not he had the time and the means to do this,(IMO)
They just tried to stop him being done for murder... but when they say he's frankly disgusting.
I believe that the jury are also swayed by the defences lack of support for his client..(IMO)
If the defence don't support him.. them he must be guilty...(IMO)
-
OMG.... I can't stop laughing...
I stumbled across this when a lady clearly stating who she is, is requesting a copy of any signed statements that Dr Vincent Tabak may have signed under the freedom of information act.....
I was trying to find out about a statement that Dr Vincent Tabak signed saying he had committed the crime and they way in which he committed it...
I only thought he signed a statement for his plea, with no detail...
Are they serious......
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/vincent_tabak_statements#incoming-559680
Private Our Reference 917/14
Your reference
Mrs N Osey Date 27^th August
2014
[1][FOI #226900 email]
Dear Mrs Osey,
I write in connection with your request for information dated 27^th August
2014 concerning Joana Yeates investigation Under Section 8 of the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 we require a full name in order to process a
request. Could you therefore provide us with your surname.
I will be unable to start to process your request until I have received
your full name. If your full name is not received within 20 working days
this request will be closed.
Yours sincerely,
C Quartey
Freedom of Information Officer Corporate Information Management Department
As stated below the ICO guidance of good practice promotes us to consider a request where identity is not relevant and we are content to disclose the information requested. As it is the case that we are not content to disclose we are not considering your request.
As we believe that the name provided is not your real name we are under no obligation to deal with your request (section 8). If you would like us to consider your request please supply your real name in order to make it valid or alternatively please provide identification which shows that Mrs N Osey is your legal name.
FOI Officer
Dear #Freedom of Information Requests,
I'm slightly confused. My surname, as you ask for, has been displayed since the first email to yourselves.
Yours sincerely,
Mrs N Osey
An amusing read..... I'd of never guessed the outcome.........
Her name is Emily johnston... I'm jumping to the end, ther's plenty to read on the link..
But:
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.
It goes on to say about any appeal that Dr Vincent Tabak may make....
I didn't think he could make an appeal??
What are they hiding....
There are 18 requests and replies combined:
Why did they bother getting her to keep requesting, to finally tell her that at the end??????
Had to add this little gem..
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.
what harm and to whom?????
-
Yes, I, too laughed at the woman who gave a false name!!
-
Its so funny...
But on a more serious note, why didn't the say it was data protection in the first place.....
And is that true?
-
Under the Guidelines set out by Attorney General's Guidelines On Disclosure:
Disclosure is one of the most important issues in the criminal justice system and the application of proper and fair disclosure is a vital component of a fair criminal justice system. The "golden rule" is that fairness requires full disclosure should be made of all material held by the prosecution that weakens its case or strengthens that of the defence.
This amounts to no more and no less than a proper application of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (CPIA) recently amended by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The amendments in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 abolished the concept of "primary" and "secondary" disclosure, and introduced an amalgamated test for disclosure of material that "might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the prosecution case or assisting the case for accused". It also introduced a new Code of Practice. In the light of these, other new provisions and case law I conducted a review of the Attorney General's Guidelines issued in November 2000.
I believe that the prosecution lack of disclosing the 1300 page document that pertained to all events surrounding the Joanna yeates Case...
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/attorney_generals_guidelines_on_disclosure/
Gave the prosecution an advantage over the defence, which is contrary to the guidelines set out above:
t is vital that everybody in the criminal justice system operates these procedures properly and fairly to ensure we protect the integrity of the criminal justice system whilst at the same time ensuring that a just and fair disclosure process is not abused so that it becomes unwieldy, bureaucratic and effectively unworkable. This means that all those involved must play their role.
1. Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, a right long embodied in our law and guaranteed under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). A fair trial is the proper object and expectation of all participants in the trial process. Fair disclosure to an accused is an inseparable part of a fair trial.
8. Disclosure refers to providing the defence with copies of, or access to, any material which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution against the accused, or of assisting the case for the accused, and which has not previously been disclosed.
I'd say 1300 pages of evidence hadn't been disclosed!!
This i find very interesting: 12. Examples of material that might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the prosecution case or of assisting the case for the accused are:
1 Any material casting doubt upon the accuracy of any prosecution evidence.
2 Any material which may point to another person, whether charged or not (including a co-accused) having involvement in the commission of the offence.
3 Any material which may cast doubt upon the reliability of a confession.
4 Any material that might go to the credibility of a prosecution witness.
5 Any material that might support a defence that is either raised by the defence or apparent from the prosecution papers.
6 Any material which may have a bearing on the admissibility of any prosecution evidence.
I think the disclourse of the 1300 page document on the day of trial could have possibly shown that the defendant was indeed innocent and his confession was not valid and not disclosing this A3 bound document well before trial was contrary to the disclosure guidelines..(Number 3)
I believe (IMO) that if the procdures had been followed in occordance with the guidelines Dr Vincent Tabak could have had a fair trail...
Im my opinion, I do not believe that Dr Vincent Tabak received a fair trial, as it was contrary to the disclosure guidelines..
Does this mean that his human rights were violated?
Does this mean he has a right to a re-trial??
I have not seen fair treatment of Dr Vincent Tabak in this case and the vital 1300 page document, which lays out the time lines of everyone associated with the case is of vast importance..
The supposed window of opportunity that Dr Vincent Tabak had was extremeley small...
Moving a body no less than 3 times.. statiscally doesn't happen..
The CCTV without timestamps....
If I as a person can find inconsistencies with the prosecution theory, than just think what a defence lawyer could do with the time, money and the full discloure of evidence!!!
17.2.16. The Defence team did not have the chance to examine DNA results by their
own experts; nearly three thousand pages of ‘evidence’ was handed over to the
defence team before the trial and this alone makes for an unfair trial , a breach of the
right to a fair trial.
Sally Ramage papers
-
I still have reservations about the kitchen and the ability for Joanna Yeates to see Dr Vincent Tabak, passing..
The image I have attached shows the same kitchen fitted with the bits and bobs you'd associate with what a small kitchen holds, there are few surfaces and `i think the kitchen on the left, shows a more acurate looking kitchen ,than the virtually empty kitchen on the right that the jury saw.... (the images are the same kitchen).
Placing things in the window sill in small kitchens is quite normal, this also would obstruct any view in or out!!
Did they test the blind to see if it was broken??
The only bit of the blind that looks broken on the right, is that top strap of wood...
They just stick on, they are to cover the metal pole that the blind is attached to..., I remember mine coming off all the time, they used to annoy me,.. but they did NOT interfer with the working of the blind, that wood strap is merely there for decorational purposes....( to hide the metal pole)...
I always have my blinds so i can see out and no one can see in...
Also if its dark outside and light inside, you would not see a person passing the window...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I'd like to do my :Working Backwards again after finding what time she had to be in her flat:
Work backwards:
10.30 Asda.
14 minutes drive to bedminster....10.16
Go get his car off the street and park it by his house.. 5 mins.. 10:11( the drive was slippy CJ had trouble, in The Honour of CJ)....
How many minutes to put a body in a car? two attempts.. 5/10 mins ....10:01( on a slippy surface)
She's in his flat for an 1 hour.... 9:01 (this was stated by the prosecution, that she was in his flat for 1 hour)..
There must be some evidence that Dr Vincent Tabak was in his flat an hour before he went to Asda!
On The Documentary murder at xmas part 1
It states at about 8minutes 35 secs ... Between 8:45 and 8:50 Jo was in her flat preparing her supper!!
(they must have some evidence to cohberate this)...
You then have 11 mins left for all the events to take place..
Now: Dr Vincent Tabak walks past the flat and kitchen window,
She apparently waves at Tabak and invite him in....
Open the door , let him in, 1 minutes
Go back to kitchen and talk for 10 minutes, (be flirty as Dr Vincent Tabak says).. (Times up)!!
He Has NO available time to complete the attack, and move the body at least 4 times!!
The quote below is in part from an earlier post by me:
She sustained 43 injuries how many minutes would an attack take to cause all those injuries?? Surely with such an attack he's off left alot more of himself behind at the flat (DNA ,fibres, finger prints, etc)
A 20 second attack.. with 43 injuries... not likely.She fought for her life (5 mins)
He then puts her on the bed, (how did her earring end up in the duvet? did he make the bed??)carry her from the kitchen down the hall ( 5 mins plus?)
He goes round to his flat,(2 mins)
Comes back..( checks she alive 1min to 2 mins??)
Then...
Moves her, from the bedroom,
through the hallway, through the front doorway ( did he leave it open or did he have to open it again) would you want to risk someone walking through an open door as your committing a crime? (5 mins)
Lets not forget this is a dead weight... very difficult for one person to move....
Turns left carries her down the side of the building, turns left again, carries her across the back of the building,past he bedroom window , past his bedroom window puts her down,( is it at this point he opens his own flat door?) lifts her up again and carries her through his flat .. (5/10 mins??)
Put her down, get a bicycle bag, and put her in it. (5 minutes plus )?
There's another 35 minutes there without cleaning up......
If there is evidence that Dr Vincent Tabak was indeed in his flat 1 hour prior to going to Asda, when was he supposed to have cleaned up the flat and removed the evidence???
They have him at home from 12:10pm and the time between that and being at Asda is when he was supposed to have got rid of Jo...
-
Defence Counsel: Turn to entry 11.
‘Entry 11- seen past the flat at 9.05 where Tanya had already left for work in a lift-share’.
Who saw him at this time? they could cohoberate whether he used the little gate or the drive entrance....
Timeline 30- Internet use at home- Tanja used the laptop – The Defendant was still at
work.
This tends to lean to the fact that the laptop was shared.... "The Laptop"...
So without Tanja Morson giving evidence, who looked at what on "The Laptop"... I had heard they had a visitor staying with them for a few weeks prior to 17thDec... on another forum..
So are the searches all Dr Vincent Tabak's searches?????
Recapping- you come off the Internet at 7.37pm (our entry 47) & remain in your flat until
9.29pm (our entry 88).
So if the defence new he was in his Flat until 9:29pm , why didn't they work out that it wasn't possible for him to committ this offence??
If they new he was in his Flat until 9.29pm!!!
What evidence had the defence found that had Dr Vincent Tabak in his flat until (9:29pm???)
Again if the prosecution say he was in his flat 1 hour before going to Asda... he's at Asda at at least 10.30pm(text and CCTV)
How could he possibly have committed the crime??? (travel time to Bedminster 14mins)
Surely the prosecutions claim that she was killed around 5 minutes after she arrived home is incorrect, if they want us to believe that Dr Vincent Tabak committed the Crime...
Unless it was someone else who did it at that time????
Where is the time... surely I am not the only person who can see with my last two posts it is impossible for him to do it!!!!
10:16pm = going to Asda
9:16pm =1 hour before that
9:29pm = He was still in his flat according to the defence ( hadn't left)
When did de leave??? to go to the flat next door??
-
Sorry one more post...
I feel the defence's inaccurate guessing, really put paid to his client (IMO)
The quotes below are from: Defence Counsel, Mr William Clegg, QC’s opening speech:
This does mean that one really hasn’t got a real clue as to when Tabak went into
Joanna’s flat except that it was between the time he went to Asda and the time he texted
his girlfriend, say, between 9.00 pm and 11.00 pm.
Say between (9:00pm and 11:00pm) ... he was at bloody Asda at 10:30pm
One thing is certain. Joanna Yeates was killed between 21.00 and 21.30 pm on Friday 17
December 2010.
so he apparently does have a time... why does he know she was killed between these times??
His defence will not be heard to excuse this behaviour.
erm.... thought you were defending him... Not making yourself look good!!
He was obviously concerned with the incident, trying to track everything.
This is the defence saying , they believe the searches... ( which wasn't proven and doesn't show intent)....
Again he told lie after lie and you will hear no excuse from me about that. It shows a very
calculating person trying to wriggle out of her death but it does not help in thinking of
what happened at the flat….
OMG please defend me when i need help..... (i'm not disrespecting the family... I'm shocked at the supposed defence)!
The quotes below are when Dr Vincent Tabak is on the witness stand:..
Defence Counsel: Look at our timeline chart again. No 76. Jo Yeates did not get back to
her flat until 8.37 or thereabouts.
Well we know she was in her flat at 8:50pm and was at Tesco at 8:40pm
I have to admit i think this next quote is my all time favourite:Recapping- you come off the Internet at 7.37pm (our entry 47) & remain in your flat until
9.29pm (our entry 88).
How soon before that did you left your flat?
I nearly cried laughing at the defence counsel........
How can he leave his flat???
Why on earth would he suggest he left the flat when he's stating he was in there.... if it's confusing to me what did the jury think???
Is he making the Jury prejudical to Dr Vincent Tabak, with these type of statments....
You have already covered his movements up until that point!! suggesting he managed to leave.... How???
Levitation.. Time Travel... Dr Who's Tardis..
The defence clearly ignore there own timelines....
They say that she was killed between 9:00pm and 9:30pm at one point...
Didn't it dawn on the defence that they have also just said that Dr Vincent tabak was in his own flat until 9:29pm!!!!
This leaves 1 minute to go to his neighbour ,attack her , move the body 4 times etc....
This is wishy washy at best, I honestly do not know what one should make of the statements made by the defence (IMO)
-
I'm going to look at Dr Vincent Tabak's searches.. and see where they all lead:
At Line 118 of the prosecution chart
Tabak accessed the Internet and performed some Google searches
On 18 Dec 2010, Tabak searched at
1.26 am- ‘BBC news’ and ‘weather forecast’
1.46 am- ‘weather forecast’
1.47 am- ‘BBC Bristol news’
These searches I was about to say when he returned home from meeting Tanja...
But I wanted to check so looked at the Sally Ramage papers and:
Defence Counsel: You were on the Internet later. Why did you do that? Constant contact
with Tanja by phone. At I.38 am, 18 December, you were leaving again in the hatchback.
Is this to collect Tanja from the Coach?
Tabak: Yes.
He's searches look quite normal for someone who's thinking Shit!!
But I did notice that the searches are not correct... After he goes to pick up Tanja he get lost on park street, 2 mins later he's seen coming out of Park Street..
After he gets Tanja, he goes with her to buy a burger which they eat in the car ...
Then they will need to travel home...
So The BIG question is!!!!!
How could he possibly do a google search at 1:46am and again at 1:47am when he was seen leaving in Tanja's hatchback at 1:38am???
I'm sure it would have taken him more than 8 mins to get Tanja, A google map search of Canygne Rd to Park Street , gives a driving time of 6 mins....
he got lost for at least 2 minutes ,Then he rang her for directions... so we now have 0 minutes to find where Tanaj is.... Pick her up go for a burger eat it in the car and drive home....
Don't think the internet search is RIGHT!!!!!!
(has someone been interfering with Dr Vincent Tabak's Computer!!!!!)
Is there CCTV of them arriving home???
He cannot have possibly used his computer at 1:46am or 1:47 am to do 2 different searches as he wasn't even at home....
Go figure..........
-
yes
-
What ever happened to the crucial new evidence that was handed in???
Did it simply disappear??
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/300493/jo-crucial-clue-found/
Was this the console...
They had found a shard of console at Jo yeates flat, that was mentioned in court, but was never brought to the public's attention??
-
I was watching the Crime Watch Documentary Part 2 and there is great inconsistencies with what happened:
At 3:13- Tabak's statement was a smokescreen. The landlord was entirely innocent..When police checked Jefferies DNA against the sample found on Jo's body, there was no match... he was freed without charge
CJ was freed 2nd Jan 2011 ..... This is 8 days after Jo, is found, on 28 th Dec 2010 a post mortem was carried out...
leaving 5 days available to do the tests on the DNA sample...
At 4:00 on the video it says : Then shortly before the reconstruction was due to air, they made a dramatic breakthrough... Forensic Scientists had spent weeks enhancing the tiny DNA sample found on Jo's body.. Enabling them to establish a link to Vincent Tabak.. The Detectives suspisions were being confirmed
Now how did it free CJ in a matter of days, but it suddenly takes weeks for Dr Vincent Tabak....
Surely it's the same sample...
So was it weeks or Days??? (The DNA was partial and was no use anyway...)
More examples of things that do NOT add up in this case...
-
Again from Crime watch Part 2 : DI Joe Goff:
those screams were of particular interest because it helped us to time, when the acctual incident had happened within Flat 1 which resulted in Joanna's death
Now the screams heard by neighbours were put down to a number of things, one being possibly party revellers:
The jury, judge, journalists and police visited Percival Court- a property overlooking Flat
1 and adjacent to the rear of Miss Yeates' flat because witnesses claimed to have heard
screams that night- one witness standing at 53 Canynge Road and the other from Percival
Court opposite the property of 44 Canynge Road.
This is behind the flat of Jo' yeates.... This was on the friday... but as i've said before that a guy called Kingdom ( i've posted quotes from Kingdom) who also lived behind heard screams for help on the Saturday morning, but was not called as a witness...
The couple arriving outside number 53, a short time after they were filmed on CCTV at
number 83.
But the weather conditions were icy. How long did it take them to get there?
Warren Sweet said he did not arrive at Number 53’s party until 8.50pm on Friday 17
December 2010.
When he arrived at No. 53, Warren Sweet said he heard a scream. That cannot be the
same scream that the couple heard.
The reaction of all four people who heard screams was initially put down to students out
celebrating as term had finished that day.
You may think that the whole of those screams is totally unconnected.
You just couldn’t hear anybody from that distance.
So it was the screams that could be anything that the police used to determine when Joanna Yeates died:
The Foresnsics couldn't give an exact time of death... The clerk then read out the murder charge, which is alleged to have taken place between December 16 and December 26.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-vincent-tabak-in-court-174288
If they don't know when she died how can they say when it happened and that the screams were definetaly hers???
-
mrswah... this is something I haven't heard before???
http://swns.com/news/vincent-tabak-moved-prison-over-attack-fears-14290/
Paul Cook, defending the Dutch academic, confirmed his client did not wish to make an application for bail. He was remanded in custody and will appear in a preliminary hearing on Monday January 31.
And then...... Jo Yeates murder suspect Vincent Tabak has been been moved to a different prison over fears he may be attacked by fellow inmates.
A source told The Sun: “It was decided to move him for his own good. There are a lot of local people in Bristol Prison and he could have been at risk because feelings locally are running high.”
Well..... the suprising news is that he didn't want bail...
I'm thinking..... oh please please , mister policeman, send me to Gloucester prison instead and then move me again the next day to Long Lartin, where I can really feel safe.....!!!!!!!
Is someone having a Giraffe????
Why on earth, would he not want "Bail", and be with his family and friends, and be able to sort out a proper defence...
This is ridiculous.... I'm sure if someone ask Dr Vincent Tabak about Bail he would say YES.. I want out of prison...
WHO WOULD WANT TO STAY........ shall we have a poll????
-
I think far too much was made of the screams in court.
It was Christmas party time, when people muck around and make a noise-----the screams may well have had absolutely nothing to do with Joanna's murder.
Yes, I have read what "Kingdom" says-----he thinks it was Saturday morning (daytime, not the early hours). We don't know whether or not the screams he heard were connected with Joanna either. Interesting that he was not called as a witness, but then, of course his testimony did not fit in with Jo being killed on the Friday evening.
It is almost as if they had to fill the trial time with something, as they did not have enough actual evidence.
Can't understand why the police spent so much time looking for the pizza either. The most obvious explanation is that Jo ate it and died later than we think. Perhaps Kingdom was right??? The forensic person said her last meal was her lunch-----who knows if this is really true or not? It is somewhat suspicious that Jo's stomach contents were sent to Scotland to be examined: isn't there anyone more local to Bristol who could have done that?
-
As for the piece of "crucial evidence" found at the scene, we were never told what it was.
Had it been something belonging to VT, we might be more inclined to believe in his guilt, might we not, particularly if it was, for example, his bank card, or something like a pen that TM could have identified as being his.
But, if they don't say, then we dont know!
-
DNA..... much was made about Dr Vincent Tabak's dna being on Joanna Yeates,
Tiny samples of DNA from a single cell are more prone to
errors in analysis and can also be easily transferred to a crime scene, even if an
individual was not present.
Does this apply to the microscopic blood sample that was supposedly found in Dr Vincent Tabak's car??
s. A mixture can be interpretated in many
ways since there is no clear way to tell which part of the profile comes from which
individual: this means that mixed DNA profiles are open to interpretation, particularly if a
forensic laboratory is biased by trying to find a match with a particular suspect.
So. It's not safe then????
Familial searching is a process by which investigators look for partial matches between
crime scene DNA profiles and the DNA profiles of individuals stored on a DNA database.
This can be used to identify a relative of the suspect
Ah.... you need one of Dr. Vincent Tabak's relatives to confirm this.....
Familial searching leads to a long list of partial matches which must be shortened by
additional DNA testing and/or other policework.
Shortened and relatives used to get a match......
False matches between an individual’s profile and a crime scene DNA profile can occur
by chance, or due to poor laboratory procedures, and the implications of someone’s
DNA being at a crime scene can also be misinterpreted.
The labrotory that performed the DNA match, has had many errors.....
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/forensic-science-regulators-report-on-the-dna-contamination-case-at-lgc-forensics
The misuse of the plastic trays during another batch was spotted by LGC staff
on 11 October 2011 and procedures changed to prevent the error happening
again. However, the incident report was not sufficiently escalated and an
opportunity was missed to check back and identify the same issue a few days
earlier. The re-use of the trays was the result of human error by an unidentified
laboratory technician failing to follow the LGC operating procedures.
So did LGC Forensic's use the same tray when they tested Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA and Joanna Yeates DNA????
The error that led to the contamination has occurred on at least two occasions,
one identified on 12 October 2011 and again in this case. However, checks
against approximately 26,000 samples and the results of their DNA profiling
results have identified no further cases of contamination across or between
unrelated cases processed from 1 March to 12 October 2011
What about before....
A key issue is whether prosecution requires corroborating evidence, or whether a person
can be convicted on the basis of DNA evidence alone. The process of explaining DNA
evidence to the court is also crucial: the value of DNA evidence can easily be overstated
by using misleading statistics, particularly when the crime scene DNA profile is not
complete. Expert forensic witnesses must not be under pressure to misrepresent
evidence in cases where the interpretation may be in doubt (for example, when a mixed
DNA profile is involved).
Did this get explained fully??
http://www.genewatch.org/uploads/f03c6d66a9b354535738483c1c3d49e4/infopack_fin.pdf
Nevertheless ... partial DNA cannot identify a suspect...
And LGC Forensics, have made many errors ...
So was the DNA Dr Vincent Tabak's at the crime scene? And was the microscopic blood sample Jo's??
And was the DNA safe!!
Mr Adam Scott was the innocent victim of avoidable contamination from an
unrelated case that did contain his DNA.
11.2 The contamination was the result of human error by a technician who failed to
follow basic procedures for the disposal of plastic trays used as part of a
validated DNA extraction process.
Oops... one of their victims....
-
Where was Joanna Yeates found????
I say this because things are confusing, and I think it's relevant in the case against Dr Vincent Tabak..
The police may also erect tents or tarpaulins to minimise the view of a crime scene to both press and public and also so that a police doctor or pathologist can carry out a cursory examination of a corpse before it is moved for autopsy. It is necessary that a corpse is examined at its current location so that no claims of bruising or post mortem injury can be made.
http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/establishing-a-crime-scene.html
Yes.. the scene of crime should be protected...
So, that established, Joanna Yeates should be inside the tent....
Joanna Yeates body. is nearer to the entrance of the quarry than the verge where the wall is....
With the pictures I have attached you can clearly see that the body was no where near a wall.... I do not understand why they would change the location of where someone is found... And......
Forensic officers used a broom handle to help recover her frozen body from a country lane on Christmas Day, the court heard.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/joanna-yeates-killer-cries-in-dock-274852
So..... which one was it...... The 8 fire brigade appliances they had attend the scene.. or a broom handle????
There is more twists and turns in this case, than anything...
She is defineatley located closer to the entrance of the quarry, she is not up close to a verge and a wall.., the forensic tent would not have been erected to the side.. it would have been in the middle of the road and you would have been able to see it looking straight up Longwood lane, but it's definetly to the left and the curb curves, suggesting an entrance...
So how did her blood end up on a wall???? the walls look some distance away.... Did Dr Vincent Tabak, carry her up and down Longwood lane, using more time??
But no wait.................
Officers avoided putting a tent over her body amid fears that evidence could be compromised, the jury heard.
So they told the Jury they didn't use a tent!!!!!
OMG.... I can see it... hello Forensic Tent in picture..... what did they use it for????
Ah.... Brew Tent!!! of course, has to be... it must be in the forensic handbook... erect a tent for a brew!!!!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/joanna-yeates-killer-cries-in-dock-274852
So they are saying that they didn't follow protocol , regards the TENT!!!!
EDIT: this is weird Andrew Mott, a forensic officer who reached the scene after police arrived shortly after 9am, told how he tried to prevent Miss Yeates's body thawing out.
Thought the weather was really bad, WHY would he need to prevent it from thawing out.... that is the craziest thing i've heard...
If the body is frozen solid as it was supposed to be there since the 17th Dec 2010... why would it thaw in the cold...
Ah... protect it with a Forensic Tent!!
Dr Delaney performed the first examination at 6pm on the day her body was found.
Why wait so long if the body was thawing?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Missed an attachment ..... oops
It shows the crane they say was used to remove, Joanna Yeates body..
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Something that were never mentioned:
On Tuesday the Crimewatch crew filmed the Jo lookalike - an un-named actress who works for the BBC - in the Tesco store purchasing a Tesco Finest mozzarella, tomato and basil pesto pizza from a self-service checkout.
The blonde actress, aged in her 20s, wore a cream sports jacket, grey trousers, black boots and a rucksack.
She was also carrying a black handbag and white carrier bag, just as Jo was on the night she vanished.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348832/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Vincent-Tabaks-flat-searched-man-32-arrested.html#ixzz4RnMqsr4Q
Now I've mentioned her handbag before... ( on other forums) why is it never mentioned??
I believe when you look at the bargain booze video, she is seen going into it at the till.. she uses two hands to access her purse.... (the video suddenly cuts)
So...... Again.... why would her .... Keys, purse and glasses be in her rucksack??? Shouldn't they be in her bag like most woman keep there things!!!!
Now the black handbag, is not mentioned in Greg's statement or in the court, .... where is it???
I always believed her rucksack was for her work, as an architect, she would need to carry several items for
her job...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Lets just re-cap....
Forensic officers used a broom handle to help recover her frozen body from a country lane on Christmas Day, the court heard.
Andrew Mott, a forensic officer who reached the scene after police arrived shortly after 9am, told how he tried to prevent Miss Yeates's body thawing out.
Now... why wasn't there any photographs of the following:
Tabak's QC, William Clegg, questioned why photographs were not taken of a broom being used to arrange straps underneath the body so her body could be taken away.
"I can't comment on why that was the case," Mr Mott said.
( who takes the forensic pictures..???)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/killer-weeps-over-images-of-joanna-yeates-body-2370602.html
So did they really use a broom handle... or are we back to mrswah's evidence of 8 fire brigade appliances????
-
The scene at Longwood Lane:
Officers put up a white tent over the ditch where the body was found on Longwood Lane, which was cordoned off at both ends. An ambulance with a police escort took the body from the scene at 4.45pm.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majornews/8225131/Despair-of-Joanna-Yeatess-father-as-body-is-found.html
Dr Delaney performed the first examination at 6pm on the day her body was found.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/joanna-yeates-killer-cries-in-dock-274852
Why was the body removed before Dr Delaney had seen it??
"A pathologist will be attending the scene to examine the body. It is far too early to confirm the cause of death or any circumstances," he added.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12079050
I'm a little confused, I believed that Dr Delaney was the pathologist that examined Joanna yeates
-
Drag Marks:
How was it possible to move Joanna Yeates from her flat without leaving any Drag Marks?
It is understood they are investigating whether Miss Yeates's body was taken from her home in a large bag or suitcase.
The Sun reported that the line of inquiry arose because there were no drag marks on Miss Yeates's body or clothing.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/joanna-yeates-police-search-neighbours-flat-after-arrest-2189467.html
How was Dr Vincent Tabak have managed to carry a body ,he'd of needed to lift it from the floor without leaving any drag marks...
Is it physically possible to lift a dead weight ,without dragging or dropping it? And move it, plenty of times, or did he do it in one swift movement or several short bursts
How physically difficult is it??
DNA Evidence:
When did they match the DNA evidence to Dr Vincent Tabak?
"These things take time. DNA evidence and things like that take a while in any investigation. We just have to sit tight now."
Read more at: http://www.scotsman.com/news/neighbour-is-held-over-joanna-yeates-murder-1-1497771
So..... what evidence did they arrest him on???
She said: "It is good news - but it is just a case of waiting to see if they have enough to charge him.
What happened to the entomology on Jo and in the area?
Most insects in the winter, however, are found burrowed under leaf litter or bored into the bark of a tree or surrounded by a protective shell like a cocoon or gall.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0215_050215_insects_2.html
Again about the DNA:
Where was the DNA transfer from Dr Vincent Tabak to Joanna yeats... Skin cells from Dr Vincent Tabak should have been present around Janna Yeates neck..
http://www.forensicmag.com/article/2012/06/touch-dna-analysis-using-literature-help-answer-some-common-questions
Partial Dna results All three are thought to have been from the killer’s saliva, but have yielded only partial results. Sources said that they should be enough to rule out suspects over her murder – but probably not enough to conclusively prove anyone’s guilt.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349356/Joanna-Yeates-murder-suspect-Vincent-Tabak-split-girlfriend.html#ixzz4Ru82lBgS
LGC Forensics, the UK's largest independent provider of forensic services, successfully used a range of advanced forensic techniques, including LGC’s proprietary DNA enhancement method, DNASenCE, to link Vincent Tabak to the 2010 murder of Joanna Yeates.
http://www.lgcgroup.com/about-us/media-room/latest-news/2011/lgc-forensics-provides-key-evidence-in-jo-yeates-i/#.WERzVaKLRgc
The don't state that the sample went through the extra senCE process, i've attached a diagram of what they do..
However the increased sensitivity of this DNA profiling technique brings about amplified concerns over issues of ease of contamination and amplification of these contaminants, mixed profiles being produced and wrongful accusations. With techniques such as LCN, it is now more important than ever that investigators wear suitable protective clothing and follow strict anti-contamination procedures, and controls are used in analyses.
http://aboutforensics.co.uk/dna-analysis/
1) There is a greater potential for error (compared with conventional STR typing protocols).
2) Errors of interpretation can be caused by allele drop-in, allele drop-out, peak height imbalance, and large stutter peaks.
3) There is a need for a robust and reliable quantitation assay in order to determine the amount of DNA available for analysis.
4) LCN profiles are not generally reproducible. Because of the potential error, the probative value of the results may not be estimated reliably.
5) The interpretation of mixture profiles from LCN typing is problematic. Interpretation guidelines based upon reliable validation studies do not exist.
6) Because of the sensitivity of the assay and the types of samples analyzed (ie, touch samples), the LCN profile may not be relevant to a case.
7) The evidence cannot be used for exculpatory purposes.
8) Proper evidence collection and handling protocols have not been well established or at least communicated.
9) Reagents and consumables may contain low level amounts of extraneous DNA that can complicate the interpretation of LCN typing results.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702736/
So if this evidence of low copy DNA could not be used for exculpatory purposes it could not be used to rule Dr Vincent Tabak in either.
-
How can this information be available before Dr Vincent Tabak even went to Trial:
Case No: CO/3685/2011
Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWHC 2074 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 29/07/2011
Before :
THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES
LORD JUSTICE THOMAS
and
MR JUSTICE OWEN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
Her Majesty’s Attorney-General Claimant
- and -
(1) MGN Limited
(2) News Group Newspapers Limited
Defendants
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Dominic Grieve QC, Her Majesty’s Attorney-General and Miss Melanie Cumberland
(instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Claimant
Mr Jonathan Caplan QC (Instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP) for the First
Defendant
Miss Adrienne Page QC and Mr Anthony Hudson (Instructed by Farrer & Co) for the Second
Defendant
Hearing date: 5th July 2011
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
Vincent Tabak was charged with the murder of Miss
. On 4th
March Mr Jefferies was informed that he was released from police bail. On 5th May
Tabak admitted that he was responsible for killing Miss Yeates when, at the Central
Criminal Court, he pleaded guilty to her manslaughter. He denied murder on the basis
of diminished responsibility.
http://onebrickcourt.com/files/cases/ag_89381.pdf
There is therefore no doubt about the identity of the man who killed Miss Yeates or
that Mr Jefferies is innocent of any involvement in it.
Several points there:
Diminished responsibilities, was never given as a reason in court.... "Or was it"??
He never pleaded Diminished responablities that I am aware of:...
How can they publish that there was NO DOUBT that Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty of a crime before he attended a trail?????
A confession is not proof of guilt....
The 1300 page document could have had his Lawyers change his plea....
But according to the pdf... HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE had already decided that Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty...
How can that be???
Isn't that information Prejudical to Dr Vincent Tabak's Trial??
The Judgement was made on the 29th July 2011
Anyone who was following the CJ saga could have read the report, Jurors and the general public alike...
How can they claim that there is NO DOUBT that Dr Vincent Tabak was responsible for Joanna Yeates death some nearly 3 months before the trial had taken place.....
They could have been anything that happened:
For instance:
(1) New evidence proved his confession was false..
(2) The sock was handed in
(3) another person had come forward to confess
(4) The lawyers had worked out that Dr Vincent Tabak, didn't have time to kill her..
(5) New witness's had come forward
(6) They found the console
check the guide lines I posted: reply 414 December 01, 2016, 12:39:56 PM »
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.405
If the HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE... is telling the world that Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty before he has gone to trial...
Tabak pleaded guilty to manslaughter as he appeared on the video link from Long Lartin prison in Evesham, Worcs. But the prosecution refused to accept the plea and he will go on trial for murder in the autumn.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-neighbour-vincent-tabak-126826
BYMARTIN FRICKERANDREW GREGORY
00:01, 6 MAY 2011
How could his trial have possibly have been FAIR!!!!!!
In the PDf's own wordsCourts on these occasions
expressing grave doubts as to the jury’s ability to forget or put
aside what they had heard or read. I am certainly not saying
that in respect of one and the same publication there cannot be
both a contempt…and a safe conviction. Plainly there can,
most obviously perhaps in cases where the trial has had to be
moved or delayed to minimise the prejudice occasioned by
some publication.
Did the Court actually Rule that their decision Dr Vincent Tabak was GUILTY before Trial could be perceived as prejudical!!!
Is this actually allowed?????
They were aware that Dr Vincent Tabak had not had his trial
I'm not suprised his defence team failed:
How can they come to the conclusion of guilt of a defendant, before Trial... I thought innocent until PROVEN GUILTY........!!!
HOW PREJUDICAL CAN YOU GET!!!
CJ's ruling was based partly on the fact that they decided that Dr Vincent Tabak was GUILTY... ( obviously I do not agree with what the newspapers said,and they shouldn't get away with it)
And thats the High Court... God help us!!!!
-
I have never heard anything about diminished responsibility in relation to this case.
Their assumptions re VT are out of order, to my mind, but I suppose we have to consider that they were not concerned with him at all for the purposes of this document, but with Chris Jefferies, and emphasising HIS innocence.
It is all wrong, though, to assume that because someone has confessed, that they did it, and to assume this before a trial has taken place. That is not how the system is supposed to work.
Guilty until proven innocent----------------!
-
Normally when someone says they are guilty of a crime, there is no trial, no need to witnesses to appear or the expense and time.
The only difference is where they only agree to part of the charge/offence which is what he did. Manslaughter to murder so there is nothing unusual in how it worked out at all
-
I cannot see why an application was not made as the defence did not recieve the prosecution papers at this time..
And surely in his clients best interest an application for bail should have been made..
Dr Vincent Tabak was of good character and had no previous convictions...
And wasn't a threat to National sercurity..
So why no application???
Does this not seem odd??????
No, it is not odd at all. Vincent Tabak was a foreign national facing a murder charge in England. Bail will almost never be granted in such circumstances.
-
But....... There was a trial and THE HIGH COURT , knew that he was facing trial...
On 5th May
Tabak admitted that he was responsible for killing Miss Yeates when, at the Central
Criminal Court, he pleaded guilty to her manslaughter. He denied murder on the basis
of diminished responsibility. The trial of that issue will take place in the autumn.
They were well aware he had a trial due.... 3 months after their findings.... outrageous(IMO)
So whether he pleaded guilty.... new evidence could quite easily have cast doubt on Dr Vincent Tabak's confession...
And the supposed confession he made to a Priest...
I cannot see how it's THE HIGH COURTS decision to say someone is guilty before, a trial... Under the Guidelines set out by Attorney General's Guidelines On Disclosure:
Clearly states that an admission of guilt may be over turned by new evidence...
AGAIN......... 1300 pages of new evidence, ( dumped on the defence on the first day of trial...)
Not to mention the significant piece of evidence that was handed into the police, but was not used at trail....
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/300493/jo-crucial-clue-found/
They should have ommitted Dr Vincent Tabak's name from the findings,..... But they didn't!!!
Read my reply: Reply #414 on: December 01, 2016, 12:39:56 PM »
Read my reply: Reply #434 on: Today at 11:07:51 AM »
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg367108#msg367108
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg367857#msg367857
-
No, it is not odd at all. Vincent Tabak was a foreign national who facing a murder charge. Bail will almost never be granted in such circumstances.
What about the High Court Ruling John?????
The papers said two different thing... he was applying for bail... And he wasn't going to apply for bail..
But According to one source ..Bail wasn't even asked for..
-
I have never heard anything about diminished responsibility in relation to this case.
Their assumptions re VT are out of order, to my mind, but I suppose we have to consider that they were not concerned with him at all for the purposes of this document, but with Chris Jefferies, and emphasising HIS innocence.
It is all wrong, though, to assume that because someone has confessed, that they did it, and to assume this before a trial has taken place. That is not how the system is supposed to work.
Guilty until proven innocent----------------!
Yes, But they didn't have to prove CJ's case with saying DR Vincent Tabak was guilty 3 months before he had even had a trial.....
The vicious nature of the media's representation of CJ, should have been enough in it's self!
-
I have never heard anything about diminished responsibility in relation to this case.
I was trying to find out about when he claimed Diminished responsiblities.. I found this CPS statement on Vincent Tabak
28/10/2011
CPS statement on the trial of Vincent Tabak
Ann Reddrop, head of the South West Complex Casework Unit, said: "Vincent Tabak was a cunning, dishonest and manipulative man who knew exactly what he was doing when he killed Joanna Yeates. Today, he has been convicted by a jury in Bristol of her murder last year, despite claiming he meant her no harm.
"He was cunning and dishonest towards his girlfriend with whom he maintained a normal relationship - even going so far as to text her shortly after Joanna was dead to say he was bored.
"He manipulated the police by virtue of his own in-depth research on the Internet to keep one step ahead of the investigation before his arrest, looking up extradition and medical details of decomposition.
"He made very selective admissions surrounding the circumstances of Joanna's death, which sought to cast her in an unfavourable light and he kept this up even when he was giving evidence to the jury. Tabak thought his cleverness and deceit would prevent him being convicted of a brutal murder. He was wrong.
"Joanna went missing on 17 December 2010 after meeting friends for drinks. For several days the police mounted a missing person enquiry but with the discovery of her body on Christmas Day it became a murder investigation. The police team undertook a painstaking enquiry into this murder and Vincent Tabak became the focus of their attention following the finding of his DNA on Joanna's body
"Late in December 2010, the police asked for assistance and guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service. That assistance has come from the South West Complex Casework Unit based here in Bristol. I reviewed the evidence, advised that Vincent Tabak should be charged with Joanna's murder and began preparing the case for trial.
"In May 2011, Tabak admitted the manslaughter of Joanna but that was only part of the story. The Crown's case is, and always has been, that it was a deliberate act on his part and that is why we refused to accept his plea to manslaughter and he has faced trial for murder over the past four weeks.
"Joanna's family has been here in Bristol during the trial and have listened to much of the evidence. Our thoughts are with them today as Tabak begins a life sentence for killing their daughter."
Ends
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/cps_statement_on_vincent_tabak/
But when you scroll down to May 2011... there is no mention of Dr Vincent Tabak
So where's the claim he admitted manslaughter with diminshed responsibilities..
The only other written word i could find about diminished responsibilites was :
Notes for RNZ slot from Ursula Cheer (Associate Professor)
Canterbury University, 7 September 2011
https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10092/6144/12634054_Notes%20for%20RNZ%20slot_September%202011from%20Ursula%20Cheer.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Today I am going to talk about how the Daily Mirror and the Sun published
appalling stores about a man called Christopher Jefferies and were later
convicted of contempt and had to pay out significant damages for
defamation as well.
So she spoke to a class??? students?? did she influence these peoples beliefs on something that hadn't even gone to trial and with new evidence the outcome could have been clearly different...
Vincent Tabak was charged with the murder. On 4th March Mr
Jefferies was informed that he was released from police bail. Just over a
month later, Tabak admitted in court that he was responsible for killing Miss
Yeates, and pleaded guilty to her manslaughter. He denied murder on the
basis of diminished responsibility and was committed for trial on the murder
charge, the trial to be heard about now..
Again this is 1 month before Dr Vincent Tabak's trial, so if an Associate Professor believes he's guilty before trial..
Any Tom Dick or Harry can presume the same!!! on the availability of the High Courts Findings on CJ.....!!!!
So again i refer to my post:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg367857#msg367857
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg367108#msg367108
Did the High Court Prejudice Dr Vincent Tabak before his trial!!
-
he did that to himself by saying he was guilty!
It would be a completely different scenario of all you had written was said and done and he yet he remained tight lipped and claiming to be innocent but he didn't...
-
A Fair Trail needs to have the following apply... (evidence about the stability of his confession could be possibly found in the 1300 page document)....
Again 1300 pages of documentation that the defence didn't get till the day of trial, was reason enough.... If they had the time to cross reference all the time lines I'm sure it would have shown he didn't have the time...
Quote
12. Examples of material that might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the prosecution case or of assisting the case for the accused are:
1 Any material casting doubt upon the accuracy of any prosecution evidence.
2 Any material which may point to another person, whether charged or not (including a co-accused) having involvement in the commission of the offence.
3 Any material which may cast doubt upon the reliability of a confession.
4 Any material that might go to the credibility of a prosecution witness.
5 Any material that might support a defence that is either raised by the defence or apparent from the prosecution papers.
6 Any material which may have a bearing on the admissibility of any prosecution evidence.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg367108#msg367108
How could he possibly do a google search at 1:46am and again at 1:47am when he was seen leaving in Tanja's hatchback at 1:38am???
I'm sure it would have taken him more than 8 mins to get Tanja, A google map search of Canygne Rd to Park Street , gives a driving time of 6 mins....
he got lost for at least 2 minutes ,Then he rang her for directions... so we now have 0 minutes to find where Tanaj is.... Pick her up go for a burger eat it in the car and drive home....
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg367317#msg367317
He cannot have possibly used his computer at 1:46am or 1:47 am to do 2 different searches as he wasn't even at home....
So that evidence alone that wasn't challenged, shows how inaccurate the prosecutions, computer searches were...
WHAT ... Other Evidence was contained within the 1300 page document that could have cast doubt about Dr Vincent Tabak's confession......
At I.38 am, 18 December, you were leaving again in the hatchback.
Is this to collect Tanja from the Coach?
Tabak: Yes.
Even if he was seen in the town centre and not at home at 1:38am , it still doesn't give him time to get home and use his computer... As the prosecution claim he did!!!!
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
So that alone covers number (1)... (IMO)
-
Quote
Quote
12. Examples of material that might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the prosecution case or of assisting the case for the accused are:
1 Any material casting doubt upon the accuracy of any prosecution evidence.
2 Any material which may point to another person, whether charged or not (including a co-accused) having involvement in the commission of the offence.
3 Any material which may cast doubt upon the reliability of a confession.
4 Any material that might go to the credibility of a prosecution witness.
5 Any material that might support a defence that is either raised by the defence or apparent from the prosecution papers.
6 Any material which may have a bearing on the admissibility of any prosecution evidence.
(1) The prosecution's evidence in the computer search that wasn't accurate ( he wasn't even at home when they said he did a search)
(2) The Shard of console and The piece of evidence handed into the Police that wasn't used...
(3) The defences own time lines and admission that Dr Vincent Tabak stayed in his Flat till 9:29pm and stating that one thing was for sure Joanna Yeates was killed between 9:00pm and 9:30pm
(4) Prosecution witness that changed their original statements that were available for people to read.... you could call it inconsistencies in statements...(IMO)
(5) Cj and Tanja's lack of appearnce in court could have explained lots.. Whether he had a bike bag for instance, whether CJ saw what he first apparently told police that people where at the gate and he thought one was Jo...
(6) The photographs of the forensice Tent That the police claim they didn't use to cover Joanna Yeates body......
13. It should also be borne in mind that while items of material viewed in isolation may not be reasonably considered to be capable of undermining the prosecution case or assisting the accused, several items together can have that effect.
Attorney Generals Guidelines.... http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/attorney_generals_guidelines_on_disclosure/
So with the 1300 pieces of evidence not seen until trial and the above... How can it be fair!!
-
I can see that what Jixy says is right: if someone pleads guilty, there normally wouldn't be a trial, unless the defendant has only partly pleaded guilty: for example, VT, Peter Sutcliffe and Nathan Matthews all pleaded guilty to manslaughter, but not to murder,with which they had been charged, so they all had trials.
I can only say that I feel very sorry for an innocent person who makes a false confession ---and many do. Some do so because they have "special needs", some do so for other reasons : duress, sleep deprivation while being held in prison, etc etc. I think it very unsatisfactory that our legal system takes no steps to check that the confession is valid. Sometimes, one only has to look at the timeline , and it is pretty obvious that they couldn't have done it, or somebody might have confessed to killing the victim in a car---when they don't even have a car.
As far as I am aware, there was no plea of diminished responsibility in VT's case.
A number of things about his trial were very worrying though. The defence being given a 1300 page document at the last minute is one of them. As everybody knows by now, I am not happy about enhanced DNA (too often unreliable) or computer evidence, which can be messed around with.
Jixy and John, what do you make of that document I put up detailing all the equipment needed to recover Jo's body?? Do you have any explanations why all those pumping tenders, a boat, etc might have been needed? I am very puzzled by this, but then, I don't work for fire and rescue, and (fortunately) I have no experience of recovering bodies.
-
I can see that what Jixy says is right: if someone pleads guilty, there normally wouldn't be a trial, unless the defendant has only partly pleaded guilty: for example, VT, Peter Sutcliffe and Nathan Matthews all pleaded guilty to manslaughter, but not to murder,with which they had been charged, so they all had trials.
I understand what you and Jixy are saying mrswah, But.. Doesn't the fact he was going to trial make a difference as nothing had been proved .... It was basically a confession...
So the trial could have turned out completely differently.... As with the Attorney generals Guidelines
And the High Court new Dr Vincnet Tabak was going to trial... they say so....
-
I understand what you and Jixy are saying mrswah, But.. Doesn't the fact he was going to trial make a difference as nothing had been proved .... It was basically a confession...
So the trial could have turned out completely differently.... As with the Attorney generals Guidelines
So is he going to appeal and are you going to advise his new council? What will be the grounds of his appeal? He gave a confession under duress?
-
Miss Taken Identity: on page 26 of this thread, I have included a document giving information about all the fire and rescue equipment used to recover Joanna's body (which the jury and the public were told was found by dog walkers).
Documents speak for themselves, but can you explain why so much equipment was needed? A boat???? A crane???? All those pumping tenders???? Do you know anyone who works for the fire and rescue service who could explain this?
The document was obtained through a FOI request: it was not revealed to the public (or the jury) , apart from a very brief mention on ITN news and in the Daily Mail, and in the local Bristol papers. Very few people have questioned it, although it casts doubt on where Jo's body was actually found.
You may ask why that matters, and somebody pointed out that it makes no difference to who murdered her. If there is a valid reason why all that equipment was needed, fair enough. If there isn't, it casts doubt on the story we have been told, and , depending on where the body was actually found, it could well suggest that more than one person dumped it.
If we have not been given the true facts about where the body was found, what else haven't we been given the truth about? The dog walkers, remember, did not actually appear in court and give their evidence under oath: their evidence was read out from a written statement.
-
Miss Taken Identity: on page 26 of this thread, I have included a document giving information about all the fire and rescue equipment used to recover Joanna's body (which the jury and the public were told was found by dog walkers).
Documents speak for themselves, but can you explain why so much equipment was needed? A boat???? A crane???? All those pumping tenders???? Do you know anyone who works for the fire and rescue service who could explain this?
The document was obtained through a FOI request: it was not revealed to the public (or the jury) , apart from a very brief mention on ITN news and in the Daily Mail, and in the local Bristol papers. Very few people have questioned it, although it casts doubt on where Jo's body was actually found.
You may ask why that matters, and somebody pointed out that it makes no difference to who murdered her. If there is a valid reason why all that equipment was needed, fair enough. If there isn't, it casts doubt on the story we have been told, and , depending on where the body was actually found, it could well suggest that more than one person dumped it.
If we have not been given the true facts about where the body was found, what else haven't we been given the truth about? The dog walkers, remember, did not actually appear in court and give their evidence under oath: their evidence was read out from a written statement.
The link below is for the post mrswah made with the pdf of the fire brigade appliances that attended, not just on Christmas Day, but on several days later..???
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg366721#msg366721
Some of the fire brigade services where there as late as 9:45pm Why???????
The Avon Fire Service helped police remove the body, which was clothed and covered in snow, from the scene in order to preserve the site for a thorough forensic examination.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/joanna-yeates-police-satisfied-body-271510
Ah.... it was the site they were protecting??? Shouldn't it have been the Joanna Yeates first????
Surely.. it's the Police that protect the scene of crime .. not the fire brigade..
Jo was removed at 4:45pm and was taken away in an ambulance , before Dr Delaney has examined her at 6:00pm
Check my previous post:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg367730#msg367730
But The official version is that they used a broom handle...
Broom handles were used.... but that was to search the verges not remove Joanna Yeates...
They must have needed the appliances to reach where she was.....
The body was thawing out... I refer to my post below:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg367513;topicseen#msg367513
It highly unlikely that a body had lain in Longwood Road since 17th Dec 2010... It was an area frequented by many dog walkers, and I read about a woman who saw a white van as she came out from the opposite side of the road near the entrance.. (can't find the article)... Could also have seen it, if it was there...
The picture I have attached with two people speaking the the police officer, is quite odd... Who are they??
They can't be witness,s as they would keep anyone away from the crime scene....
The police, have avoided explaining the fire brigade appliance, and as with the forensic tent, to cover Joanna's body to protect the scene, they also deny using the forensic tent in court for the protection of Joanna Yeates...
So... if the forensic tent wasn't for the protection of Joanna Yeates... what was it covering up...
It must have been an important piece of evidence , if they used the tent to protect it...
But.... nothing was brought to trial regards what they were protecting under THAT Tent....
The tent would be used to protect the body from further injury, whilst being removed and the pathologist has had a chance to examine, when it is in situ....
There were 43 injuries , who knows which injuries where made whilst recovering the body from a possible place that wasn't easy to access...
Straps and harnesses were used as part of the equipment the fire brigade lists in the pdf..
The fire brigade where there before the Dr....
The body was also transported in an ambulance before the Dr. examined it....
How is that protecting the scene????
I was under the impression, that you secure the scene and that the Dr examines the body before it is removed.. Then the foresnsic team come in wearing white coveralls as to not contaminate any possible evidence there...
Police are just wandering about I don't think i've seen anyone in coveralls.. The amount of fire service personal at the scene will only add to contamination...
Plus the two strangers who are allowed just to hang about: picture 4
So anyone got an answer for this as mrswah has asked????
I think a thourgh examination of the PDF needs doing.... 8 apppliances uded
They attended the scene on no less than 4 occasions:
The 25th Dec 2010 with 27 crew members attending in total?? ( adds to contamination of scene)
The 27th Dec 2010 with 4 crew members attending
The 28th Dec 2010 with 4 crew members attending
The 29th Dec 2010 with 2 crew members attending
Why would the fire service need to attend the scene of a murder enquiry 4 different days???
what were they recovering?? cleaning up??
Why would they need them there on so many ocassions... And why was this not mentioned in court!!!
.
What's the big folder the guy in high viz holding and why would he need it at a crime scene??????
Picture 3
EDIT: 7:50pm I think why I have a problem with the forensic, tent... Is....... I believe there's Two forensic Tents..... One to the left in the entrance of the quarry, and one slightly further up the road...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
So is he going to appeal and are you going to advise his new council? What will be the grounds of his appeal? He gave a confession under duress?
I don't know if he's going to appeal Miss Taken Identity... I think he should, I have nothing to do with advising anyones council, I'm just a forum user like yourself..
I believe that the constant moving of Dr Vincent tabak to 3 prisons in less than 48 hours is duress... he wouldn't have had his counsel available to him.. and when he appeared from Long Lartin by video link... his defence was in Bristol.... I think they made him feel like he didn't know his arse from is elbow.. Constant pressure on him proving that they had the control....
He also appear via video link at the old Bailey.. WHY the Old Bailey.. I have no answer for that.. but it must have completeley isolated him from council, family and friends..
All this and they never applied for Bail!!
He had two different Lawyers and I'm not sure if Cook was the duty solicitor who saw him when he was first arrested..( so it could be 3)....
His inability to read correctly or see correctly , must also have added to the difficulties he was facing.. as they had taken away his own glasses.. Which must have been prescription as he wore them all the time..
I think the original evidence they charged him with was not what they ended up in court with.. And i think they desperatley needed a confession, as the evidence would not stand up in court. (IMO)
I believe that this case needs a proper investigation, all the fire brigade appliances used, never explained..
And I so would love to see that 1300 page document that has the timelines in.... which the defence got dropped on them on the day of trial..
There are so many questions.. not answered in this case, and the lack of WITNESS'S in court only add to the mystery...
-
What was missing from court:....
(1) The 8 Fire Brigade Appliances that were used
(2) The piece of significant evidence handed into Police..
(3) The forensic pictures showing how they used broom handles to move Joanna Yeates.
(4) The Priest that talked to Joanna Yeates near her home on the 17th Dec 2010
(5) The sobbing girl, that had supposedly given Dr Vincent Tabak's name
(6) CJ who had seen people at the small gate, who could have answered many questions..
(7) Tanja Morson, Dr Vincent Tabak,s girlfriend.. who could have confirmed or denied any of the scenarios put
forward.
(8) The Prosecution's full disclosure till day of trial (1300 pages)
(9) The witness's that discovered Joanna yeates body on Longwood Lane..
(10) Kingdom who lived around the back of Jo yeates and heard someone scream "help me on Saturday 18th Dec
2010 around mid morning...
(11) Any character witness's for Dr Vincent Tabak.
(12) A psycharist with a report on Dr Vincent Tabak mental health whilst incarcarated..
(13) An explanation of the shard of console found at crime scene... Who did the console belong too?
(14) Time Stamps on the Asda video, to show exactly when Dr Vincent Tabak, was at Asda,..
(15) An actuall application for Bail
(16) Video putting Dr Vincent Tabak at the scene of crime..
(17) Witness's putting Dr Vincent Tabak at the scene of crime.
(18) DNA evidence of Dr Vincent Tabak in Joanna Yeates Flat
(19) DNA evidence of Joanna Yeates in Dr Vincent Tabak's flat
(20) An Explanation on how Joanna yeates ear ring ended up inside the bed covers
(21) Photographs of the scene when the police first arrived on the 17th Dec 2010
(22) An expert who could demonstrate the difficulties one person would have moving a dead weight several times
(22) The lack of body fluids at Joanna Yeates flat..
(23) The Lack of body fluids at Dr Vincent Tabaks flat.. (she was supposed to be there for 1Hour, before he went to asda) Or inside the car boot... (one loses bowel and bladder control)
(25) Detailed analysis of the 1300 page document
(26) Solid DNA profile of Dr Vincent Tabak on Joanna Yeates (partial doesn't prove anything)
(27) A proper cross examination of witness's at the stand... ( statements where inconsistant)
(28) An explanation to how Andrew Mott had to try stop a body from thawing after it was found and was supposed
frozen solid since being there from the 17th Dec 2010 and why it took 9 hours for Dr Delaney to see her...
(29) Finger nail scrapping, that might have revealed who attacked her
(30) Any medical records as to why Joanna Yeates had taken time from work days before the 17th Dec.. (could
have explained why it didn't take long to strangle her)
(31) A demonstration of how easy or hard it would be to lift a body inside a bicycle bag/cover into the boot of a car.
and would it fit into a bicycle bag?
(31) Defence picking up on inaccurate statement regarding searches... when on the early search... Dr Vincent
Tabak, could not have been at home to make the 2 searches.. (he left 1:38am) (searches done 1:46am and
1:47am) Dr Vincent Tabak was picking Tanja up at the time..
(32) An explanation as to why the defence new Joanna yeates had died between 9:00pm and 9:30pm.. and the
defence had already put Dr Vincent Tabak at home until 9:29pm
(33) How the Defence didn't pick up on the fact the prosecution allowed the jury to add a word to there document..
Changing the defintion of the search Dr Vincent Tabak supposedly did.
(34) The High courts Document of 27th July 2011, stating that Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty of the murder, before
he had been tried..
(35) The Drive times it would have taken Dr Vincent Tabak to complete various journeys..
(36) Witness statements from the fire brigade as to what the scene was like when they attended and why it took
4 hours for then to be called..
(37) A proper explanation as to why is was a sexually motivated attack, when no signs of a sexual assault
existed.
(38) A demonstration at Joanna Yeates Flat of how the body was moved from room to room, then next door to
Dr Vincent Tabak Flat , then put in a Bicycle bag and then into a car boot..,.. No timings of this event took
place to see if it was even possible..( needed lifting ..No drag marks visible)
(39) The CCTV from Clifton Suspension Bridge, the Police had used to speak to one witness/suspect
(40) Bank records of Dr Vincent Tabaks apparent purchasing of call girls
(41) The American prostitute, who claimed Dr Vincent Tabak tried to use chloroform on her in a sex game (
would show his sexual proclivaties ....) was there proof of purchase of chloroform.. was any used on Jo Yeates??
(42) Any female person whom Dr Vincent Tabak had come onto in the past..(advances denied)
(43) The Morson family and there relationship with Dr Vincent Tabak.
(44) The questioning of why Joanna Yeates phone still worked on Sunday 19th Dec 9:00pm when it had been used
all day friday and people had tried to contact her on several occasions.( could mean she died on a different
day)..
(45) The finger prints missing from the TV Dr Vincent Tabak, supposedly turned off..
(46) The finger prints missing from the oven that Dr Vincent Tabak supposedly turned off
(47) Any finger prints of Dr Vincent Tabak anywhere in the flat..
(48) Joanna Yeates black handbag she is seen carrying..
(49) Greg being asked if he left Bernard the cat inside the house
(50) How Joanna Yeates Travelled to work that morning, we know she walked back... did they walk as a rule?? or did they drive to work??
I could go on and on... But you get the picture....
"
Oh yes... one more.... "PICTURES of what was inside the FORENSIC TENT if Joanna Yeates wasn't!!!!!
I've now found out there's two Tents??
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8858241/Prostitute-claims-Joanna-Yeatess-killer-Vincent-Tabak-tried-to-strangle-her.html
There's Andrew mrswah... number 28!!!!!
-
Well this is NEWS to me.........
After the murder conviction and Mr Tabak’s unsuccessful appeal, he was summonsed to Court to face the child pornography charges. After denying it, he pleaded guilty on 2nd March 2015 and was sentenced to 10 months.
http://ukcriminallawblog.com/vincent-tabak-jailed-for-child-pornography/
WHAT APPEAL !! did he ever appeal..... I don't know that he did!!
What was his defence?
We don’t know. There was legal argument as to whether he could have a fair trial, and after the Judge ruled that he could, the guilty pleas were entered.
Where the images pseudo, there where 4 computers and a hard drive they got the info from... where they Dr Vincent Tabak images?
In any event, the protection regime will almost certainly be completely different when Mr Tabak comes to be released (if he ever is). So, I am not completely convinced by the argument. Although it could be said that there is no harm in prosecuting him, this whole procedure will have cost more than 5 figures (it’s always difficult to judge). At a time when cases are not being properly pursued because of a lack of resources, a decision to prosecute impacts on other cases and means (sadly) that other victims of crime don’t get the justice they deserve. Is that a price worth paying?
TAGSVINCENT TABAK
This case is not quite in the same category as Garry Glitter last week, and the finding of the Judge is certainly not a surprise. The case of Stuart Hall does show that juries are pretty robust, more so that I would have imagined (so I may be being unduly cautious, but this is an area that would benefit from some further research.
-
A little thought.... if the Judge agreed with the jury and decided that Dr Vincent Tabak had indeed attacked Joanna Yeates, with the supposed PROOF that it was sexually motivated...
Why didn't he give him a miniumum tariff of 30 years???
." Tabak must now serve a minimum of 20 years in prison, some may feel that this is not long enough. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 allows a minimum term of 30 years to be set if it can be established that sexual or sadistic conduct was involved in an offence.
http://www.lawmentor.co.uk/blog/2011/10/29/just-verdict-vincent-tabak/
Quote from The Judge:
The Judge said "I think there was a sexual element to this killing.... In my view you are very dangerous.In my opinion you are thoroughly deceitful, dishonest and manipulative
http://lawpages.co.uk/court-cases/Vincent-Tabak-7570-1.law
The sexual Intent was needed to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak committed murder and not manslaughter:
So why did the judge not give him the minimum tarriff of 30 years....???????
Was it established that it was sexually motivated???
Or should Dr Vincent Tabak been inprisoned for Manslaughter???
-
I have a real conumdrum: (The Cider inside Joanna Yeates Flat....)
The cider that is shown in the pictures below is a specialised cider, and I wouldn't presume whether Bargain Booze had speciality beers in their store at that time:
Here's my problem: when I do a search on specified dates between 17/12/2010 and 31/12/2010 there are no results available to purchase the beer... Or buy online for a store such as Bargain Booze..
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=healeys+cider&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=1006&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A17%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A25%2F12%2F2010&tbm=
And when I change my search to include and up to the date Dr Vincent Tabak went to trial: Range from 17/12/2010 to 17/10/2011 I get this:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=healeys+cider&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=1006&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A17%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A17%2F10%2F2011&tbm=
10th January 2011 being the first search available about healeys..
Healeys Farm home page has a date of 2012 at the bottom so I don't know when they started selling cider online, but it cannot be those dates above in 2010:
The only way to get Healeys Cider before those dates I think is to purchase it from the Farm shop in cornwall:
A trip to Cornwall is needed.. (IMO)
So is the Healeys cider in the Jury photo's what was purchased:
Or DID the perpetrator leave it behind and what did the reciept from Bargain Booze show as regards the type of cider purchased...
Or was that reciept not available????
Did the Jury see the Bargain Booze reciept??
Did they check to see if Dr Vincent Tabak had every had Healey's Cider at home??
She kept her receipt from Tesco, so where's the Bargain Booze reciept!!
The above is confusing... can anyone shed any light on when Healeys sold to supermarkets and if Bargain Booze did at the time... Also what happened to the Reciept from Bargain Booze....
If this search I've done is correct and Healeys did not supply to Bargain Booze at the time in 2010..
Would this be classed as new evidence for COURT!!!
Search i did today at Bargain Booze online: http://www.bargainbooze.co.uk/catalogsearch/result?q=healeys
http://www.bargainbooze.co.uk/catalogsearch/result?q=healey%27s+cider+
I would have thought a store that sells beer at Bargain Prices would not have speciality beers on offer (IMO)
https://thecornishcyderfarm.co.uk/hello-world/
The video that is available of Joanna Yeates doesn't show what cider she purchased, But I believe the Jury saw her purchase cider as she went back to get the second bottle.. ( Don't know if they noted the type of cider it was?)
I may be being a bit uneducated about cider, But, why is there a wine cork bottle top there when the bottle looks like it has a screw lid?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
This is my post above about the Cider bottle and whether or not you could buy it from Bargain Booze at the time..
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg368125#msg368125
But then the CORK in the picture caught my eye so i investigated what it was:
If you look at the attached pictures you can see it is a CHAMPAGNE BOTTLE CORK!!!
TATTINGER REIMS.........
No mention of Champagne was ever mentioned in court...
Or That Joanna Yeates Had drunk Champagne that night......
EDIT: Greg Reardon had removed all of his possesions from the flat before the Jury had seen it... So if the cork was anything to do with the two of them, he would have kept it for sentimental reasons....
( No sudden excuse now.... On the reason why the champagne cork is on the table with the Healey's cider)!!
So.. who's cork was it??
SURELY NOW PEOPLE NEED TO LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE!!!!
I can only use what is available for anyone to investigate.... New Evidence... New Trial
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=joanna+yeates+flat++the+cider+on+the+table&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=1006&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwje_dbHpuDQAhUGBsAKHbeNBloQ_AUIBigB#imgrc=hbo9IaizNqYnjM%3A
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/gallery-inside-the-home-of-tragic-joanna-1084171
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Nine
I am pretty sure VT never appealed-----if he did, the public didn't hear about it.
Many of the accounts we read in the media are not accurate---don't you remember the report that said VT and Tanja had split up before Jo's murder? Next thing , he is off to spend Christmas and New Year with her, so obviously not accurate.
They could not prove that he had committed a sex offence. The pathologist did not think Jo had been sexually assaulted, although he did not rule it out. I believe the prosecution wanted to make it look like a sex offence though, and they wanted to introduce all that "bad character evidence" at the trial, but the judge would not allow it.
The prosecution wanted to make the jury believe it was a sex offence, IMO, because-------they did not have a motive.
-
I'll refer back to my post about the Healeys Classic reserve Cyder:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg368125#msg368125
It doesn't come in 330ml bottles..
I've found a reference that she bought two 330ml bottles of cider:
http://www.regionalpressawards.org.uk/userfiles/files/Winners2011/entries-201100090-00400.pdf
ONE of the shops
that Joanna Yeates
stopped at on her
journey home has
changed its name.
Bargain Booze in
Clifton Village,
where Miss Yeates
bought two 330ml
bottles of cider on her
way back to her flatin
Canynge Road, has
reverted to its previous
name and sign –
Baryah’s.
So the question is ... where did the HEALEYS Cider come from... The Healeys Classic Reserve doesn't come in that smaller sized bottle!!!
Lets not forget the TATTINGER REIMS champagne cork either...
New questions must arise from the fact that the Cider is not what she bought from Bargain Booze!!!
And the way she held her Black Bag.. Maybe the Champagne was inside it.....
I'm sure I remember her mum saying at court when they saw Jo in bargain booze she was looking at her phone.. (I thought she must have got a message).. And went back and bought another bottle of cider.
Healey's Classic Reserve come in 750ml bottle.......
So....... WHERE DID THE CIDER COME FROM!!!!!
I am more than positive Dr Vincent Tabak, didn't turn up with a Bottle of Healey's Cider and a Bottle of Tattinger Champagne!!!
The Cider Bottle is sat on the table in the alcove...(cork next to it)....
-
How do we know what Jo bought in Bargain Booze------never heard anything about a receipt, only one for the pizza.
Or did Greg, on returning from Sheffield, see the cider in the kitchen (we know he saw it and finished the open bottle), and when it was revealed that there was CCTV of Jo in Bargain Booze, he, Jo's parents and the police assumed that was what she had bought there? After all, the shop assistant in Bargain Booze did not remember serving Jo. He/she was asked.
No evidence as to what she bought there, as far as I can see, only that she went there.
Presumably, they had alcoholic drinks in their flat, as they were preparing for a party (weren't they???). The person who might have known what was new, was Greg. Or, perhaps he wouldn't have done: my hubby hasn't a clue what drinks I have bought in for Christmas!!
-
I just wanted to add a clearer picture of the front room:
You can see the bottle of cider on the table clearer...
It's on the left hand side of the table in the alcove...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
How do we know what Jo bought in Bargain Booze------never heard anything about a receipt, only one for the pizza.
Or did Greg, on returning from Sheffield, see the cider in the kitchen (we know he saw it and finished the open bottle), and when it was revealed that there was CCTV of Jo in Bargain Booze, he, Jo's parents and the police assumed that was what she had bought there? After all, the shop assistant in Bargain Booze did not remember serving Jo. He/she was asked.
No evidence as to what she bought there, as far as I can see, only that she went there.
Presumably, they had alcoholic drinks in their flat, as they were preparing for a party (weren't they???). The person who might have known what was new, was Greg. Or, perhaps he wouldn't have done: my hubby hasn't a clue what drinks I have bought in for Christmas!!
I'll try find the video with her mum saying that Jo had bought one bottle of cider , looked at her phone then went to get another bottle of cider....
There are reports of her buying two 330ml bottle of cider from Bargain booze...
The reports said that Greg finished the bottle of cider she had opened....
You think the Police would have noticed the cider was not the correct one...
And why leave a champagne Cork next to it on the table??? never mentioned in evidence.....
-
Having imbibed in several
alcoholic drinks there, she decided at 8.00 pm to go home and proceeded to walk home in the snow,
15
stopping at one shop to buy two bottles of cider and at another shop to buy one ready-prepared and
uncooked pizza.
. He saw two bottles of cider, one partly used. He drank the remains of the
48
partly used cider and he too, like Vincent Tabak, said that he ate a supper of pizza, from their
freezer.
Miss Yeates body discovered 3 miles away
On Friday 17 December 2010, as Greg Reardon left for Sheffield after work, Miss Yeates went to
The Bristol Ram, a public house near her place of work, in order to socialise and have some drinks
with people she knew. She always did that every Friday evening after work. Having imbibed in
several drinks of cider there, she decided at 20.00 hours to go home and proceeded to walk home,
stopping en route to buy two bottles of cider and one uncooked, ready-made cheese and tomato
pizza. She is alleged to have been seen by a vicar on her way home in the snow, Father George
Apartment 1 on Sunday, 19 December 2010 in the evening at 8.00 pm. As Miss Yeates was not at
home he waited, drank a half-empty bottle of cider he saw in the kitchen
http://philpapers.org/archive/RAMTMT-4.pdf
the above quotes are from the trial.... Sally Ramage papers....
She definetley bought two bottles of cider... and I don't think it was Healey's Cider!!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8228350/Joanna-Yeates-murder-architect-stopped-at-shop-to-buy-alcohol-on-night-she-disappeared.html
The 25-year-old architect went into Bargain Booze on Bristol's Regent Street - just a few metres
from the Tesco Express where she bought the pizza - and purchased some cider.
The two bottles of cider
The stories you need to read, in one handy email
Read more
Yeates also bought two bottles of cider on her way home. This led to speculation she had bought one for her and one for a guest she was expecting.
The explanation: CCTV footage of Yeates in the off-licence was shown in court. She picked up one bottle of cider, stepped away, then returned and grabbed a second, suggesting it had been a spontaneous purchase and was for her. According to the defence, Yeates opened one of the bottles and may have taken a sip from it before she was killed.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-murder-mysteries-explained
Police hunting for the killer of Joanna Yeates have revealed that the architect had purchased two bottles of cider on the night she disappeared and left one in her flat half-finished.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8229368/Joanna-Yeates-left-half-drunk-cider-bottle-when-she-disappeared.html
Did Joanna Yeates buy cider for her killer? Half-drunk bottle could provide vital clue in police hunt for murderer
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1342172/Did-Joanna-Yeates-buy-cider-killer-Bottle-clue-police-hunt.html#ixzz4S9c0ACQh
Security images from the Bargain Booze store in Clifton show her buying the 330ml bottles for around £4 before heading home.
Think that covers the cider purchase ......
Also it's mentioned in the video: Murder at christmas part one... `stopping first at Waitrose ,But doesn't buy anything...She pops into a shop to buy two Bottles of cider..
From 8:00 mins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X5I4eOKIBs
I thought everyone knew she bought the Cider from BargainBooze!!
-
why are there two Forensic tents...?
One to the opening to the left and one further up?
The first picture is the second tent...
On The picture that looks slightly foggy, You can just see it's outline and what looks like its diagonal pole:
Between the guy stood up in Black and the vehicle to the right of the picture, you can just make out the second tent:
Anyone notice the lack of snow?
So which one didn't cover Joanna Yeates???
Anyone got any ideas what that silver frame thing is to the right and just in front of the tent?
Or is there 3?..... The first picture is definetley what looks like a wall, but that is on the opposite side of the road, the picture is taken, going up... But where the tents are on the left, there is no wall...It's fencing!
It gets weirder ...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Extra tent to the right.....
Why so many Tents???
If the Tent to the right is where Joanna Yeates was found, why didn't someone see her sooner?
Is there an opening close to there ??
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I found this quote from a user called Tiddly Dee
Oh, and who was a witness to the images of children apparently found on his computer? Why haven’t the children been identified? Why haven’t Tabak’s associates been identified???? Ann Reddrop was involved in this, and she knew it was important to identify the children—she did an excellent job over the “Little Ted ” nursery case.
https://innocent.org.uk/2016/01/11/anthony-steele/
Has a good article about a man wrongly convicted:
Good question she raises... why where the children in the supposed photo's not identified.. Again the prosecution, got a guilty plea without having to fight a case...
That says more to me about Dr Vincent Tabak than anything... sounds like he's crushed, cannot fight a system that has already proven what it can do...
In this day and age where child abuse is at a high, I believe the Crown should be concentrating on getting people behind bars who are the real perv's.. whilst wasting money on Dr Vincent Tabak, to take him to court, where the
only purpose I could see was to bolster what I believe, is the original.. conviction..
There are no children under protection from this prosecution, because i believe that the pics were probably pseudo, they could have been as innocent as his nephews and neices running naked on a beach..
There are families out there who need the support of the police and services to protect them, and they waste money on a case with no real foundation....
There's limited funds for real prosecutions...And more and more keep coming to the attention of the police and media... Give them the money to prosecute there tormentors.... And not wasting it on charges that were only there for the prosecution to convince themselves they had the rightman....
The prosecution seem to be waving a flag, saying...See we told you he was a bad man, without any real concequences.. (it has achieved nothing)..
He was given 10 months, he won't be on any register.. He will go back to Holland.....
So what did they achieve? Only to keep in the mind of people that they supposedly convicted the right man for the murder of poor Joanna Yeates....
Maybe when he puts his head above the paripits and possibly says he wants to fight his conviction, someone comes alone with a big stick and shuts him up..(IMO)...
Because many of you have found it strange that he hasn't launched an appeal even if you haven't agreed with what I have said...
It is ODD that he hasn't launched an appeal, or anyone hearing ANYTHING about Dr Vincent Tabak....
That's sounds to me just like his application for Bail... There not gonna let him do it..(IMO)....
Look how they made CJ look when they wanted him to be the murderer.... plenty of people in the country believed what was said...
Why do you think they never let CJ off the hook immediately after Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest??
-
I found out WHY CJ wasn't let off the hook immediateley after Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest...
After I watched.......
Judge Rinders Crime channel on Jo Yeates... CJ explained why he was not freed from the bail ......
In CJ's own words.....
Around 39:25 mins of the Programme CJ says:
Under Suspicion.. Now I gather that one of the reasons for the delay was that Vincent Tabak when he was arreated.... refused to say anything...And therefore the police continued to entertain the suspicion that possibly there had been some sort of collusion... Between myself and Vincent Tabak
I had always wondered why CJ hadn't been cleared when they arrested Dr Vincent Tabak.... They still believed CJ had done it!!!
There was obviously no real investigation into what happened to Joanna Yeates, they decided early on it had to be someone in that building... Anyone in that building....
So lets say instead... That Joanna Yeates let Dr Vincent Tabak into the flat instead...(Why on earth would she do that!!!)
They probably believed it would have needed two people to move the body from the flat as there were no drag marks... (IMO)
They probably believed that CJ had to let him in with his keys... (IMO)
What on earth did they use to CHARGE him with then???? because this was before the confession, and in CJ's words they thought he'd helped!!!!
So we then have the Chaplain's so called confession and as far as I am aware the Chaplain did not testify to the fact that Dr Vincent Tabak confessed he'd killed Joanna Yeates...
At 38:25 mins the police officer says...
In February 2011, he disclosed to a prison chaplain erm... that he had killed Joanna and that he was going to admit it in court
So why did it take till March to release CJ finally!!!!
But at 33:32 mins: The Officer in charge of the casse says:
It was around the 20th January that erm.... we positively identified, that there were components, in mixed DNA of Vincent Tabak
Components?????? So it wasn't a full DNA match....!!!! (what the hell are components when they are at home..)
The Police then describe him as : At 35:05 mins
Vincent Tabak was a professional guy ..Well educated over in the Netherlands... He had no police convictions....Very placid individual to deal with..
Easy target then..(IMO)
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4htq8y
EDIT:....
The Police are basically saying that they had no real evidence on Dr Vincent Tabak, because the DNA, were Components of Dr Vincent Tabak, and not a full profile(Said in the polices own words..)
The still believed that CJ had something to do with it... The supposed CONFESSION was all they had to use..... And needed to find anything they could misconstrue into supposed evidence (IMO)...
So why didn't they give him Bail??
Because up until the confession, they had nothing......
And in the polices own words... he was PLACID.... (is it an acronym ?)
P: Prosecution
L: Like
A: Alienating
C: Civilians
I: In
D: Detention...... In my opinion
The police always described him as a monster before!!!
-
Had the Police ever thought that maybe Joanna Yeates actually left the building with someone she possibly new?
Or someone who convinced her to leave the building for a reason??
It would have been just as easy for someone to kill her else where and put her things back into the flat...
Did Greg ever say that both door locks were locked??
I don't remember him ever saying that...
-
I have just watched that video---hadn't heard of that series before.
I always understood that they kept Chris Jefferies on bail for so long because they had found a pair of trainers with a bloodstain on them while searching his flat, and so they didn't release him from bail until forensic tests had been done on these trainers, and come back clear.
I suspected that they were hedging their bets, though: they were not sure whether or not he was involved with VT, and also they had someone to fall back on, had they not been able to get anywhere with VT. That is my opinion, but then I am a cynic.
A placid murderer, eh. Would make a good title for a book about VT. I have not heard this description of him by a police officer before.
-
The police must have wondered whether Joanna left the flat with somebody she knew, as Chris Jefferies had told them that he saw and heard two or three people, one of whom might have been Joanna, leaving the building.
So, they must have thought about it. The police would have been open to all possibilities: they would not have been so naive as to think that, because Joanna's essential belongings were left in the flat, then she MUST have been killed in her flat. They must also have been perfectly aware that there was no trace of VT in her flat.
However, VT signed a statement saying that he killed her in her flat, and he pleaded guilty to manslaughter, so they didn't have to think about this aspect of the case any more. That made their job a lot easier, and let's face it, very few people have asked questions, making it easier still.
-
Just cross referencing the statements made about Dr Vincent Tabak:
CrimeWatch story part 2 Andrew Mott Forensic Coordinator: says at 5:05 mins
IN the boot of the car, we were able to find minute traces of blood that was erm.. That was a match to Joanna Yeates
Judge Rinder program Joanna Yeates: At 36:25 mins The Policeman in charge says:
When we examined the boot of the car a spot of blood was identified on the rubber seal....... around by the boot, came back as being 1 in a billion belonging to Joanna Yeates
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4htq8y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRDtLjPfdw0
A few interesting points there:
Officers who worked at the spot in Longwood Lane, Failand, where the body of
Jo was left are banned from Canynge Road, Clifton, where she lived.
A separate team has been operating at her flat to keep any forensic evidence
intact.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/300493/jo-crucial-clue-found/
Andrew Mott!!! the same Andrew Mott... whom:
Andrew Mott, a forensic officer who reached the scene after police arrived shortly after 9am, told how he tried to prevent Miss Yeates's body thawing out.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/277423/Killer-weeps-over-images-of-Jo-body
It was either a minute trace of Joanna Yeates blood......
OR..... A spot???? Can they not make their minds up...
Did Andrew Mott conduct the test on Dr Vincent Tabak's car???
Remember the police said they were keeping the too scenes seperate??
Was it in the BOOT as Andrew Mott infers??? or have we changed to the RUBBER SEAL????
Is....... ERM... an offical term????
Question: How Did Andrew Mott go from being just a Forensic Officer to A Forensic Coordinator????
EDIT: Why is it that when ever I try to find out what Andrew Mott has to say the only comment you get is
Forensic officer Andrew Mott, who reached the scene after police arrived shortly after 9am, told how he tried to prevent Miss Yeates’s body thawing out.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/10/14/killer-vincent-tabak-cove_n_1010686.html
You would think as the Forensic Co-ordinator, he would of had a much bigger role in COURT!!!
Extremely perplexing... And being at two different Events (IMO)
EDIT: Follow
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Forensic Scientist still giving evidence. Confirming blood in boot of Tabak's car came from Joanna Yeates.
3:38 AM - 18 Oct 2011
So not on the rubber seal then!!
From the trial Twitter:
So... not Andrew Mott then?????
-
Was gonna EDIT:
But decided to reply instead:
Andrew Mott.... The illusive Andrew Mott.....
Senior investigating officer Andrew Mott, of Avon and Somerset Police, said: "This was a desperately sad case in which a young person's life was cut tragically short.
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/teenager-jailed-life-murdering-18-year-old/story-27909364-detail/story.html
1 - Crown Court Commendation – Melanie Road investigation team
Detective Chief Inspector Julie Mackay, Case Review Criminal Investigation Officer Gary Mason and civilian Senior Investigating Officer Andrew Mott were recognised for their relentless pursuit of justice for Melanie’s family.
https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/newsroom/commitment-and-tenacity-celebrated-at-force-awards-ceremony/
Is this the same Andrew Mott... Forensic Co-ordinator?????
Andrew Mott, a forensic officer who reached the scene after police arrived shortly after 9am, told how he tried to prevent Miss Yeates's body thawing out.
Tabak's QC, William Clegg, questioned why photographs were not taken of a broom being used to arrange straps underneath the body so her body could be taken away.
"I can't comment on why that was the case," Mr Mott said.
AFTER POLICE... that sounds like he's seperate from them!!! (sounds like he's with the pathology lab)..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-34413947
Silly me I was under the impression that he was Some sort of Forensic Specialist???? Thought he'd come from the Pathologist lab...
But he's a Police officer...... Big difference!!!
What was he doing then trying to stop Joanna Yeates body from thawing out????
I thought that they put up a tent to preserve the scene of crime so that nobody touched the body... No cross contamination... Until Dr Delaney examined it???
But.... the reason they gave for not putting up a tent was to stop contamination... (are they barking!!)
Why was Andrew Mott allowed to be near the body of Joanna Yeates!!!!
-
The quotes below are from Twitter, from Journalists who were in court Tweeting as it happened.....
At Dr Vincent Tabak's trial..
Follow
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Because of the snowy, icy conditions Mott was concerned about putting tent over the body in case it changed conditions surrounding body
He said it was Thawing.....
Temperatures inside the Forensic Tent wouldn't be any different as it was freezing outside!
He decided not to do it because of his knowledge in pathology..... that is so extensive...erm....
Follow
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Because of the conditions Mott says the recovery of the body was "always going to be problematic"
2:41 AM - 14 Oct 2011
Shouldn't the pathologist suggest how to move it?
Follow
Julia Reid
@juliareid5news
Mott says the body and ground were frozen. Defence asks about a broom handle used to help feed straps under the body.
2:42 AM - 14 Oct 2011
Hang on a minute.... I thought you said it was thawing??
Did they not free joanna Yeates body fully or did they yank with the straps....
They could have caused allsorts of problems with straps and broom handles..
Was it them whom ruffled Joanna Yeates clothes as they poked and prodded at her to release her from the frozen ground????
How did they actually remove Joanna Yeates body???
Follow
Julia Reid
@juliareid5news
Mr Mott says contamination of the frozen body with the broom handle was minimised. #Vincenttabak #Joannayeates
2:49 AM - 14 Oct 2011
Oh.... So there was contamination....
So they are saying they chipped away with broom handles to release Joanna yeates from where she had lain??
That doesn't sound very professional to me.... So why all the Fire engines
How many people where chipping away with broom handles??
The 27 Fire men they had there , Plus Andrew Mott... what are we talking????
Follow
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Def "you can't eliminate the real possibility there may have been contact" between broom and body? Mott agrees
2:49 AM - 14 Oct 2011
And maybe you hit the wall with the broom handle?????
Follow
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Mott noted blood staining on the wall. #joyeates
2:29 AM - 14 Oct 2011
Was that after struggling with an unwieldly broom handle????
These above quotes are from Twitter: Just search and you can find them:
Again Andrew Mott...... Now why is it him who finds the blood on the wall when he was supposed to be protecting the body????????
If the body was thawing as he says... (we have loads of quotes of him saying that.)
Then him being any where near anything else could cause cross contamination....
He should have had one job, and one job only!!!!
Where was there...... At the second scene anywhere for Andrew Mott to clean himself down and change into a new set of coveralls??? or anyone else involved in the removal??
Don't think there were any proper hand washing fascillaties available...
This the same Andrew Mott who mentions about Joanna yeates blood being inside the boot of the car...
Now call me cynical... But how is it that Andrew Mott finds the blood on the wall.... Is looking after Joanna Yeates because she's thawing.. and miraculously, talks about her blood in the boot of Dr Vincent Tabak's car!!!!!
Why 3 forensic Tents then??
The only pictures available of police officers with broom stick's are the ones searching the verge... The definetaley didn't have protective clothes on..... Did they share sticks????
So they managed to free Joanna Yeates with broom sticks before Dr Delaney examined her making sure no injuries had been caused with people in constant contact with her body.....
Oh what a tangled web we weave..........(IMO)
-
Lets look at the blood on the wall......
Forensic scientist Tanya Nickson, who examined bloodstains found on a wall next to where Miss Yeates had been found on Christmas morning on Longwood Lane, in Failand, said the pattern indicated smearing rather than splattering.
Pattern indicated smearing:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8834133/Vincent-Tabak-confessed-Joanna-Yeates-killing-in-emotional-meeting-with-prison-chaplain.html
Mr Lickley said blood stains were found on a wall close to where Miss Yeates's body was found,
Now is that a spot like before??
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-15257562
A smear of heavily clotted blood on the top of the wall had dripped downwards but there was no "blood splatter", suggesting that no assault took place in the vicinity.
Clotted Blood.....
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/joanna-yeates-fought-killer/story-13538504-detail/story.html#vzuvXmTEMYGa7Y4I.99
So........ It was Tanya Nickson the FORENSIC SCIENTIST, who examined the blood stains on the wall..
Not the Forensic Co-ordinator Andrew Mott!! who was weilding a broom Handle...
They have varying descriptions of this stain???? which one was it??
I always wondered how Joanna Yeates continued to loose blood after being dead for so long??
She wasn't stabbed or shot.....
Wouldn't it have clotted by the time Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have disposed of her there ????
She's been dead for Two hours at this point according to the prosecution....
Well who would have believed it... I can't find anything on Tanya Nickson...
I've done a range of dates from: 20th Dec 2008 to 6th Dec 2016...
The only reference is this case of Joanna Yeates:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Tanya+Nickson+forensics+scientist&biw=1920&bih=1006&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A20%2F12%2F2008%2Ccd_max%3A06%2F12%2F2016&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:20%2F12%2F2008%2Ccd_max:06%2F12%2F2016&q=Tanya+Nickson+forensics+scientist
Where are Tanya Nicksons credentials as a Forensic scientist???
-
Just had another thought:
If Joanna yeates was covered in leaf debris, and that was frozen to her body, where was the Forensic Scientist, collecting any available evidence that could be used..
Before any Police Officers go near her......
Why do we go to Andrew Mott.... And his trusty Broom handle....
Shouldn't the Forensic scientist have been assessing the scene of crime before Mr Plod waded in with his trusty broom handle...
He obviously had difficulty discerning the weather temperature and the effects on a frozen body...
No: I Know.....He used the power of the broom handle stuck up in the air to tell him which way the wind was blowing...
Shouldn't the forensic examiner, be carefully collecting evidence, layer by layer...
Next question: Did the forensic examiner use a Broom Handle!!!!
-
Tanja Nickson:
On Tuesday, it was shown during the evidence of forensic scientist Tanya Nickson.
She had examined bloodstains found on a wall next to where Miss Yeates was found on Christmas morning in Failand, near Bristol.
Ms Nickson said the blood pattern indicated smearing rather than splattering - meaning it was unlikely that Miss Yeates had been assaulted there.
She told the court: "The presence of the blood on the top of the wall may indicate that an attempt was made to deposit the body over the top of the wall."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-england-bristol-15350510
The mortuary image was shown to Bristol Crown Court as part of the evidence presented by forensic scientist Tanya Nickson who examined blood satins found on the wall next to where Miss Yeates' body was found on Christmas Day last year.
Is that all this woman did... examine bloods stains on the wall!!!
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/vincent-tabak-joanna-yeates-parents-weep-cried-photo-shown-trail-latest-murder-miss-yeates-tabak-lat-233191
As the image of 25-year-old Miss Yeates was shown, Teresa Yeates looked away and was comforted by her husband David.
The photograph - along with others - had been shown to the jury already on Friday, but Mr and Mrs Yeates were not in court.
Why would she need to show these images, as obviously Jo's parents had made sure that they were not present when they were first shown... How awful.....
Now: I thought the blood was found half way down the wall??
And has it been established as to what Tanja Nicksons qualifications are??
Why is she showing Mortuary images.... Is it to get the juries sympathy, whilst forgetting she has Joanna Yeates parents in front of her distraught...
Why did she feel the need to bolster the wall evidence by showing mortuary pictures????
Was she from the Mortuary???? Not as far as i can find her.....
Who is Tanja Nickson!!!!!!
This is quite worrying... It appear that they allowed an unqualified woman to explain Scentific Evidence, whilst also upsetting Joanna Yeates parents...
That cannot be right!!!
Edit:
I was thinking maybe I was being unkind to Tanja Nickson...
Maybe she works in some Lab somewhere...
Then I remembered she was given Mortuary photo's, which I cannot see how she would have had access too if she was just a Forensic Scientist.. who was not connected to the Mortuary for instance..
How DID she get those photographs???
Still not convinced she has any qualifications in relation to Forensic Science!! (IMO)
-
More from Tanja Nickson: (Apologies in advance for the long post: But it's worth a read....)
Tanya Nickson, also a forensic scientist, said blood found on the wall next to where Miss Yeates' body was found was consistent with her being killed elsewhere, and could have been deposited in a failed attempt to push her over into a quarry below.
As Ms Nickson gave details of how Miss Yeates was found in a state of partial undress, the 25-year-old landscape architect's mother closed her eyes.
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/mum-s-tears-joanna-yeates-murder-trial/story-13598437-detail/story.html#gsVEvgIcbiMWo9zb.99
Forensic scientist Lindsay Lennen explained how she examined DNA samples taken from Miss Yeates's body, her clothes and from the boot of Tabak's Renault Megane car.
It gets so interesting:
It started as a missing person inquiry on December 18, 2010, says Lindsey Lennen, a body fluids and DNA specialist (who, like many forensic scientists, says the work is "all I ever wanted to do"). The team started by examining items from Joanna's home, looking for foreign DNA. Then on Christmas Day, Yeates was found dead, on a country road.
A colleague went down to supervise the removal of her clothing and preserve any body fluids: "The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky." Under the media glare, the work was flat-out: clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jan/17/csi-oxford-lgc-forensics
oanna Yeates
It started as a missing person inquiry on December 18, 2010, says Lindsey Lennen, a body fluids and DNA specialist (who, like many forensic scientists, says the work is "all I ever wanted to do"). The team started by examining items from Joanna's home, looking for foreign DNA. Then on Christmas Day, Yeates was found dead, on a country road.
A colleague went down to supervise the removal of her clothing and preserve any body fluids: "The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky." Under the media glare, the work was flat-out: clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours.
"Eventually, we found something," Lennen says. "On swabs and tapes from her breasts, and tapes from three areas of her jeans. There were DNA components that matched one of the suspects, Vincent Tabak." But there wasn't enough, of enough quality, to evaluate – perhaps because of the high salt levels where the body was found, following heavy snowfall.
So the team deployed an LGC technique known as DNA SenCE, which purifies, concentrates and enhances otherwise unusable DNA: "We couldn't say whether the DNA was from saliva, or semen, or even touch. But we could say that the probability of it not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion."
With the killer's confession, Lennen's DNA evidence was not further tested. "It happens, in court," she says. "You get called biased, in the police's pay. You have to tell the truth, not stretch what you have. If you don't know which of two alternatives is more likely, you must say so."
http://www.theforensicforum.co.uk/Board/index.php?PHPSESSID=aa25c9141f14a6f81947f9e53125ed37&action=recent;start=70
So..... they went to see Dr Delaney and help him remove Joanna Yeates clothes????
The body was frozen????
Hang on a minute:..... Why are they removing the clothes of Joanna Yeates before her body had thawed???
Where they at the mortuary Or the second scene of crime???
OK.... How did they have the suspects clothes at the same time as Joanna yeates...
Because she says in the next breath:
Under the media glare, the work was flat out: clothing swabs, suspects clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours
WHAT... Now I'm sure on the :
Crimewatch The Full story Part 2 at 4:00 mins
Then shortly before the reconstruction was due to air.... They made a dramatic breakthrough...
Forensics Scientists had spent weeks enhancing the tiny DNA sample on Jo's body.. enabling them to now establish a link...To Vincent Tabak
So was it 48 hours or weeks????
How did they have anything from Dr Vincent Tabak at that time????
Oh yes... doesn't Cj say on the Rinder programe.. At 13:11
All the people who lived in 44, Canygne Road... were interviewed, statements were taken... So... my statement was taken along with everyone else...
DNA samples were taken, finger prints, were taken.... It was all entirely Voluntary..But obviously nobody had anything to hide....
So nobody was in the least bit concerned.. erm.... about co-operating in that way...
Well Well Well.......
So they had already taken DNA samples from the tenants and finger prints!!!!!
This would explain Lyndsey Lennons comment on turning the suspect and Joanna yeates DNA round in 48 hours..
NOW.... we have a question!!!
Why the SONG AND DANCE with going to Holland???
On Joanna yeates.. Crimewatch the full story part two:
The Police woman who went to hollland says.... This was Dec 31st 2010 when they went to Holland:
And.. Then his reluctance to give his DNA at the end of the process.... Started to ring alarm bells
OK... we have:
(A): Lyndsey Lennon.. who states they had Joanna Yeates clothes and the suspects clothes to test at the same
time.....
(B): We Have CJ... who says that all the tenants gave statements, DNA and finger print samples...
(C): And the Police woman... who claimed that Dr Vincent Tabak was reluctant to give his DNA.....
Now it's not a trick question....
But which two statements fit together here???????
I'm going (A) and (B)..... any takers???
Lets go back to Lyndsey Lennens quote...
There were DNA components that matched one of the suspects, Vincent Tabak." But there wasn't enough, of enough quality, to evaluate – perhaps because of the high salt levels where the body was found, following heavy snowfall.
There's that word again: COMPONENTS!!
There wasn't enough.. not enough quality..... because of the high levels of salt where the body had lain??
Come again: SALT... Doesn't salt get rid of ICE!!! (YES.. the gritters had been out)..(always wonder why it never looked that snowy)
Why didn't anyone think about the gritters... they would have sprayed the verge and the road where Joanna Yeates body had lain, the body would have thawed, the body cannot have been there all that time??
Someone ..SURELY ..would have seen Joanna Yeates if the gritters were out salting the road...
This is too confusing.... In The words of the experts:
So she frozen solid, frozen to the ground, whilst thawing with salt interfering with the quality of DNA available....
(oh my god... I've just fallen off my chair laughing at them... are they for real!!!)
Sorry for the long post... But crying out loud... what is this case saying!!!!!
Forensic scientist Lindsay Lennen explained how she examined DNA samples taken from Miss Yeates's body, her clothes and from the boot of Tabak's Renault Megane car.
Edit: Officers who worked at the spot in Longwood Lane, Failand, where the body of
Jo was left are banned from Canynge Road, Clifton, where she lived.
A separate team has been operating at her flat to keep any forensic evidence
intact.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/300493/jo-crucial-clue-found/
What's the point of keeping the crime scenes seperate... If the foresenic expert is testing from both crime scenes?????
Had she been at two crime scenes...?? Remember she turned everything around in 48 hours??????
The Police said that they kept both crime scenes seperate!!!
From the same guardian piece:
Because the thing about DNA evidence, strong as it is, large as it looms in the public's imagination, is that it connects a human and an object. It doesn't prove when the two came into contact. Nor does it necessarily prove they were actually in direct contact at all.
There you go.......
-
Let carry on with Lyndey Lennen:
So the team deployed an LGC technique known as DNA SenCE, which purifies, concentrates and enhances otherwise unusable DNA: "We couldn't say whether the DNA was from saliva, or semen, or even touch. But we could say that the probability of it not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion."
Where have I heard that before?
Judge Rinder program Joanna Yeates: At 36:25 mins The Policeman in charge says:
When we examined the boot of the car a spot of blood was identified on the rubber seal....... around by the boot, came back as being 1 in a billion belonging to Joanna Yeates
Is this a standard answer?? Less than a Billion???
Did Lyndey Lennen Testify to the fact that Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA was less than a Billion to one chance of being anyone else???
With the killer's confession, Lennen's DNA evidence was not further tested. "It happens, in court," she says. "You get called biased, in the police's pay. You have to tell the truth, not stretch what you have. If you don't know which of two alternatives is more likely, you must say so."
Hello............
That statement is a none statement!!!
With the killer's confession, Lennen's DNA evidence was not further tested.
Why Lyndsey Lennen, would you need to test Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA further???? I thought it was 1 in a Billion??
Or were you gonna make damn sure and test it so it said one in A Trillion Billion!!! (Erm....)
Ah..... Dr Vincent Tabak confessed... I see..
So are you saying it really needed further testing???
But surely your statement of:
But we could say that the probability of it not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion."
Now... Is that a fact that it was 1 in a billion match to Dr Vincent Tabak ..
Or... You could say???
Is 1 in a billion a number that sounds good???
Was the match to Dr Vincent Tabak 1 in a billion??? Because I think i remember you saying..
But there wasn't enough, of enough quality, to evaluate – perhaps because of the high salt levels where the body was found, following heavy snowfall.
So... degraded then...
You turned it around in 48 hours... Now I thought painstaking testing was done...
Sounds a bit rushed to me...
LGC Forensics have had problems in the past with cross contamination.... Is that with turning things around in 48 hours...???
LGC Forensics whom in Oct 2011
Mr Scott was charged in 23 October 2011 after a plastic tray containing a sample of his DNA was re-used in the analysis of a swab from a rape victim in Plant Hill Park, Blackley. The result of that test linked him to the crime.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19782917
This massive case of Joanna Yeates was so important to turn around, did they just get sloppy...???
They had to change their standards after they were found to have contaminated evidence.. And this was after Dr Vincent Tabak's testing!!!!
What qualifications does Lyndsey Lennen have....
The reason I ask, is the in a Lab they could have anyone testing... Doesn't mean that they are qualified...
I've got an example of labs and no qualifications, where testing is done by any Tom Dick Or Harry that walks off the Unemployment line...
From me:
My son had been unemployed for a while and the local Mirco lab that tests food samples, were looking for staff..So he has no qualification to speak of... especially in science..But they employed him and he tested for Salmonella etc etc.... Now.... the thing that made me giggle was he had a white coat and a staff ID badge saying MICRO BIOLOGIST..... looked good... But he is no more a Micro biologist than I am Beyoncey!!
So are these people fully qualified FORENSIC SCIENTISTS or BEYONCEY?????????
Isn't it time these people explained themselves, instead of boasting in newspapers what there role was in the Joanna Yeates trial......
Another example from the LGC lab,... an interesting quote, that leaves me cold..
"KM screening," pronounces Caroline Sheriff, forensic scientist. "You drip the solution on to your filter paper, then hydrogen peroxide. If it goes pink, it indicates the presence of blood." Down the corridor, lengths of clear sticky tape are patted patiently on to a blouse, and removed again, lifting off fibres. A woman stares into a microscope. "Sperm heads, probably," Sheriff says.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jan/17/csi-oxford-lgc-forensics
A woman stares into a microscope "sperm heads, probably," Sheriff says.
Now... YOU are supposed to be a FORENSIC SCIENTIST!!!!! Do you not know what Sperm Heads look like under a microscope???
How many people at this Laboratory are fully qualified Forensic Scientists.. Or do they just do a bit of testing??
Titles always make it sound like you have qualifications coming out of your ears.... But the title doesn't mean that your qualified:
For Instance the job my friend does could be classed as:
An Off Turf Accountant....
Sounds quite qualified, sounds like she has it all going on upstairs:
ACCOUNTANT.... that word conjures up thoughts of Mathematics, problem solving, skill sets that have had years of education.....
But No ... I'm afraid to say... she's extremeley down to earth and doesn't call herself an.... OFF Turf Accountant...
She says" I'm A Till Tart in A Bookies!!!!!
Again a range of dates for Lyndsey Lennen: 1st Aug 2008 to 7th Dec 2016 and guess what..... Nothing but the Joanna Yeates Trial..
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=lyndsey+lennen%27s&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=962&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A01%2F08%2F2008%2Ccd_max%3A07%2F12%2F2016&tbm=
EDIT: Ms Lennen also examined DNA samples taken from Miss Yeates's body, her clothes and from the boot of Tabak's Renault Megane car.
Maybe thats how Joanna Yeates blood got in the boot sample???
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-england-bristol-15350510
Wouldn't it make more sense that one person tested Joanna Yeates Samples...
And another tested, Dr Vincent Tabak's items.....
Might stop cross contamination.....
Just a thought....
-
Lets look at components:
Quote
There were DNA components that matched one of the suspects, Vincent Tabak." But there wasn't enough, of enough quality, to evaluate – perhaps because of the high salt levels where the body was found, following heavy snowfall.
We also have The Policemans statement of:
It was around the 20th January that erm.... we positively identified, that there were components, in mixed DNA of Vincent Tabak
Now which one is the most qualified to explain what components are???? And where you look for them????
Neither (IMO) As far as i'm aware , they were never asked what their qualifications were!!!!
Did Lyndsey Lennen explain to the jury what components they found????
What are the components of DNA?
A:
QUICK ANSWER
DNA is a long molecule composed of two chains of smaller molecules called nucleotides, each which contain a region of nitrogen called the nitrogenous base, a carbon-based sugar molecule called deoxyribose and a region of phosphorus called the phosphate group. There are four types of nitrogenous bases: adenine (abbreviated as A), thymine (abbreviated as T), guanine (abbreviated as G) and cytosine (abbreviated as C).
Thats a difficult one to understand.....
So we have nucleotides:
What are the three components of a nucleotide?
The three components of a nucleotide are the nitrogenous base, the five-carbon sugar and the phosphate group. In turn, the nucleotides are the building components of both DNA and RNA.
The nitrogenous base molecules in DNA are the amino acids adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine, while in RNA the guanine is replaced with uracil. The sugar molecules are different in the nucleotides of DNA and RNA; they are 2-deoxyribose and ribose, respectively. The final molecular component of the nucleotide is the phosphate group, or in some cases up to three phosphate groups. In addition to being the subunit of DNA and RNA, nucleotides are also important in cell metabolism, cell signaling, enzymatic reactions and the transfer of energy within a cell.
https://www.reference.com/science/three-components-nucleotide-ad89e1f6f0f1d664?qo=contentSimilarQuestions#
Now I'm sure you didn't even bother reading that... I'm not suprised, there's alot of info there that's hard to understand.....
So does the Policeman know:
The three components of a nucleotide are the nitrogenous base, the five-carbon sugar and the phosphate group. In turn, the nucleotides are the building components of both DNA and RNA.
Or did he just use the word COMPONENTS to make himself sound good?????????
The Policeman's Scientific qualifications are as follows...........................................
................................
I think that's none existent !!!!
Why on earth make a statement that you cannot quantify????
Forensic scientist:
1. Entry requirements
You’ll usually need a degree or postgraduate award in forensic science. You may also be able to get into this career with a science-based degree like chemistry, biology, life sciences, applied sciences or medical sciences.
If you want to specialise in electronic casework (recovering data from computers, mobile phones and other electronic equipment), you may need experience and qualifications in computing, electrical engineering, electronics or physics.
To start as a forensics lab support assistant, you’ll need A levels, a BTEC or an HND in science.
You’ll usually need colour-normal vision
https://nationalcareersservice.direct.gov.uk/job-profiles/forensic-scientist
Are any of the Forensic Scientists members of:
The Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences..... http://www.csofs.org/
Did the Forensic Scientists that gave evidence that I mentioned have: "A Degree or Postgraduate award in Forensic Science"
Or were they just assistants with possibly: "Forensics Lab Support Assistant, you’ll need A levels, a BTEC or an HND in science.
Do Not Forget.... These are ENTRY Requirements......
To get to take your Degree you need these requirements:
Forensic Science BSc(Hons): Entry requirements
Entry requirements for 2017
English language requirements
Entry requirements for 2017
Typical offer
Points: minimum 104/112, depending on qualifications, and on joint honours combination
Units: to include two A-levels or equivalent
Subjects:
A-levels 104 points. Subjects: one A-level or equivalent required in Biology, Chemistry or Science (32 points); two science A-levels desirable; General Studies not accepted. BTEC in appropriate subjects accepted (112 points).
Plus GCSE A*–C (or comparable numeric score under the newly reformed GCSE gradings): five subjects including English Language, Mathematics and Science.
Tariff points for AS levels completed but not carried forward to A2 level are included in points total.
http://www.kingston.ac.uk/undergraduate-course/forensic-science/entry-requirements.html
Now.... who out of them lot, has the basic minimum requirement to attend a University in the first place to Gain their degree.....
Come on down.... lets see those qualifications......
-
Now when Dr Vincent Tabak appeared on the Witness stand, it was made clear what his qualifications were:
Fluent in Dutch, English and German, after school in 1996 he began studying at Eindhoven University of Technology, where he gained a degree in architecture, building and planning.
Between 1999 and 2003 Mr Tabak worked as a research assistant and part-time teaching assistant at the university before embarking on a PhD on ‘User Simulation of Space Utilisation’ – a research project looking at developing a system exploring links between buildings and the movement of humans within offices.
In his thesis the Dutchman had warm words of praise for his partner, saying: ‘I want to thank my girlfriend Tanja Morson for her support in the last difficult month of my PhD. I am very happy that she entered my life.’
So he didn't finish his PHD till 2008 at the earliest.....
So nearly 10 years of intense study....
So has either Tanja Nickson or Lyndsey Lennon got a degree in Biology.. Chemistry "Forensic Science"???
How long did they train for them to become Fully Qualified??
I'm positive if you asked Dr Vincent Tabak, to quantify anything in the fields that he has studied, he could give a full comprehensive answer...
Which would probably loose most of us!!!
But the question is could: Tanja Nickson or Lyndsey Lennen?????
Did either of them get questioned in COURT to their Qualifications and Experience in the field of "Forensic Science"...
-
I have just watched that video---hadn't heard of that series before.
I always understood that they kept Chris Jefferies on bail for so long because they had found a pair of trainers with a bloodstain on them while searching his flat, and so they didn't release him from bail until forensic tests had been done on these trainers, and come back clear.
I suspected that they were hedging their bets, though: they were not sure whether or not he was involved with VT, and also they had someone to fall back on, had they not been able to get anywhere with VT. That is my opinion, but then I am a cynic.
A placid murderer, eh. Would make a good title for a book about VT. I have not heard this description of him by a police officer before.
A PLACID MURDERER:
Now where in the realms of Psychology Does a Placid Murderer fit in..????
Types of Serial killers.. the psychologist in the Documentary inferred that Dr Vincent Tabak was a serial killer in the making.....
The Medical Killer
Although this type of killer is very rare, there have been some people who have become involved in the medical industry as a way to carry out their nefarious deeds. This type of killer feels they have the perfect cover because it is very common for people in a hospital to pass away. They are usually highly intelligent and know how to carefully and cleverly conceal their murders. As long as it appears that a victim has died a natural death, there will be no reason for anyone to suspect foul play and search for the guilty party. A few doctors in history have managed to kill dozens of people before others began to catch on.
Well he doesn't fit that description... No access to medical facilities...
The Organized Killer
This type of serial killer is the most difficult to identify and capture. They are usually highly intelligent and well organized to the point of being meticulous. Every detail of the crime is planned out well in advance, and the killer takes every precaution to make sure they leave no incriminating evidence behind. It is common for this type of psychopath to watch potential victims for several days to find someone they consider to be a good target. Once the victim is chosen, the killer will pick them up, often through some sort of ploy designed to gain their sympathy, and take them to another location to commit the murder. Once the person has been killed, the perpetrator will usually take precautions to ensure the body is not found … until they want it to be. A criminal like this usually takes great pride in what they consider to be their “work” and have a tendency to pay close attention to news stories about their deeds. One of their motivating factors may be just to attempt to stump the law enforcement officers who are trying to solve their crime.
Now they did say Dr Vincent Tabak was was oraganised....
Was this crime planned out well in advance???
But did they say, that he watched his victim??
Did they say that he took Joanna Yeates to another location to commit the murder???
Did they say he took precautions for the body not to be found??
Gain their sympathy....
No incriminating evidence... better take the Pizza!!
Was every detailed planned out well in advance ???
What ploy could Dr Vincent Tabak have used to gain Joanna yeates sympathy???
The body was not concealed... How could it be there was Salt on the road and the verge from the gritters.. Drivers who had travelled up and down that road depositing Salt!
When was he supposed to have been watching Joanna Yeates?? He only got back from the USA on the 11th Dec 2010, and he was back at work on the 14th Dec 2010... So when did he have time to watch her??
The Disorganized Killer
These individuals rarely plan out the deaths of their victims in any way. Most often, the people they kill just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. This type of serial killer appears to strike at random whenever an opportunity arises. They take no steps to cover up any signs of their crime, and tend to move to different towns or even states regularly to avoid being captured. Disorganized killers usually have low IQ’s and are extremely [ censored word]ocial. They rarely have close friends or family, and do not like to stay in one place for too long. These killers are prone to have no recollection of their deeds, or to confess that they were motivated by voices in their heads or some other imaginary source.
Was the murder planned by Dr Vincent Tabak???
Did he move to Holland???
Did he take no steps to cover up the crime???
Has he got a low IQ??
Is He Anti social??
Has he got no close friends or family??
Did he confess to voices in his head??
Well he doesn't fit that Profile:
The Psychologist on Joanna Yeates gave her assessment of Dr Vincent Tabak:
Joanna Yeates Murder at Christmas part Two : 11:30 mins
The presenter says first: Some experts believe that Vincent Tabak was a serial killer in the making
Followed by the Psychologist saying:
He does present an unusual profile to be a one offence killer... when he is this organised and this systematic, And this apparently..erm.... Emotionally disconnected from the tragedy he has caused
I reckon she'd fit him in the The Organized Killer catergory.. (IMO)
Well is he a Serial Killer or Not!!!
Maybe he was emotionally disconnected because he didn't do it????
How Organised was he??
It was supposed to be an opportunistic attack on his neighbour who, he apparently waved to as he passed the window..
Anyone who knew Dr Vincent Tabak had only positive things to say about his calm demenour...
He was never described in those terms of a serial killer...
The policeman called him Placid.....
How can you be Placid and a Murderer in the same context.... Don't think thats possible!!!!!!
And again I'll say... what are the statistics of a Stranger Killer moving the body.... No less than 3 times
Why not leave it where it was and use the time to clean the scene of crime..
If he was supposed to be so meticulous:
He didn't need to move her... nobody would have suspected he had been inside the flat...
If every detail had been planned out well in advance, surely....
Removing any evidence of himself from the flat would have been the best option in concealing his act.. Rather than risking more contamination from moving a body several times....
Why would he need to put himself on CCTV.... in Asda???
He wouldn't... he'd text Tanja.. that would give his location...
He could have left his laptop running at home with a program on..
He could have left his mobile phone at home to show his location....
He didn't need CCTV footage as an Alibi!!!
http://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/types-of-serial-killers/
-
LGC Forensics...
Now they employ: LGC employs 1,800 staff in 22 countries.
OMG:.... This is amazing.. I found Job vacancies at LGC Forensics:
I Think I've found Beyoncy????????
http://www.indeed.co.uk/cmp/LGC-Limited/jobs/Weekend-Only-Entry-Level-Submission-Officer-42318052966c0d2e?q=Lgc
WEEKENDS ONLY Entry level Submissions Officer - Forensic Examination
LGC Limited - Teddington
Part-time
Job Purpose
To receive, return, transfer items submitted for forensic examination in line with company standard operating procedures with full training .
Key Responsibilities and Accountabilities
Coordinate the receipt, return and transfer of items submitted for forensic examination, ensuring chain of custody and item integrity is held throughout the case life at LGC Forensics in line with Standard Operating Procedures (SOP’s).
Analyse details provided by the customer to identify which discipline and location cases should be managed by in line with SOP’s.
Report cases of compromised items/cases as detailed in laboratory SOP’s
Prioritise submissions depending on urgency and length of TRT to support operations in timely examination and reporting.
Ensure safe handling of hazardous and sensitive items including those covered by the Human Tissue Act and Firearms Licensing.
Complete environmental monitoring/anti contamination procedures in line with good laboratory practice and maintain records for compliance
Proactively complete general office duties
Role Dimensions
Proactively work as part of the local and national submissions team.
Make decisions within Standard Operating Procedures and company policies.
Ensure quality processes are followed.
Uphold good customer relationships
Behaviours
Accountability
Attention to detail Ability to work effectively in a team and individually
Openness to change
Customer focused, with good communication skills
Integrity
Knowledge, Experience and Technical Skills Required Knowledge, Experience and Technical Skills
Preferred Knowledge, Experience and Technical Skills
Previous experience of working in a busy office environment dealing with Customers face to face, electronically and by phone
Basic knowledge of the Criminal Justice System and the work that LGC Forensics undertake
http://www.indeed.co.uk/cmp/LGC-Limited/jobs/System-Data-Analyst-feeeaddcffba771e?q=Lgc
WEEKENDS ONLY Entry level Submissions Officer - Forensic Examination...
So No degree then...
Is this why things get turned round in 48 hours??? only on a weekend?????
This is what requirements are ..
Preferred Knowledge, Experience and Technical Skills
Previous experience of working in a busy office environment dealing with Customers face to face, electronically and by phone
Basic knowledge of the Criminal Justice System and the work that LGC Forensics undertake:
What's a basic Knowledge of the Criminal Justice system when it's at home?????
Are they actually gonna be doing Forensic Examinations???
It's that being good on the telephone, that's the clincher!!
Coordinate the receipt, return and transfer of items submitted for forensic examination, ensuring chain of custody and item integrity is held throughout the case life at LGC Forensics in line with Standard Operating Procedures (SOP’s).
So your allowed to handle sensitive items, that may lead to the conviction of a Man/woman...
But they"re happy that you can answer the phone....... A good telephone manner has stopped many a convict being sent to prison...
Coordinate the receipt, return and transfer of items submitted for forensic examination, ensuring chain of custody and item integrity is held throughout the case life
Does this mean Beyoncey gets to handle sensitive Forensic items??????
See... I did say my son was a Micro Biologist..... ( No Qualifications... but hey ho ...)
System Data Analyst
LGC Limited - Teddington
LGC Standards is the market leader in a fast growing segment of the global life science tools market and is poised for an exciting new phase of growth following recent significant investments in people, physical and technology infrastructure. The culture of the business is entrepreneurial – it is open, collaborative, embraces change, works at pace and is driven to solve complex problems and challenges in unique and innovative ways. With an ambition to become a leading global life sciences tools platform, LGC Standards offers a stimulating and challenging environment for those looking to join a successful business that recognises and rewards outstanding contribution.
Job purpose to:
The successful applicant will be will be responsible for creating, maintaining and monitoring parts data. The post holder may be expected to assist with Data Collection from external suppliers and internal customers.
Key accountabilities
Managing, creating and maintaining parts data,
Supporting internal customers on parts data enquiries and reports,
Develop and implement processes to support a more consistent global mass upload across the portfolio,
Managing data upload across all sites,
Ensuring correlation and alignment between data in IFS and Agility,
Work in collaboration with data analysts, the Technical team and Product and Sales Managers to ensure data quality and on-time service,
Perform data cleansing activities as per schedule,
Ensure that all work is carried out in accordance with defined company procedures.
Candidate specification:
Demonstrated ability to work a part of a team and independently
Ability to learn complex databases
Excellent communication skills, both oral and written
Understanding of Internal customer requirements and expectations
Demonstrated ability to communicate effectively with technical and non-technical personnel
Demonstrated ability to work effectively on multiple assignments concurrently and to reprioritise work quickly to meet changing demands
Fluent in English, ability to speak and write in German, French is an advantage
Required knowledge, experience and technical skills
Degree level qualification or relevant professional qualification in IT is preferred
Proven quantitative data analysis skills (in particular large databases)
Excellent knowledge of IFS(Mandatory) and Agility
Understanding of various analytical approaches and data models
Proven experience on data migration, parts and pricing module in IFS
Proven project management experience
Experience using advanced excel, power point and Microsoft Visio
Potential of developing into enterprise data management function
Essential competencies and behaviours
Good attention to detail, well organised, innovative
Ability to work independently whilst responsive to direction when necessary
A degree preferred???? Do these people handle sensitive Computer Data??????
Now the next post has to be my favourite:
The important Role of...Forensic Science Examiner :
Note.... NOT SCIENTIST....
http://www.indeed.co.uk/cmp/LGC-Limited/jobs/Forensic-Science-Examiner-2a91f3de055ae729?q=Lgc
Forensic Science Examiner
LGC Limited - Teddington
LGC Forensics is the largest privately owned forensic science service provider in the UK. Serving the police and crime enforcement agencies, we also have an increasing number of private sector clients. We offer a comprehensive range of forensic science services, based on an extensive range of techniques. Our scientists use the latest innovations - often developed in-house - to establish the facts of cases under investigation.
The Toxicology team is responsible for the analysis of body fluids and other biological material for alcohol, drugs and poisons in a wide range of criminal cases. Offence types encountered include affray, sexual assault, causing death by dangerous driving, homicide and sudden death. The team also undertakes analyses for H M Coroner in the investigation into the cause of death. We are looking for a Forensic Science Practitioner (Non-Reporting) to join our dedicated team.
Job purpose to:
Examiners are responsible for the routine analyses of casework items and general housekeeping duties and work under the direction of a reporting scientist or senior scientist.
Key accountabilities
Analysis of casework samples using immunoassay techniques, GCFID, GC-MS, GC-QQQ, LC and LC-MS
Ensuring analytical data conforms to quality standards
Routine maintenance of laboratory systems and equipment
Calibration of equipment
Maintain the cleanliness and stocks of the laboratories and follow stringent anti contamination procedures
Input some data onto an internal case management system
Candidate specification:
Appropriate scientific qualification, usually to degree level or equivalent.
Required knowledge, experience and technical skills
Previous experience in sample preparation techniques e.g. L/L, SPE.
Previous experience in GC-MS, GC-QQQ or LC-MS using Chemstation, Masshunter or Analyst software.
IT literate including Word, Excel and Outlook.
Essential competencies and behaviours
Full commitment to and demonstration of upholding LGC values, respect, brilliance, passion, curiosity, integrity.
Good attention to detail, well organised, innovative.
Ability to work independently whilst responsive to direction when necessary.
Ability to cope under pressure, multitask and work to deadlines.
Strong team player.
Effective communicator.
Appropriate scientific qualification, usually to degree level or equivalent.
Well..... where are the PHD's
What is usually to degree level..... So we're not insisting on a degree in Forensic Science then???
No degrees in chemistry??
No degrees in Biology????
What....
See I told you any Tom Dick or Harry can say they do Forensics...
Remember these people
LGC Forensics is the largest privately owned forensic science service provider in the UK. Serving the police and crime enforcement agencies
The Toxicology team is responsible for the analysis of body fluids and other biological material for alcohol, drugs and poisons in a wide range of criminal cases. Offence types encountered include affray, sexual assault, causing death by dangerous driving, homicide and sudden death.
Yer... that reminds me... they worked on the Joanna Yeates Case!!!!!!!
Back to Lyndsey Lennons quote:
It started as a missing person inquiry on December 18, 2010, says Lindsey Lennen, a body fluids and DNA specialist (who, like many forensic scientists, says the work is "all I ever wanted to do"). The team started by examining items from Joanna's home, looking for foreign DNA. Then on Christmas Day, Yeates was found dead, on a country road.
Ah... Lindsey Lennen is a Body fluids and DNA Specialist..... But Is she a Forensic Scientist?????
Analysis of casework samples using immunoassay techniques, GCFID, GC-MS, GC-QQQ, LC and LC-MS
It says they need to use these techniques, but do they have an understanding of these techniques???
Appropriate scientific qualification, usually to degree level or equivalent.
Required knowledge, experience and technical skills
What is an appropriate Scentific Qualification???? What does that even mean????
Here are 10 types of Scientist:
http://sciencecouncil.org/about-us/10-types-of-scientist/
Business scientist..... Communicator scientist.... Developer scientist..... Entrepreneur scientist.....Explorer scientist..... Investigator scientist......Policy scientist......Regulator scientist.....Service provider scientist.....Teacher scientist
http://sciencecouncil.org/about-us/our-definition-of-science/
“Because ‘science’ denotes such a very wide range of activities a definition of it needs to be general; it certainly needs to cover investigation of the social as well as natural worlds; it needs the words “systematic” and “evidence”; and it needs to be simple and short. The definition succeeds in all these respects admirably, and I applaud it therefore.”
A C Grayling commending the definition in the Guardian, March 2009
Don't let us be fooled because someone adds the word Scientist to the end of what they do...
Are they fully Accredited Foresnsic Scientists, with the full education to go with it...!!!!!
I'm sorry I don't mean to be rude or disrespectful:
But I was under the impression that people who worked in Forensic Science, where highly Educated, they work in an esteemed profession..
I thought All people who worked for Forensic Laboratory's where Educated to University level...?????
I'm quite surprised......
Edit: who's more qualified:
Vincent Tabak is a highly-educated, multilingual computer programmer -
Fluent in Dutch, England and German, he has a PhD and Master of Science degree and analysed 3D images of buildings for Bath engineering firm Buro Happold.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-vincent-tabak---179554
To be honest I would have expected these types of jobs to be offered in a Science type of magazine/online magazine..
Not at indeed.co.uk?????
-
Cj a piece of information he gave the Leveson Inquiry.....
His statement, he told the inquiry, had said no such thing. Instead, when he spoke to police on December 22 he told them he heard two or three people leaving the block of flats where he lived in Bristol on the night Ms Yeates went missing. He said he had heard voices, but could not say whether one had been a woman's voice or not.
This is quite interesting... why didn't the Police look at the Block of Flats behind his Building....
The Flats in which he is refering to is not where I believe Kingdom lives, I think kingdom lives in a similar type of building to CJ... ( I would imagine CJ would refer to his house as a Building, rather than a block of flats)....
with his quote above is he saying that it was sometimes used as a shortcut from the `Block of flats at the back???
I've attached a picture and I believe he is referring to the Block of flats that look like they are council owned..
Did the people from the block of flats use the side of the building as a short to to the roadside of Canygne Road... ( maybe Parked a car there)'
It not inconceiveable......
Did people from behind Cangne Road ever use a short cut through CJ's?
Someone maybe Parking on Canygne Road and at visiting the block of flats, perhaps.....
They are just as able to use the route past Joanna Yeates house to exit the little gate, it's more likely if they used the route past CJ's enterance they'd be seen....
Maybe it was a regular shortcut for people????
It's just as concievable, that someone who came from the Block of flats Past Joanna Yeates home could have come into contact with her..
Maybe this had happened before and she had said something...
I do remember a report of a van blocking the road on Canygne Road on that night of 17th Dec 2010
Maybe it was from someone who was behind canynge Road Visiting???
His statement to the Leveson Inquiry said: "The police have since confirmed to me that the fact that I gave a supplementary statement raised their suspicions in relation to me. On the basis of what ensued, I believe it is likely that the police passed these suspicions on to the media."
That is exactly what Tanja Morson and Dr Vincent Tabak did... they gave a supplementary statement and Dr Vincent Tabak found himself in the same position as CJ had......
If people ever used the route from the block of flats through to Canygne road, it might also give credence to the "Help Me" cry.. that Kingdom heard on the Saturday mid- morning...
I've attached photo's ... But it's really difficult to see if' its possible for someone to squeeze through or not..
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/304977/Jefferies-Police-leaked-statement
EDIT: If It is possible to cut through from the block of flats at the back of CJ's then:........
It would make sense:.... It would make sense that it could be the possible reason why Joanna Yeates was scared to be on her own, without Greg being around to make her feel safe!!
Anyone passing their Flat when it was dark would make her nervous...
he heard two or three people leaving the block of flats where he lived in Bristol on the night Ms Yeates went missing.
CJ on the: Honour of CJ,.... is stood at the big gate on his way home from the gym, and here's someone near the little gate...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Dr Vincent Tabak:.......
I think about this case constantly recently... I have always believed that Dr vincent Tabak is innocent.. And the more I look at this case, the more my original belief is confirmed:
I'm fully aware that most of the country believes that Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty, But it doesn't sway me from what I see as right and true..
It may appear as unkind and unfeeling towards the Yeates Family... I certainly do NOT want to be that... I think they have suffered enough, and when ever I write statements or comments, they are always in my thoughts.. I'm not doing this to stir up the feelings of the Yeates family and I really do not want to cause them any more distress...
But.... And I have to say But...
However people may think I am misguided ...I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is innocent... (apparently.. I'm about 1 in 10 people who believes this:)
Firstly...Lydnsey lennens quote...:
I'm starting to look at it closely.. And it is quite revealing in it's content:
Under the media glare, the work was flat-out: clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours.
I was wondering if maybe they hadn't taken Dr Vincent Tabak DNA earlier... it was a possibility......But And it's a big BUT......
She says "SUSPECTS".... as in plural.....
So with Cj saying :There had been some sort of collusion... Between myself and Vincent Tabak
And therefore the police continued to entertain the suspicion that possibly there had been some sort of collusion...
Notice CJ says: Continued!!!! So they had thought the pair had colluded......
Under Suspicion.. Now I gather that one of the reasons for the delay was that Vincent Tabak when he was arreated.... refused to say anything...And therefore the police continued to entertain the suspicion that possibly there had been some sort of collusion... Between myself and Vincent Tabak
And:
All the people who lived in 44, Canygne Road... were interviewed, statements were taken... So... my statement was taken along with everyone else...
DNA samples were taken, finger prints, were taken.... It was all entirely Voluntary..But obviously nobody had anything to hide....
So nobody was in the least bit concerned.. erm.... about co-operating in that way...
They had to have CJ DNA and Dr Vincent Tabak DNA at the same time....
And they can't really say it was when they took CJ's DNA sample at the police station and Dr Vincent Tabak's sample in Holland..
But I will explain...... further on...
Again:
clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours.
Suspects,... she must be refering to Dr Vincent Tabak and CJ...... But she analysing Joanna Yeates swabs at the same time!!
When the Police arrested CJ.. they went through the offical line of collecting his DNA again and his finger prints....
Yes.. he said he'd already given them..
But.... Now this was Offical..
And they probably had to collect it in an Offical Capacity... And treat him like any other prisoner.....
Hence when you watch the Honour of Cj.. you see him giving a DNA sample, it would be his second sample according to CJ....
So... Dr Vincent Tabak......
I believe what CJ says.... I believe that the tenants did give samples...
So how does it apply in Dr Vincent Tabak's case being the same as CJ's??
Well....... Dr Vincent Tabak did exactly what CJ did.... he gave a supplementary statement... He/Tanja rang them whilst he was at his family home for Christmas..
Whilst some of you may think that the statement about CJ's car was supposed to be incriminating., maybe it was just an observation...
And lets just stop and look at the statement like the police did... say it's incriminating...
They didn't really need to go fly Holland, to collect a statement saying the car had changed position.... They didn't need to waste tax payers money on a flight to basically ask a neighbour when he thought that CJ's car had changed position..
They could have simply of waited for him to return from his christmas break.... How long does it take someone to say i saw a car change position??
5 minutes?? lets be generous say 15 minutes... Did that really warrant flying out to Holland to take what the Police describe as a witness statement????
You have to see what is behind their motives just like everyone was looking for a motive:...
At this point Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't apparently a suspect???
So why the urgency to fly out all the way to Holland to get what should be a 15 minute statement from the neighbour who lived at number 2 Flat.....
Even if the would have liked to used the statement against CJ... it wouldn't really add any value to what evidence they apprantly thought they already had against CJ.....
Waiting for Dr Vincent Tabak wouldn't have changed the fact that they had to release CJ........
What most people do probably not understand is how Dutch Law works..... But of course our Police Service does and did.....
Dutch Law Allows the Police to hold a SUSPECT for 6 Hours:....( I remember the policewoman saying that Dr Vincent tabak's voluntary interview was 6 hours long)......
.Yes that's 6 hours in which they have to interview them as a SUSPECT.. and then if they haven't got the evidence to charge them they have to let them go...... Or they apply to the Dutch Courts for an extension....
They would not be able to apply for an extension because it would be too complicated...And really they wanted him back over in the UK so that they could build a case against him....
So.. by saying that when they talked to Dr Vincent Tabak in Holland and what he said RANG ALARM BELLS.. It sounds convincing... It sounds like he must have made them think he was hiding something... But i believe it is untrue(IMO)...
I'll try explain why i think it is untrue:......
CJ Says:.And therefore the police continued to entertain the suspicion that possibly there had been some sort of collusion... Between myself and Vincent Tabak
I think the police believed that CJ had done it, But he would have needed assistance to move the body... And when Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja rang with a supplement to their statement... That is when the ALARM BELLS started ringing...
Remember their ALARM BELLS rang when CJ rang with his supplementary statement!!!!
So this is when I think they decided to go to Holland... They wanted to interview him NOT as a witness But as a SUSPECT....
Hence they used the Dutch Law of Interviewing Dr Vincent Tabak for 6 hours and not the 15 minutes the interview should have really taken.....
And then said that it was his RELUCTANCE to give his DNA that started ALARM BELLS RINGING... And Dr Vincent Tabaks apparent interest in the case...
Well.... lets face it... half the nation were interested in the case... plenty of forums had set up..it was all over the media.. so really he wasn't any different from anyone else....
The only difference was he rang the Police trying to help like CJ had done.....
I believe that taking his DNA in Holland was a charade.... It wasn't offical, he wasn't under arrest... But they need to explain how Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA was a match to Joanna Yeates.....
We still have to keep reminding ourselves of what CJ said: that the tenants had already given their DNA and finger prints along with statements:
That is why any other communication with the Police Is a SUPPLEMENTARY statement...
Back to what I think Lyndsey Lennen has let slip by talking:.....
Up until i found out about Lyndsey Lennon... and Cj's statement.. I thought that the DNA samples were all taken at varying times:
Now we know that they took sample from Joanna Yeates probably at the scene as I'm not altogether sure ....
A colleague went down to supervise the removal of her clothing and preserve any body fluids: "The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky." Under the media glare, the work was flat-out: clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours.
"Eventually, we found something," Lennen says. "On swabs and tapes from her breasts, and tapes from three areas of her jeans. There were DNA components that matched one of the suspects, Vincent Tabak." But there wasn't enough, of enough quality, to evaluate – perhaps because of the high salt levels where the body was found, following heavy snowfall.
Now did they take samples of Joanna Yeates as she lay on the verge?? Or did they go to the Mortuary and help out there:
Either way it doesn't really matter:..... The dates will be slightly different but i'll get there:
25th Dec 2010 some one from LGC Forensics takes a samples from Joanna yeates in situ:
Or 28th Dec LGC Forensics take Joanna Yeates samples from her when shes at the mortuary:
They would have got the sample straight away... it was a massive case:
12:14PM GMT 28 Dec 2010
Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones of Avon and Somerset Police revealed the results of a post mortem examination as he declared that her death was now officially being treated as a murder investigation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8228069/Murder-investigation-launched-as-post-mortem-reveals-Joanna-Yeates-was-strangled.html
The post Mortem was completed on the 28th Dec 2010....
Now this is where the Devil is in the Detail......
If they took samples on the 25th dec 2010.. from Joanna Yeates where she lay... Lyndsey Lennen says:
the work was flat out_clothing swabs,suspects clothing, all turned around in 48 hours
So 48 hours after that would make it the 27th Dec 2010......
If they took the sample at the mortuary and the post mortom was completed on the 28th Dec 2010....
Then 48 hours after that would be the 30th Dec.. 2010.......
Remember its a massive case so, Yes... I believe they got straight on with the task in hand to get the DNA results:
In Fact if you look at an earlier post of mine: Crime Watch the full story part 2...
Tabak's statement was a smoke screen.... The landlord was entirely innocent... when police checked Jefferies DNA against the sample found on Jo's body. there was no match... he was free to go...
I hope your still following me with this:
Cj was realesed on bail on the 1st January 2010:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/landlord-chris-jefferies-released-by-police-173475
So.... 48 hours before CJ was released would make it the : 30th Dec 2010..
This is when i become Beyoncy:
So... Post Mortem 28th Dec2010..... 48 hours after that makes it the 30th Dec 2010
Sounds right CJ was released on the 1st January 2011...
Then we have this again:
"The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky." Under the media glare, the work was flat-out: clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours.
AHA........ She is saying there that she has both suspects DNA... as well as Joanna Yeates DNA ..
both suspects being Dr Vincent Tabak and CJ.....
They would have rushed Jo's sample through as vital....
How can they have results from Dr Vincent Tabak by the 30th Dec 2010 when they didn't see him Holland till the 31st Dec 2010.....
That's because what CJ said.. that they had the samples already....... the neighbours had given them voluntarily...
She says "the work was flat out..". they were working on Joanna Yeates swabs and anything else on her IMMEDIATLEY....
Another quote: This is fromCrime Watch the full story Part 2:
At 4.00 mins Then shortly before the reconstruction was due to air... They made a dramatic break through.... Forensic Scientists had spent weeks enhancing the tiny DNA sample found on Jo's body. enabling them to establish a link to Vincent Tabak
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRDtLjPfdw0
So it was near the end of January 2011 that the Crime watch program was due to air:
The police waited weeks, before deciding to arrest Dr Vincent Tabak: the timing had to be right... everyone would agree it takes weeks to enhance DNA...
That's only if your like me.. for instance... the every day joe blog's would agree.. tiny DNA samples take weeks:
So the statement made by the police seems legitimate:
Again Officially they would have taken further DNA samples when they had him in custody as a SUSPECT........
With the killer's confession, Lennen's DNA evidence was not further tested.
Another slip in my opinion... She didn't need to test the sample they had collected from his arrest......
EDIT: I'll explain:
So the team deployed an LGC technique known as DNA SenCE, which purifies, concentrates and enhances otherwise unusable DNA: "We couldn't say whether the DNA was from saliva, or semen, or even touch. But we could say that the probability of it not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion."
She didn't need to test it at all again... they'd already used theDNA SenCE which enhances the DNA sample that they had.....
But then we need to examine.. Lyndsey Lennen's account:
"The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky." Under the media glare, the work was flat-out: clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours.
It didn't take weeks.... 48 hours to be precise........
You see.... Joanna Yeates samples were actually the most important samples to be done first.. I'm sure you would agree...
But they managed to do Joanna Yeates's samples CJ's samples and Dr Vincent Tabak's samples all within 48 hours:
NOW..... I bet you thought that I had slipped up there and you can explain away the DNA..... And Lyndsey Lennen doesn't actually say that she tested the DNA samples of the suspects at the same time as Joanna Yeates samples in that 48 hour window ..... she does say:
On swabs and tapes from her breasts, and tapes from three areas of her jeans. There were DNA components that matched one of the suspects, Vincent Tabak." But there wasn't enough, of enough quality, to evaluate
Even if you do not believe the DNA evidence I'm Talking about.... (i'm sticking with it)....
BUT........ she actually goes one better.......!!!!!!!
Because as Lyndsey Lennen says: We worked FLAT OUT!!!! ...CLOTHING... SWABS.... (she's refering to Jo Yeates there)..... Then.. SUSPECTS CLOTHING (she's refering to Cj's and Dr Vincent Tabak... there )all analysed and turned around in 48 hours..
Now they would not of had any samples of Dr Vincent Tabak's CLOTHING until after they arrested him
"Eventually, we found something," Lennen says. "On swabs and tapes from her breasts, and tapes from three areas of her jeans. There were DNA components that matched one of the suspects, Vincent Tabak." But there wasn't enough, of enough quality, to evaluate – perhaps because of the high salt levels where the body was found, following heavy snowfall.
Lyndsey Lennen says that they checked the suspects clothing at the same time as thy did the sample testing on Joanna Yeates...
48 hours before Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested is the 20th January 2011... is the 18th January
The would not have got a warrant to search Dr Vincent Tabak's house until the a day or so later... maybe even the same day..
They tested the DNA apparently that they had collect from Holland,,.... that is why thy arrested him....
So AGAIN........... how can they test fibres from Dr Vincent Tabak's coat in the 48 hour window... when even if you believe the story that it was after they saw him in holland that they got a DNA sample from Dr Vincent tabak to test...
And test Joanna Yeates swabs in the same 48 hr window????
They had to test them to apparently rule CJ out:
Lyndsey Lennen.. definateley says that :
Under the media glare, the work was flat-out: clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours
So it was physically impossible for LGC Forensics to of all ready had a sample of Dr Vincent Tabak's Black coat that apparently the black fibres were found on the body of Joanna Yeates...
And done a test on it in the same 48 HOUR WINDOW!!!!!!!!! (All of Joanna Yeates Testing would have been done in Dec 2010)........
Because they didn't get Access to Dr Vincent Tabak's Black coat till after they had arrested him in late January 2011...
So Lyndsey Lennen... You could NOT of had access to Dr Vincent Tabak's BLACK COAT at the same time you tested Joanna Yeate's samples..... and all of the SUSPECTS CLOTHING........... PERIOD!!!
The court was also told that fibres from the Dutchman’s black coat were also found on her clothing.
http://swns.com/news/jo-yeates-strangled-by-cold-and-calculated-vincent-tabak-21328/
Beyoncey Rests Her Case.........
And i will add that all statements and posts I make on this forum are (IMO)..........
-
Here is what lead to CJ's Arrest:
This is a video interview from CJ when he appears on Judge Rinders Crime storys: Joanna Yeates:
At: 9:30 on the video CJ says:
The time that I had given my original statement... erm.. to detectives..They stressed, that they were very interested if that at some point in the future.... er....
Anybody remembered anything, that they hadn't... erm... remembered at the time, they should certainly straight away..... get intouch with the police
Then at 22:25 CJ says....
But erm.... Give what I knew.... erm..I got back intouch with the police to say... You know i'm pretty certain, that on that particular evening... this is what I was aware of
Cj is refering to hearing people on the path near the little gate:
Now at 22:30 The Police Officer says:
Christopher was quite well known... erm.... In the area, He's a retired
School Master from Clifton College...And actually he became quite an integral part of the initial investigation.... He was a witness and erm.......
He described erm.... seeing some people walking down the driveway of the address... On that Friday evening around about the relevant time... We knew Joanna had returned home....
Now what on earth the Officer is calling CJ a witness for, is beyond me!!!
We Know they saw him as a suspect...
seeing some people walking down the driveway of the address
Now I.m sure It's the little path CJ's refering too... because it is what CJ hears and doesn't see clearly...
In the honour of CJ.. you see CJ standing in the drive and he looks around and stops as if he has noticed something near the little gate...
Now.....
If CJ... had seen people in the driveway as described by the Police Officer... then surely CJ would have seen them close up and would have given the Police a description of the individuals, and the Police would then put out a description to the media...As these people would be..... PERSONS OF INTEREST!!!
So again.... (IMO) I believe what the policeman says is an untrue......
he became quite an integral part of the initial investigation.
YES SUSPECT!!!!!!!
CJ says at 24:00 mins:
Ironically, it was that phone call, which lead the Police to think I was making something up.... In order to deflect suspicion away from myself
So the Police put 2 and 2 together and came up with arresting CJ because of his supplementary statement and the fact that he had the keys to all the flats as the Landlord....
In order to deflect suspicion away from myself
Now where have I heard that before???? I will elaborate later......
Cj... I'm sure they soon realised would not have the physical strength to lift Joanna Yeates on his own without causing any drag marks..
So... when they released him on bail... believing that CJ, had to be part of the murder of Joanna Yeates, they need to get another suspect in their vision.. to be an accomplice with CJ in the crime...
Remember.. they didn't release CJ from Police Bail until March 2011...
And again in CJ's own words:
And therefore the police continued to entertain the suspicion that possibly there had been some sort of collusion... Between myself and Vincent Tabak
-
If this was true, and the police really did continue to have some suspicions about CJ, perhaps because he had keys to all the flats and no alibi, but they realised that he couldn't have committed the crime alone, as he was in his sixties and slightly built, what could be more convenient than to arrest another neighbour with no alibi, but young, big built and with big hands--------------.
-
Here's what led to Dr Vincent Tabaks arrest:
We know from CJ that they all had already given statements.... So any extra information was a supplementary statement, to aid the Police with their investigation:
Crime Watch Joanna Yeates Part 2:
At 2:05 The Presenter says:
An Officer recieved a call from Vincent Tabakin the Netherlands claiming to have new information
Remember the Police had invited the residents to get in touch if they remembered anything:
At 2:09 The Police Woman says:
He could remember that Chris Jefferies car had been parked on the driveway in Canygne Road.... In a particular position the evening before Jo went missing... and the next Morning the car was facing in the Opposite direction....
Now Again... I think this statement is quite telling........ she says :
In a Particular evening the evening before Jo went missing..... and the next morning the car was facing the Opposite direction...
So how can this statement be acurate????
This information is in the Polices head.... lets break it down....
In the particular evening before Jo went missing
If Jo went missing on the Friday the 17th Dec 2010 as the Police have stated and Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have killed her....
Why would he ring up and say that Joanna Yeates went missing on the 16th Dec 2010????? That would make it a Thursday...
Ah.... i will explain why....
The Police believed that CJ had done it... and as I said he needed an accomplice if he was to get rid of her , he wouldn't be able to manage on his own...
So the reason was, the Police had interviewed a witness/suspect (CJ)..who was seen going over Clifton Suspension bridge on the Saturday the 18th Dec 2010..
So Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't trying to implicate CJ.... He was giving a supplementary statement.... Obviously Dr Vincent Tabak was not aware that someone had been seen going across Clifton Suspension bridge on Saturday the 18th Dec 2010...
That was previledged information only the Police knew.... And as the Police say Dr Vincent Tabak was in the Netherlands when CJ was arrested... So he wouldn't have received the information about someone travelling across Clifton Suspension Bridge on Saturday 18th Dec... As the Police were in the middle of interviewing CJ about his movements...
I always found it weird that the Police charged Dr Vincent Tabak with The murder of joanna Yeates between the 16th Dec 2010 and the 26th Dec 2010....
Anyway....
The Presenter on the Program says at 2:20 mins
What Tabak had to say was now crucial new evidence for police who are now questioning Jeffereies
Because they believed CJ had done it...
Presenter at 2:30 mins On New Years Eve they sent a team out to meet him at a hotel in Amsterdam... But his version of events seemed confused
Well... Version of Events... ??? (what are they talking about?)
All he's really supposed to be telling them is that he saw CJ's Car move position....
Yes confused......
If he's telling them it was Thursday the 16th Dec 2010 that he saw CJ's car in a different direction... They needed it to be Friday the 17th Dec 2010 that he saw the car change direction, if the evidence they thought they had on CJ was going to stick...
The Policewoman says at 2:45 mins
There were details of Vincent's Account.... That...... were concerning me....
Why would the details that Dr Vincent Tabak was telling her about CJ's Car moving position be of a concern????
She's supposed to be talking to him as a witness remember:
The Police woman then says at 2:48:
He was Vague in some area's... He was over interested in other area's, Particulary around our Forensic examination...
There was things in his account that just didn't seem right.... to me.
And then his reluctance to give his DNA at the end of the process....... Again started to Ring Alarm Bells
Lets look at that statement:
He was Vague in some area's
Vague..... lets think about that... if they trying to get info the car had changed position from the Thursday 16th Dec and they are asking him are you sure ....( sure it wasn't Friday the 17th Dec2010...)...
Then.. yes I can see him being vague and unsure....
Lets not forget...... They apparently have only gone over to the Netherlands to ask Dr Vincent Tabak about what he new about CJ's car changing position...
So what else were they asking him, if this was only supposed to be a WITNESS statement about CJ????
So why is she treating him like a suspect.... He was Vague in some area's
Oh course he's vague, he probably can't remember and is trying to be helpful...
He was over Interested in others particularly around our Forensics
Now..... Dr Vincent Tabak is sat with Police officers thinking that they are there for a nice chat as to what he saw regards CJ....
He could quite simply being interested what was happening with the case as there had been alot of media coverage
they had just arrested his neighbour and all this had been happening in the building that he lived in....
For all we know... he might have tried to find out how serious the information that they had gathered against CJ was...
Him and Tanja would then be homeless...
So we cannot summise why Dr Vincent Tabak asked what ever question to the Police...
Let me look at the next bit of her statement:
Then his reluctance to give his DNA at the end of the process.....
Hang on a minute.......
What are you trying to say?????
End of what process......????? Dr Vincent Tabak , If you remember was a WITNESS?????
You see this is where she slips up....
The process she is referring to is his statement as a SUSPECT..... she's letting us now that the PROCESS is actual an INTERVIEW to find out Dr Vincent Tabak's movements.... (6 hours detention by a Police Officer in the Netherlands is the time allowed to Inteview them....)
They had him at that hotel for 6 hours... He's only supposed to be telling them CJ's car moved.....
But they act and behave like Dr Vincent Tabak is a SUSPECT and not a WITNESS!!!
Remember....
What Tabak had to say was now crucial new evidence for police who are now questioning Jeffereies
Why would Dr Vincent Tabak, be being asked to give his DNA... they only popped over supposidly to get a witness statement from him...
Why did they have a DNA kit in tow??????
Like I said he was a SUSPECT.... Just like CJ had become a suspect for giving a supplementary statement....
Why would they even be asking him for his DNA???? he's a WITNESS!!!!!
She then says:
Again... Started to ring Alarm Bells..
Yes... The ALARM BELLS were ringing when Dr Vincent Tabak/Tanja rang to say about the car changing position.... that is why you went to the Netherlands!!!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRDtLjPfdw0
Near The End of The Program, The Presenter sums up: That phone call that he didn't need to make trying to frame Christopher Jefferies........
It all unravelled after that... You saw Karen Thomas talking about that hunch that lead them to the DNA that would corner him
Welll.... like I said... he rang to give a supplementary statement....... He wasn't trying to frame CJ....
And yes i agree it all UNRAVELLED after that.....
Because they had to let CJ go... there only remaining SUSPECT was Dr Vincent Tabak....
He says You saw Karen Thomas talking about that hunch that lead them to the DNA that would corner him
Welll what exactly did Dr Vincent Tabak say???? He was reporting Cj's car changing position... nothing more!!
They went to the Netherlands with the purpose of treating Dr Vincent tabak as a SUSPECT.... So they're were no HUNCHES...
No sudden Suprises for the Police Officers.....
Like I said in an earlier post...... Why did they just not wait to see what Dr Vincent tabak had to say about his neighbour when he returned back home from the Netherlands....
They had to release CJ... And he was on bail...
So realistically iy would not have mattered if they got that WITNESS Statement from Dr Vincent Tabak on his RETURN!!!!!
All the people who lived in 44, Canygne Road... were interviewed, statements were taken... So... my statement was taken along with everyone else...
DNA samples were taken, finger prints, were taken.... It was all entirely Voluntary..But obviously nobody had anything to hide....
So nobody was in the least bit concerned.. erm.... about co-operating in that way...
Cj had said they had all given DNA samples already.... So They didn't need to got to Holland to get a second DNA sample from Dr Vincent Tabak.....
-
Oopsie... don't know what happened there..
-
Well, if that particular documentary is accurate, then, as you say, VT was not implying that the movement of CJ's car had anything to do with Joanna's disappearance.
However, I never thought he was implying that anyway: he was doing what CJ himself had done, and giving the police extra information, as all the neighbours had been invited to do. The police then took that as "trying to deflect away from oneself", just as they had with CJ.
The meeting in Holland was not reported to the public at the time: why???
The "accepted" story is that VT aroused Karen Thomas' suspicion because he asked questions about the forensic investigation, and wanted to know why the door of Jo and Greg's flat had been removed.
He also changed his story, by saying that he had been out to ASDA on the evening of the 17th, whereas before he had said he stayed in until going to collect Tanja.
Karen Thomas reported that his sister and Tanja (who sat in on the interview) seemed to be fussing over him. I would imagine that the sister, if not Tanja, realised that Vincent was being treated as a suspect.
-
WHAT LEAD TO THE TIMING OF THE ARREST OF DR VINCENT TABAK.....
The investigation has reached a stage where it could be subjected to an independent review by a senior officer who has not been involved thus far.
The spokesman said: "National guidance suggests a review should take place somewhere between 28 and 42 days but how that is done, who does it and the scope of the review are up to each individual force and will depend very much on the nature of the investigation in question. These reviews are routine practice and will be considered by us when we believe the time to be right. We continue to have a dedicated team of investigators who will remain on this case until we find and bring to justice whoever is responsible for killing Joanna Yeates."
This quote from the article in the Bristol post is Dated 15th January 2010:
This could be the possible reason for them arresting Dr Vincent Tabak when they did:
The spokesman said: "National guidance suggests a review should take place somewhere between 28 and 42 days
He even says: These reviews are routine practice and will be considered by us when we believe the time to be right.
So he is having to conceed that someone else will Take over the INVESTIGATION and it will be out of his hands!!!!!
Do you think he's going to hand this over to someone else to get the GLORY!!!!! not in my opinion....
Lets just look at the dates: Joanna Yeates was found on 25th Dec 2010
Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested on 20th January 2011 = 26 days later
The 20th January 2011 was a Thursday; =26 days later
Saturday the 22rd January would have brought it to the =28 days
So the first opportunity I think would have been the Monday the 24th January to review the Joanna Yeates case:
Lets look at what pressures the team were under at this point:
The investigation has reached a stage where it could be subjected to an independent review by a senior officer who has not been involved thus far.
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/joanna-yeates-murder-detectives-link-cold-case/story-11281334-detail/story.html#ldmP6DbTwv0S35vU.99
I'll look at headlines and articles leading up to Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest:
Article Dated 5th January 2011
Police investigating the murder of Joanna Yeates are coming under growing criticism of their handling of the case.
They hadn't got a scooby as to what was going on... No evidence...
Let's not forget: DNA has been turned round 48 hours: So Dr Vincent Tabak should have been ruled out by this point!!!
They hadn't arrested him till the 20th January.. some 15 days later....
If we are to believe Lyndsey Lennen's statement 48 hours.....she did the testing.... My ALARM BELLS are ringing!!!
31st December 2011.... 48 hours after that = 2nd January 2011 ....So NO MATCH then........
All the information is fed in to a computer, so by this point, if Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA sample from Holland was a match, it would have come back as that by the 2nd January 2011
They have NO other evidence against Dr Vincent Tabak when they arrest him on the 20th Dec 2010. only the supposed DNA... which we know was tested alot earlier nothing had changed when they arrested Dr Vincent Tabak....
The Supposed PORN on his computer was only there to BOLSTER the STORY they wanted us to believe... The Same with the searches.... I'm sure i can explain those searches too...
One I already have and Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't even in his house when that search was supposed to have been made!!!!!
This Next Article is dated the 5th January 2011
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8240280/Joanna-Yeates-murder-police-face-criticism.html
Detectives admit that they still do not know where and when the landscape architect died and at what stage her body was dumped by the roadside three miles from her flat in Bristol.
Yes:..... This is because there is NO.. Forensic Evidence in the Flat that tells them what happened!!!
Let's split that statement up.....at what stage her body was dumped by the roadside three miles from her flat
So WHY did they NOT KNOW , when Joanna Yeates had been LEFT in LONGWOOD LANE!!!!!!!
They have been telling everyone SINCE they arrested Dr Vincent Tabak that it was from THE 17th DEC 2010!!!!!
So they must know she could have been left there at anytime.....
Lets not forget ANDREW MOTT saying that he had to stop the body from THAWING!!!!!!!!
So I believe she HADN"T Lain on the verge in LONGWOOD LONE since the 17th DEC 2010...
SOMEBODY would have surely seen her before the 25th December 2010 as it was a busy route and lots of dog walkers Joggers coming down the entrance on the opposite side of the road..
An Avon and Somerset police authority member, who asked not to be named, told the paper it was "worrying" that the police did not appear close to finding the murderer.
"WORRYING":..... Indeed.... you haven't got a clue how Joanna Yeates ended up in Longwood Lane,
Next Article:Dated 15th January 2011
Landlord in Joanna Yeates case: 'I'll be cleared within days'
Why would he know that he'd be cleared within days??? Who has said this to him?????
Is that 5 days????
Joanna Yeates’s landlord expects to be cleared of all involvement in her murder ‘within days’, it emerged last night.
But as we know he wasn't cleared of all involvement, they still suspected CJ had someone assisting him at this point..... We know later they think it's Dr Vincent Tabak..
Now, apparently, they (police) are just waiting for the forensic evidence to come back. That shouldn’t be too long. When it comes back, Chris is confident he will be cleared.’
Apparenty? At this point CJ doesn't obviously know that they turned the DNA tests around in 48 hours!!
What Forensic's are the Police waiting for??? Have they got someone else's DNA other than CJ's and Dr Vincent Tabak's????
We Know how long they have had the DNA samples results for...
Let's keep reminding ourselves 48 hours after Holland (if we believe Holland and not the samples they gave in their original statements...) = 2nd January 2011
Since Mr Jefferies’ arrest, police have been searching the building he shared with Miss Yeates and her boyfriend. That lengthy search was said to have finished last night.
Now what does this mean?? Searching the building???
They would have had access to the Landlords keys... Dr Vincent Tabak, if I remember correctly had moved out of the building with his girlfriend Tanja... And was staying on Aberdeen Road... (did they search his flat ???)
Where there any computers in Dr Vincent Tabaks flat at that time????
So..........
Which parts of the building DID they search???
"The significant snowfall in the early hours of Saturday December 18 has a considerable impact on this and I am working with numerous forensic specialists to determine the timings."
Now at this point... do we really know that Joanna Yeates has been in Longwood Lane since the 17th Dec 2010??
Now is this Statement again... more telling than we realise....
"Significant snowfall on Saturday 18th Dec 2010"...... Why this is important I believe.. is because the Police still considered CJ a suspect...
Remember... The car going over Clifton Suspension Bridge on the Saturday 18th Dec 2010:...
IF...... there was significant snow underneath the body of Joanna Yeates, then I believe the Polices theorised that she had been dumped on Longwood Lane on the 18th Dec 2010 and not the 17th Dec 2010 because of the heavy SNOWFALL... So there must have been plenty of snow underneath Joanna Yeates!!!
So that would be another reason why they thought CJ had committed the crime.....
What timings is he trying to work out?????
He said: "I can assure you, we are determined to solve this crime, and bring Jo's killers to justice."
When asked about this comment later, he said: "I think that phrase emphasises that I am not making any assumptions in this case."
YES..... He is determined!! The review will be happening soon!!!!
Not making any Assumptions?????
Well that's not strictly true is it.... You have already assumped CJ is guilty, because you cannot work out how someone would have gained entry into Joanna Yeates Flat...
You are assuming that she was Killed in her Flat.......
You have assumed it has to be someone in that building.....
v, involving over 70 police officers and staff," Mr Jones said.
"No stone will be left unturned in this investigation."
Again:..... This will take you into the review period where someone MORE SENIOR will be looking at the Investigation..!!!!
Lets Break it down:
"This is potentially a long and complex inquiry.
"
If at this POINT... you haven't got a clue as to who could have possibly committed the crime.. And we are NOT forgetting that you have already tested CJ's and Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA with Nothing coming back at this point....
POTENTIALLY.... doesn't come into it!!! unless you have someone else's DNA like CJ"S suggesting...
No stone will be left unturned
So what massive rocks did you turn over in 15 days???
Erm....... We know at this point you still think CJ is involved!! And your only other suspect is another tenant who gave a supplementary statement Dr Vincent Tabak.....
WOW.... this next statements telling:
Officers have searched through 293 tons of domestic rubbish to find the pizza, and said it is not clear at this stage whether Miss Yeates had eaten it.
WHY..... Is it not clear at this stage that Joanna Yeates has eaten the PIZZA!!!!
We are on the 5th January 2011 now... I thought the testing had been done... So surely her stomach contents would have been tested!!!
So your saying her stomach had NO contents????
So you cannot determine EXACTLY when Joanna yeates died!!!!!
Her Alcohol reading were consistant with having drunk about 2 pints of cider:......
BUT... Again a big BUT....... We have since discovered that there was a CHAMPAGNE CORK on the table in the house... along with a HEALEY"S bottle of CIDER which she didn't buy.....
So she could have drunk that on the Saturday!!!!!! Did you know about the Healey's Cider and Champagne... Tatteringer Reims... Mr Policeman!!!!
Is the Tattinger Reims Champagne and the Healey's Cider, ANOTHER reason you believe Joanna Yeates died on the Saurday 18th December 2010.....
PLUS... you have Kingdom's statement that he heard someone shout"HELP ME".. On Saturday 18th December 2010 about Mid Morning....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8240280/Joanna-Yeates-murder-police-face-criticism.html
And to add to there despair.... This Happens:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8242526/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Christopher-Jefferies-may-sue-police-for-wrongful-arrest.html
Chris Jefferies may sue police for wrongful arrest in Jo Yeates murder case
OOpsie.... You made a Boo Boo there!!!
Jo Yeates murder suspect Chris Jefferies has told a close friend he is considering suing the police for wrongful arrest.
Now... they haven't got a clue who could have killed her... they are NO nearer to finding a suspect.... UNLESS one just drops in their laps..
And to top it all the man that they have arrested and has been vilified by the press.. Is going to SUE...!!!!
I can just see your heads about to explode at this point.... I'm sure your thinking Arrrrgggg... Mr Policeman...
THE REVIEW is coming up:
YOU'VE made a Pigs ear of Arresting the LANDLORD:
YOU HAVE ONE POSSIBLE OPTION LEFT:!!!!!!!
The PLACID Dr Vincent Tabak......
Dr Vincent Tabak... whom in your own words described him As:
A very PLACID individual to deal with
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUSlmEab-38
At about 33:10 minutes into the program:
Again my ALARM BELLS are ringing:....... Is that the reason they went to arrest Dr Vincent Tabak!!!! He was Placid, he was helpful... He WAS NOT Problamatic he was easy to CONFUSE!!!!!!
Another Article:
Steven Morris and agencies
@stevenmorris20
Thursday 6 January 2011 16.38 GMT First published on Thursday 6 January 2011 16.38 GMT
Police hunting the murderer of Joanna Yeates attempted once again to dampen down any expectation that the crime was going to be solved quickly.
So they are Struggling!!!!
Chief Superintendent Jon Stratford, of Avon and Somerset police, said "steady progress" was being made but warned: "It could take some time before we find out who killed Jo but we certainly will."
Like I keep saying they haven't got a clue... Again all the time Remember Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA samples have already been tested and have come back on the latest date 2nd January 2010
Detectives are keeping an open mind over whether the sock was kept by the killer as a trophy and whether she may have been strangled with it.
They definately Know at this point that she wasn't Strangled with the Ski Sock!!! Her Autopsy had been completed on the 28th Dec 2010.... And Dr Delaneys findings are that it was manual Strangulation....
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jan/06/joanna-yeates-murder-police-progress
So I can sort of see why the Police arrested CJ:
(1) He was the Landlord and he had keys to the Flat..
(2) I believe it was his CAR that went over Clifton suspension Bridge on Saturday 18th Dec 2010, that why you interviewed the witness/suspect about it....
(3) It had snowed heavily on Saturday 18th December and snow was underneath Joanna Yeates body..
(4) There was no Pizza found in her stomach contents....
(5) Evidence of a different Cider being HEALEY"S cider and Champagne being TATTINGER REIMS was in the flat and you knew she hadn't bought these!!!
(6) Kingdom saying he heard someone shout "Help Me" on Saturday the 18th December Mid Morning....
But you were STUMPED!!!! Because his DNA didn't match.. and he was too old to lift Joanna Yeates up!!!!
At this point knowing that there is no evidence in the Flat of a struggle... No DNA of anyone in the Falt.... No finger Prints of anyone in the flat....
DID IT NOT CROSS YOUR MINDS THAT SHE LEFT HER FLAT WITH SOMEONE AND THEY BROUGHT HER STUFF BACK!!!!!!!!!
So... so far .... How on earth can this evidence lead to Dr Vincent Tabak being arrested and charged with MURDER!!!!!
They needed someone... anyone so the review didn't happen!!!! (IMO)
And Dr Vincent Tabak was on his own that evening just like CJ had been on his own... So they needed to find a slot where he might have had the time to committ the crime!!!
He was in constant contact with his girlfriend all evening...
He went to Asda.....
They had to fit it around Dr Vincent Tabak being out of the house at the ONLY time he would be alone!!!
Because other than that he has time stamps...
This is why the timestamp on the ASDA video is important...
This is why the 1300 page Document that has Everyones timelines in: Joanna Yeates..Greg Reardon: Tanya Morson and Dr Vincent Tabak:
Is IMPORTANT... It gives timelines of EVERYTHING!!!!
This massive document would PROVE Dr Vincent Tabak didn't have the time to do what they said he did!!!
And the PROSECUTION did NOT give the 1300 PAGE DOCUMENT to the defence till the day of TRAIL!!!!!!!!!
This is why an experiment of lifting a dead weight, from the kitchen... to the bedroom... 2 mins later from the bedroom, through the hallway... turn left up the building.. turn left again across the back of the building... put her down... Go into your own flat...2 minutes later, pick her up again.. move her into your flat.... Put her in a bike bag....
This needs timing!!! He's not allowed to drag her as there are NO drag marks.. he has to carry her... whilst NOT Panicing.... Or leaving any evidence of himself in her flat..... Or evidence of herself in his Flat!!!!!!
HOW MANY MINUTES WOULD THIS TAKE????????????
EDIT:
Please excuse the expression But....
Just a thought..... the supposed sample they had of Dr Vincent Tabak on Joanna Yeates was so small they needed to enhance it using DNA senCE.....
Wouldn't Dr Vincent Tabak have been sweating his B****CKS off trying to move a dead weight about so many times on his own....... Surely he would have deposited a lot more Sweat on Joanna Yeates body... he wouldn't have been able to control that!!!!!
Lyndsey Lennen... Is the Forensic Soecialist...
Andrew Mott... Is the forensic co-ordinator
EDIT:
Look at this:
Mr Jones told reporters yesterday: "At this stage there is no evidence to suggest that Joanna was sexually assaulted.
"However, I have not ruled out that there might have been a sexual motive."
WHY....... are they not ruling out a SEXUAL MOTIVE.. when they KNOW she hasn't been sexually assaulted?????
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8240280/Joanna-Yeates-murder-police-face-criticism.html
This is the 5th January 2011:....
Is his brain ticking trying to explain why Joanna Yeates was murdered??????????
Remember he thinks CJ has something to do with her murder still at this point!!!
So why the suggestion of a sexually motivated attack... they obviously didn't think that of CJ!!!
Also REMEMBER.... the supposed searches do not prove intent or anything and the so called PORN was inadmissible...
He had to come up with something!!!!!! (IMO)
They had NOT searched Dr Vincent Tabak's computer by the 5th January 2011..!!!
So where did the IDEA of a SEXUALLY MOTIVATED ATTACK COME FROM......... on the 5th January 2010
Dr Vincent Tabak.... was actually Arrested on the 20th JANUARY 2011 (hadn't seen his comp)!!
"However, I have not ruled out that there might have been a sexual motive.
This is PLANTING the idea in the MINDS of the public that is was Sexually Motivated....(IMO)
Is this you revealing your hand Mr Policeman????????
Sorry to keep editing: BUT........... He said: "I can assure you, we are determined to solve this crime, and bring Jo's killers to justice."
KILLERS!!!!!!! see he think CJ had something to do with this on the 5th January 2011
NOW we understand Lyndsey Lennen's Statement of:
A colleague went down to supervise the removal of her clothing and preserve any body fluids: "The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky." Under the media glare, the work was flat-out: clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours.
THEY HAD TESTED CJ's and Dr Vincnt Tabak's DNA TOGETHER and at the same time as Joanna Yeates samples were tested.....
He says KILLERS!!!!!!!!!!! plural two of them!!! So why the Crap about a sexually Motivated attack??
Unless its the people that CJ heard at the little GATE!!!!!!!!!!!!
CJ was NOT released from Police Bail until MARCH!!!!!
Did they actually go to Holland and interview Dr Vincent Tabak there???? I have my doubts!!!!
See: Jo Yeates murder accused Vincent Tabak in court
Bang on!!!!!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-12262194
-
Well, if that particular documentary is accurate, then, as you say, VT was not implying that the movement of CJ's car had anything to do with Joanna's disappearance.
However, I never thought he was implying that anyway: he was doing what CJ himself had done, and giving the police extra information, as all the neighbours had been invited to do. The police then took that as "trying to deflect away from oneself", just as they had with CJ.
The meeting in Holland was not reported to the public at the time: why???
The "accepted" story is that VT aroused Karen Thomas' suspicion because he asked questions about the forensic investigation, and wanted to know why the door of Jo and Greg's flat had been removed.
He also changed his story, by saying that he had been out to ASDA on the evening of the 17th, whereas before he had said he stayed in until going to collect Tanja.
Karen Thomas reported that his sister and Tanja (who sat in on the interview) seemed to be fussing over him. I would imagine that the sister, if not Tanja, realised that Vincent was being treated as a suspect.
The thing with the video's Mrswah..... Is the PUBLIC believes them.... The public believes what they have been told... they believe Dr Vincent Tabak is some sort of sicko Murderer... because they have been told that.....
They wouldn't have accepted the police describing him as a PLACID MURDER!!!!! it doesn't compute!!
And everytime they release a video, it only reinforce's it in the minds of the general public.....
That's why the PORN stuff came out after the trial..... To reinforce in the public's mind that this man is BAD!!!
The porn wasn't admissible at trial and i really don't think that it was just because it would be prejudicial to the defence... I believe it wasn't real.... not in the way they portrayed it....
Then after he's convicted : Crime Watch do a special???? Are they appealing for info on Crimes NOT telling us how BAD Dr Vincent Tabak is??????
How do we know he changed his story about going to Asda???????
Have we been allowed to see the statements that Dr Vincent Tabak has given to the Police..... There was that lady who tried to get access to them by using the freedom of information act...
We don't know when they first asked him about HIS movements on the 17th Dec 2010 and if the POLICE where CONVINCED she had been killed on the 18th DEC 2010... The Asda wouldn't come into it...
Remember at this point , he's a possible witness,.. nothing more........ They are not supposed to be interviewing him as a suspect... just a neighbour with what might be a bit of info!
Maybe he didn't think it important enough to tell them that.... he was a neighbour telling them about his BORING evening on his own on the night of the 17th December 2010 including what he did on the 18th and 19th of December 2010..... (they don't know when she was killed) (or if she is just missing at this point!!!)
It was just a simple statement... that's probably why they ask the TENANTS to ring them if they remembered anything else....
Again... About the door...... unless we see the statements Dr Vincent Tabak made we do not KNOW if he asked about the door!!!
He had said NO COMMENT..... for ages... So when is he supposed of asked about the door.......
But apparently they denied her access in case Dr Vincent Tabak appealled.....
WELL....... LET DR VINCENT TABAK APPEAL THEN!!!!!!!
I agree about his sister concern... Dr Vincent Tabak was Placid... He probably wasn't aware what the Police had in store for him... But i'm sure his sister did!!!!
-
I want to add to this post: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg368908#msg368908
Thought I shouldn't Edit it again.. so I'm adding some more quote:
These quote are from Judge Rinder cases: Joanna Yeates: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4htq8y
We established that the DNA was turned around in 48 hours... So we need to understand these comments made by the police man:
So: 20th January 2011... 48 hours before that is := 18th January 2011:
Did they get a sample from Dr Vincent tabak on the 18th January 2011??........ NO!!
At 31:25 mins: The Policeman says:
It was around the 20th January, that erm... we positively identified there were components in the mixed DNA.. of Vincent Tabak
Again... 48 hours before Dr Vincent Tabak Popped round did he???
So he clearly says the 20th January!!
At 33:20 mins: The Policeman says:
He hadn't returned to the flat, and was staying with a friend in another part of Bristol.. We went there in the early hours of 20th January we arrested him..
Then he springs into action after getting the DNA results on the 20th January 2011... And even before the ink is dry on the arrest warrant, he's managed to run round to Aberdeen Road, in the wee hours and Arrest Dr Vincent Tabak!!!
Question:
(1) What time in the morning on the 20th January 2011 did the Police recieve the DNA results from LGC Forensics????????
(2) What time in the morning did they Arrest Dr Vincent Tabak on the 20th January 2011???
(3) How long does it take to get an Arrest warrant together ??
(4) Why did the Police know that Dr Vincent Tabak was staying in Aberdeen Road???
(5) Wouldn't the arrest warrant have to have Dr Vincent Tabak's name and Address on it?
(6) Had the Police been keeping tabs on Dr Vincent Tabak to even Know he was staying in Aberdeen Road????
This is interesting:
Warrant for Arrest
If the police have the power to execute a warrant for arrest (also mis-spelled ‘warrent for arrest’) it is because it will have been issued by a Court (usually a Magistrates’ Court) in connection with criminal proceedings.
Arrest warrants give the police the power to:
arrest a suspect,
detain them, and
produce the suspect before a court.
It is important to note that the arrest warrant must be valid, and that the police do not exceed their powers or act outside of its scope when executing it. If they do, you may be entitled to compensation for an unlawful arrest warrant. (Click on the link for more information.)
https://www.donoghue-solicitors.co.uk/actions-against-the-police/police-warrant-claims/warrant-definition/warrant-for-arrest/
Well Well Well...... Mr policeman:....... You are quite exceptional, you have managed in the space of a few hours, get the DNA results that you say belong to Dr Vincent Tabak..
Not only that.... you managed to arrest him in the EARLY HOURS.......
And the bit that is completely fantastic.... "Shows dedication".... You also got an Arrest Warrant from a Magistrate!!!!
Did you have to bang this MAGISTRATE up out of bed?????
Don't know what time they arrive at court... So I could be wrong that you banged them out of bed........
And you managed all this in a few hours with a DNA profile that wasn't a FULL profile which didn't prove that Dr Vincent Tabak was the donor of the DNA and the MAGISTRATE said YES:
Here you go.... Go AND get that BAD man so I can get some sleep!!!!!!
it is because it will have been issued by a Court (usually a Magistrates’ Court) in connection with criminal proceedings.
Magistrates court then????? Or Kangeroo???? (IMO)
It is important to note that the arrest warrant must be valid, and that the police do not exceed their powers or act outside of its scope when executing it. If they do, you may be entitled to compensation for an unlawful arrest warrant.
Was it valid Mr Policeman?????
Did you actually have a warrant for such a serious offence as murder??????
Don't forget... he can be Compensated.........
-
The Chaplain Peter Brotherton
Yes..... we all remember the CHAPLAIN Peter Brotherton and his helpful nature:.......
Joanna Yeates murder trial: Vincent Tabak confessed to chaplain in jail
Did he really!!!!
That was extremeley fortunate for Dr Vincent Tabak , that he joined Long Lartin... What ever would he have done without him!!!!
he said, was on 24-hour watch, with a perspex door fronting his cell.
It was during their third meeting, on Monday 8 February, when, as the court heard, Tabak revealed that he had something to tell the chaplain which “would shock him”. According to Brotherton,
Lets think about that... 3rd meeting..... He was a conciencious Chaplain......
He's meet with him 3 times in 12 days.... too kind......
What's with the perspex door?????
https://www.channel4.com/news/tabak-planned-to-plead-guilty-trial-hears
Vincent Tabak is said to have told the Salvation Army’s Peter Brotherton: ‘I have got something to tell you that is going to shock you.’
Tabak was said to have told Mr Brotherton of his plan to ‘plead guilty’ at HMP Long Lartin on February 8 and that he felt sorry for what he had done to Ms Yeates.
But Tabak then reacted angrily as Mr Brotherton told him he would not be able to keep the admission secret, the chaplain told Bristol crown court.
Were is the ..." I killled Joanna"????
http://metro.co.uk/2011/10/18/joanna-yeates-murder-trial-vincent-tabak-confessed-to-chaplain-in-jail-187513/#ixzz4Si45NyQa
On The Judge Rinder Crime Video : Joanna Yeates
At 36:20 The Policeman says:
We also cannot forget The Policeman saying: In February 2011, he disclosed to a Prison chaplain..erm... that he'd killed Joanna and that he was going to admit it at court
Did He actually use those words??? Did he say I killed Joanna????
Now be careful of your description there Mr Policeman...
Are we sure he really is a CHAPLAIN?????
The SALVATION ARMY Chaplain... has always been a bit of an enigma.... When anyone tries to Clarify anything about Peter Brotherton is is virtually impossible, because he is not listed anywhere....
And the only time you actually find information regarding Chaplain Peter Brotherton, it is only every in relation to the Joanna Yeates case...
Which I found most Parculiar.....
On Feb 8 he spoke to Peter Brotherton, a voluntary chaplain with the Salvation Army, said the prosecutor, Nigel Lickley QC.
Tabak told him: “I’m going to tell you something that will shock you,” Mr Lickley said.
“Vincent Tabak told him ‘I’m going to plead guilty’,” he added.
The chaplain asked him “what for?” and Tabak replied: “For the crime that I have done.”
When he was asked if he meant “the young lady in Bristol” he said “yes” and the chaplain asked him: “Are you sorry?”
Where does he say that he Killed Joanna Yeates?????
Another thing..... we all blindly, me included.... Think: Prison Chaplain means: A man of the cloth... A man of great FAITH..
A man that can be trusted.. A man that i can confide in....
But:..... The Chaplain told!!!!!
Salvation Army member Peter Brotherton told the jury he shook hands with Vincent Tabak before the defendant told him: "I have got something to tell you that is going to shock you."
I'll shake your hand.. Then I'll stab you in the back.....(IMO)
Tabak, who had been under 24-hour supervision at HMP Long Lartin, was said to have told Mr Brotherton of his intention to plead guilty on 8 February, three weeks after his arrest.
Interesting.... look at what his title is:..... MR??
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8820130/Vincent-Tabak-told-prison-chaplain-I-killed-Joanna-Yeates.html
Mr Brotherton took his role in Long Larton Prison Just apparently a month before Dr Vincent Tabak was there:
He had assumed the role of a volunteer chaplain in January this year, just a month prior to his first meeting with Vincent Tabak. Tabak,
AH........ ASSUMED THE ROLE!!!!! So Not a proper Chaplain!!!!!!!!!
https://www.channel4.com/news/tabak-planned-to-plead-guilty-trial-hears
Appearing at Bristol Crown Court, Mr Brotherton said he decided he could not keep the information secret because Tabak was not religious. Mr Brotherton, who has been visiting prisoners since 1975, said "there was a little bit of anger" in Tabak's voice after the chaplain said he would have to pass on the information, which the Dutch engineer offered on their third meeting.
Again.... his title is ,... MR....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/vincent-tabak-was-angry-when-he-confessed-2372428.html
Everyone one else,.. refers to him as a CHAPLAIN!!!..... But I don't believe he is a Chaplain in the PROPER sense of the term........
Lets look at his quote:
Appearing at Bristol Crown Court, Mr Brotherton said he decided he could not keep the information secret because Tabak was not religious.
This on apperance, seems ligit in on sense... He's using the excuse that Dr Vincent Tabak is not religous.... So it's his duty to divulge the information to his superiors....
Who are MR BROTHERTONS SUPERIORS????????
I Believe the POLICE were MR BROTHERTONS SUPERIORS!!!!!
I'll tell you for why..... he is denfinetley not a Prison Chaplain in the true sense of the word (IMO)
Did you notice how he is addressed???
Appearing at Bristol Crown Court, Mr Brotherton
Nobody has picked up on this subtle difference.... with everything going on MR Brotherton has only had a role in a supposed confession... Yes people of religion are horrified that a PRISON CHAPLAIN would DIVULGE any information bestowed upon them....
Again...The Devil is ALWAYS in The DETAIL:.....
You see.. I DO NOT BELIEVE MR BROTHERTON IS A PROPER CHAPLAIN!!!!
You have to understand how The Salavation Army works...... There are different catergories of Chaplain... members etc...... And that is it.....
HE IS A MEMBER!!!
Salvation Army member Peter Brotherton told the jury he shook hands with Vincent Tabak before the defendant told him: "
This quote is from the Independant and I believe they acuratley described MR BROTHERTON!!!!!!! They call him a MEMBER!!!!!!!!
http://www.salvationarmy.org.uk/being-salvationist
YOU CAN BE: A SOLDIER:
Soldiership
One way to be a member is to become a soldier.
This is a voluntary personal commitment arising from a spiritual conviction. You will be invited to attend classes to explore the beliefs and practices of The Salvation Army, which will include exploration of your spiritual experience and the way in which this impacts on your lifestyle choices.
When a Salvation Army soldier is enrolled – officially joins the church – they publically demonstrate their decision by signing and adhering to the soldier’s covenant. Soldiers make a choice whether to wear the uniform or not based on their personal convictions.Soldiership
One way to be a member is to become a soldier.
This is a voluntary personal commitment arising from a spiritual conviction. You will be invited to attend classes to explore the beliefs and practices of The Salvation Army, which will include exploration of your spiritual experience and the way in which this impacts on your lifestyle choices.
When a Salvation Army soldier is enrolled – officially joins the church – they publically demonstrate their decision by signing and adhering to the soldier’s covenant. Soldiers make a choice whether to wear the uniform or not based on their personal convictions.
OR YOU CAN BE: ADHERENT MEMBER
Adherent members
Adherent members do not wear the uniform but are committed to The Salvation Army as their church and, as such, can identify themselves as members of The Salvation Army. It is the opportunity to explore your faith and how you best express is.
Not only is it important to The Salvation Army that adults find a place to worship and have the opportunity to become members, but that children and young people are included in this.
Children can also make a voluntary personal commitment to serve God through The Salvation Army, too. Through junior soldier classes, children can learn about God and make their own commitment to explore their spiritual experience and the impact it can make on their life choices.
In a public ceremony, they will sign the junior soldier’s promise to become a junior soldier member of The Salvation Army. Whether they wear the junior soldier’s uniform or not is up to them.
This is where the important stuff lies........
http://www.salvationarmy.org/ihq/7DBFBCA725142A5C802573B1004F315A
Adherent members do not wear the uniform but are committed to The Salvation Army as their church and, as such, can identify themselves as members of The Salvation Army.
So I truley believe that MR BROTHERTON was an ADHERENT member of the SALVATION ARMY and not a CHAPLAIN.......
'Adherency' is a form of membership of The Salvation Army which varies from country to country. It never requires the full acceptance of Salvation Army regulations that 'soldiership' (full membership) requires, but in many countries the adherent signs a Certificate of Recognition.
One widely used certificate declares: 'This certificate confirms that ____ is an Adherent Member of The Salvation Army. An adherent member of The Salvation Army is a person who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ and seeks to follow and be like him; participates in the worship, fellowship, service and support of a local Salvation Army congregation; and identifies with the Army's Mission Statement.
An adherent member is a person 14 years of age or over, who meets the definition of adherency given above, and who is not an active member of any other religious body. The Salvation Army affirms all who sign the certificate, recognises this as a positive step in a personal journey and pledges ongoing encouragement and pastoral guidance as this journey of faith unfolds.
So lets have a look at who could be an ADHERENT member:
(1) Lollypop Lady
(2) Ice Cream man
(3) Lawyer
(4) Policeman Man.....
(5) Dinner lady
(6) Girl Guide
(7) Bouncer
(8) Vet
(9) Prison Officer
(10) Male Nurse/ Nurse/ Dentist
Basically just about anyone one can be an ADHERENT MEMBER:........
So what is MR BROTHERTON'S OTHER JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Adherent Member of The Salvation Army. An adherent member of The Salvation Army is a person who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ and seeks to follow and be like him; participates in the worship, fellowship, service and support of a local Salvation Army congregation; and identifies with the Army's Mission Statement.
So MR BROTHERTON ..... You are an ADHERENT MEMBER are YOU???
See nobody again asked MR Brotherton for his QUALIFICATIONS.... because he didn't need any!!!!!!!!!
So going on the witness stand as MR BROTHERTON.... he wasn't telling an untrue....
He didn't need to say whether or not he was a Chaplain in the full sense of the word..... Because...
Everyone including myself believed he was..... BUT NOW.... I think he's just an ADHERENT member...
So any Joe Bloggs with a religious conviction can be come a SALVATION ARMY MEMBER!!!!!!!!!
I will add that nowhere I can find that MR BROTHERTON says he is a CHAPLAIN.. so he's not lying there:
Adherent members do NOT wear the uniform... that is why when MR BROTHERTON attends court he is in a suit... I have attached a picture of Mr Brotherton...( it might not be a photo of him... it was taken outside court)......
So... what is his real job... does he work inside the Police Department???? Does he work with the Prosecution service.... Do we really know ANYTHING about MR BROTHERTON other than he blabbed about Dr Vincent Tabak's supposed confession!!!!!
So what was this confession??? Is the statement that Mr Brotherton says made in one meeting or over several?? Has he strung aload of sentences together over various meeting???
Because I don't know about you... But I just do not TRUST The so called CHAPLAIN.... he apparently only joined Long Larton at the end of January 2011...
Mr Brotherton, who has been visiting prisoners since 1975, said "there was a little bit of anger"
In what CAPACITY.........
Dentist??? Nurse??? what is your job!!!!!
And.. we Know that Dr Vincent Tabak is Placid and Helpful... would he show ANGER????
Well maybe he he just found out you weren't a real CHAPLAIN. and had tricked him.....(IMO)
At court this is what was said:
During cross-examination, Tabak’s QC William Clegg claimed Mr Brotherton’s comments differed from a statement he gave on February 16.
Mr Clegg said: “Let me suggest to you there was no suggestion of ‘changing my plea’. ‘I am going to plead guilty’ - that’s what he said. “You said ‘What for?’. And he said ‘For the crime I have done’.”
What Crime was he confessing too?????? Doesn't say Joanna Yeates MURDER!!!!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8820130/Vincent-Tabak-told-prison-chaplain-I-killed-Joanna-Yeates.html
Adherency' is a form of membership of The Salvation Army which varies from country to country. It never requires the full acceptance of Salvation Army regulations that 'soldiership' (full membership) requires,
This is the real reason why MR BROTHERTON could divulge the information that was supposedly given to him by Dr Vincent Tabak.... He DOSEN"T HAVE TO FOLLOW THE RULES!!! Nothing at all to do with Dr Vincent Tabak being Religious or NOT!!!!!
Oh Dear..........
MR BROTHERTON..............
I do believe I have found you:?????? (IMO)
Are you this MR PETER BROTHERTON????????
http://www.butlertrust.org.uk/peter-brotherton-anthony-richardson-hmp-whitemoor/
PETER BROTHERTON & ANTHONY RICHARDSON (HMP Whitemoor)
COMMENDEES 2012-13: Senior Officer & Prison Officer: for contributions to the care and welfare of staff. (This Commendation is granted in memory of Paul Mason).
Oh lets see.... let me guess your JOB!!!!!!!!....
Sureley it isn't a coincidence that there are two of you in the Prison Service????????????
I could be wrong of course:
[The following article appeared in issue 5 of the Butler Trust’s magazine, Inspire]
In the category of staff care, Supervising Officer Pete Brotherton and Prison Officer Anthony Richardson at HMP Whitemoor have been commended for their ‘contributions to the care and welfare of staff’ through the prison’s witness care initiative. Pete and Anthony are active members of the prison’s staff care team, which provides peer support for staff members in difficulty on a purely voluntary basis, juggling the commitment with their fulltime roles – Pete as part of the orderly officer group and Anthony in the establishment’s dangerous, severe and personality disorder (DSPD) unit.
So Peter...... you are actually a SUPERVISING OFFICER... who's an ADHERENT Salvation Army member!!!???????
As Whitemoor is a high security prison it holds some of the most dangerous and violent prisoners,’ says Pete. ‘To take these people to court while they are already serving long sentences is very challenging.’ The system now supports staff before, during and after trials, involving the provision of courtroom training as well as organising appropriate transport and pre-trial visits to the court to address staff anxieties around what will happen on the day.
Was it really challenging to get the PLACID... Dr Vincent Tabak to court?? Or was the challenge getting the PLACID Dr Vincent Tabak to believe you were a PRISON CHAPLAIN!!!!! (IMO)
There is now a single point of contact at the CPS for each case, regular communication with all agencies, and staff are shielded from press intrusions.
So was it the CPS whom you had to inform of the supposed CONFESSION that the PLACID Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have made???????
MR BROTHERTON...... I believe it's time you explained your ROLE PROPERLY and what your JOB is:!!!!!!!!!
It sounding more and more like a set-up......... (IMO)!!!!!!!!
This Case is a Joke!!!!!!!! Brotherton only stated work at LONG LARTIN PRISON in January.. ..
Convienent if you ask me:!!!!!
Again.. I do believe Dr Vincent Tabak should have a Re- Trial....
In My Opinion they stitched this man up good and proper!!!!!!!!
So..... MR BROTHERTON... you are really a Prison Officer??????? (IMO) A Supervsing Prison Officer????? (IMO)
In the category of staff care, Supervising Officer Pete Brotherton and Prison Officer Anthony Richardson at HMP
The photograph I Have attached is from the internet.. So this picture may be wrong.. and it maybe just just a guy leaving court!!!
The picture come from The Mirror... I don't know who Identified this man as PETER BROTHERTON..... maybe he IS!! Maybe he ISN'T!!!!!
I Personally believe that if this PETER BROTHERTON is one in the same person that they cannot act for the benefit of a PRISON............ It clearly is a conflict of interests!!!!!!!!!
And if not.... Explain yourself PETER BROTHERTON!!!!!!!!
I DO NOT BELIEVE DR VINCENT TABAK CONFESSED TO ANYONE!!!!! PERIOD! (IMO)
EDIT: Before he left, the chaplain shook hands with the prisoner and offered to pray with him, but Tabak declined. Brotherton handed him instead a handwritten prayer saying: “You can use it or do whatever you want with it.”
ERM........ let me make a suggestion!!!!!!
https://www.channel4.com/news/tabak-planned-to-plead-guilty-trial-hears
There is now a single point of contact at the CPS for each case, regular communication with all agencies, and staff are shielded from press intrusions.
This is why I don't think the picture is MR BROTHERTON..... They get shiedled from press intrusion..
Why would he then want his face splashed all over the press!!!!!!!!
Could be a picture of an Unhealthy Policeman!!!
http://www.prisonofficer.org.uk/search.php?keywords=chaplain++&t=6254&sf=msgonly&sid=62cc07ca8a216f62bdcf982c4b17aacd
This is where i thought I would have found Mr Brotherton.... because of his years of service
If they TRICKED Dr Vincent Tabak into believing that MR BROTHERTON was A Chaplain....
What else did they trick Dr Vincent Tabak with??????????
-
The Confession...........
Now we need to understand what leads Dr Vincent Tabak to confess.....!!
Everyone.... Apart from myself and a few other believe THE CONFESSION......... ( i do not BELIEVE it for one moment )!!
It was an integral part of Dr Vincent Tabak facing Murder charges......
So.... how do we look at this as possible DURESS!!!!!
We have to go right back to when they first arrested Dr Vincent Tabak... which if you remember is the...... 20th January 2011...
So Again... start adding things:......
20th January 2011 was a THURSDAY
They could hold him for : For how long you can be detained
You can normally be detained for up to 24 hours without being charged.
This can be longer but only if the offence could be tried by a judge and jury
in a crown court and a Police Superintendent or a court allows it to happen.
After 36 hours only a court can allow the police more time to detain you
without being charged.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/332266/CodeC-NoRE.pdf
So this now brings it to Saturday the 22nd January 2011....... = 36 hours later
Well court is not really held on a Saturday....
So...............
The next available slot will be Monday the 24th January 2011......
Now you need to understand the difficulties someone ...especially someone of a PLACID nature is trying to deal with these somewhat TESTING circumstances:
I will let CJ tell you:
I was taken into custody and questioned by the Police for
three days, during which time I was entirely cut off from
the world to all intents and purposes. Finally, on 1
January, I was released on bail pending further
investigations.
Notice they still suspect CJ.........
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http:/www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf
Lets not forget:.... CJ found this situation intolerable... he was in Police custody for 3 days with no contact from the outside word..
No Family..
No friends..
No one except his SOLICITOR.......
Now lets go back to Dr Vincent Tabak:
He was arrested on the 20th January 2011 and did not get to see his family or friends for at least 5 days:
I genuineley don't think he saw then then... But I digress .....
Are these the timings you are refering to Mr Policeman??????
By Arresting Dr Vincent Tabak on the Thursday 20th January 2011... the Police had longer than the 36 hours,in which they would have to apply for an extention:.....
I hope your following...
Clever Tactics in my opinion!!!!
So.... 24th January we get this:= 5 days as he was arrested EARLY hours of the 20th January 2011
Vincent Tabak makes first court appearance - and plans to apply for bail
He stood impassively in front of Bristol magistrates yesterday and spoke only to confirm his name, address and age, and to verify he understood proceedings.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/vincent-tabak-makes-first-court-106532
So he appears in front of the Magistrates on the... 24th January 2011 (WHERES THE BAIL)?? His solicitor is COOK at this point!!!!!
He was charged with murder on Saturday evening.
this I don't understand??? Was the original charge for the Saturday 18th Dec 2010????
So we are now 5 days being held and no sign of seeing any family or friends at this point:.....
You would like to think that Dr Vincent Tabak as a Dutch Nation is getting the full British Hospitallity package.... But NO.........
They use an EXCUSE to move him......... To Gloucester Prison!!
THE man accused of murdering Jo Yeates was moved to a different prison
yesterday amid fears for his safety.
Vincent Tabak had spent less than 24 hours in jail in Bristol before the
30-mile switch to Gloucester.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/330342/tabak-jail-switch-over-attack-fears/
So at this point... EVEN his SOLICITOR does NOT... get access to him... it can take time to sort!!!!!!
Recap: Arrested 20th January 2011
And by the 25th January .... no contact with any friends family and as far as I'm aware only a DUTY solicitor has been appointed!!!!
So we are at day 5........ I personally would concider that more than 36 hours without proper intervention!!!
COULD IT GET ANY WORSE............. well yes actually
THE man charged with the murder of Jo Yeates has been placed on suicide watch
in prison.
Dutch-born Vincent Tabak is being monitored around the clock at Long Lartin
jail, where he is on remand.
He's been moved again....... No family No friends... who's his lawyer???????
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/332161/jo-suspect-on-suicide-watch-in-tough-jail/
Now the Placing of Dr Vincent Tabak on suicide what is vey telling........
How have they described him before??
Placid?? Calculating?? sytematic??
You really have to understand what the MOTIVES are again........
what happens to prisoners on suicide watch in LONG LATIN PRISON????????
OMG ... ya gonna love it....
He had assumed the role of a volunteer chaplain in January this year, just a month prior to his first meeting with Vincent Tabak. Tabak, he said, was on 24-hour watch, with a perspex door fronting his cell.
https://www.channel4.com/news/tabak-planned-to-plead-guilty-trial-hears
When was MR BROTHERTONS first meeting With Dr Vincent Tabak???
So..... we have now spent 7 days so far without having any contact with firends or family and we have been put in a Cell with a perpex door.... No privacy...
If CJ found just 3 days very difficult and trying... Try DOUBLING that!!!!!!!!!!!
Up until this point NO BAIL has been applied for what so ever!!!!!!!!!
So we are at about the 27th January...... I'm now looking for when exactly Tanja got to visit DR Vincent Tabak???
Range of date 1/1/2011 to 30/1/2011 reveals no results:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=tanja+morson+visits+vincent+tabak&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=962&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A20%2F01%2F2011%2Ccd_max%3A30%2F01%2F2011&tbm=
Range of dates up until 8th Feb 2011: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=tanja+morson+visits+vincent+tabak&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=962&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A20%2F01%2F2011%2Ccd_max%3A08%2F02%2F2011&tbm=
It is NOT until the suspposed confession that I believe Tanja Morson EVENTUALLY gets access to her BOYFRIED Dr Vincent Tabak along with his family:
THE girlfriend of Jo Yeates’ alleged killer emerges from a prison visit — on
the same day as the tragic 25-year-old’s funeral.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/369964/accuseds-girl-visits-jail-as-jo-is-laid-to-rest/
That timing was well done Mr Policeman...!!
When he appeared for his hearing at Bristol... they did it from a video link from LONG LARTON!!!
Tabak, an architectural engineer who lived next door to Yeates in Bristol, appeared in court via video link from Long Lartin prison in Worcestershire.
His solicitor has changed to CLEGG!!!!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jan/31/joanna-yeates-funeral-vincent-tabak
Again look at the timing of what is happening!!!!!!
So we are at the 31st January so 11 days without seeing family and friends?????
Was the first time he was allowed to see them the 14 FEB 2011????????
IF CJ says: 3 days is hard...
We are possibly talking 25 days that Dr vincent Tabak did not have any contact with his family and freinds!!!!!!!!!!
I hope this is not the case..
has anyoneone got any evidence that dr vincent Tabak had access to family and friends and when it was !!!!!
So we have now been sat in a GOLDFISH BOWL for the best part of 11 days ... when the helpful MR BROTHERTON wants to ease your PLIGHT......
Now at this part of your incarceraction, even though you may not be Religous.. you might be slightly PLEASED to see A MAN OF THE CLOTH!!!
But... Mr Brotherton WASN"T.......!!!!
So just maybe... it puts into context Dr Vincent Tabak's reaction to Mr Brotherton....
Mr Brotherton, who has been visiting prisoners since 1975, said "there was a little bit of anger"
A bit of Anger!!!!! MY God.... Dr Vincent Tabak has had no access to anyone familiar to him.... then the Man Pretending to be a Chaplain has just tricked him!!!!!!!
Seriously how many days are we talking that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't get access To Family and Friends????
By my calculations it must be... 20th Jan 2011 to possibly 14th Feb 2011 = 25 days!!!!!!!!!!!
So...... How do you imagine this poor man feels right at this moment???
I bet he's not enjoying British Hospitality!!!!!
Now... the Police have the so called confession from Brotherton.... (he doesn't deserve to be called MR..) (IMO)
And what do they do NOW....
Start to build their imaginary case IN MY OPINION!!!!!
So we then go to MAY.... and Amazingly Dr Vincent Tabak enters a Plea!!!
Up until this point this man has said he is INNOCENT!!!!!
He goes to court at............. THE OLD BAILEY!!!!! via video link from long lartin....
Why did he not appear in PERSON??????
Why didn't it happen in Bristol???
All his other Apperances were in Bristol... even his murder trial!!!!!!!
Ah... stops him seeing family and friends and anyone else who might have been able to help or influence Dr Vincent Tabak on his RIGHTS!!!!!!
You couldn't make this stuff up if you were writting a story.......
Dutch engineer Vincent Tabak pleaded guilty to manslaughter during a brief hearing at the Old Bailey in London... Miss Yeates’s parents, David and Teresa, were in Court 2 of the Old Bailey to witness Tabak – who was appearing by videolink from Long Lartin prison where he is on remand – admit to killing their 25-year-old daughter.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8496027/Dutch-engineer-Vincent-Tabak-admits-I-did-kill-Jo-Yeates.html
WELL..... what else did they do to him inbetween the visit from the phoney chaplain... and him pleading guilty to MANSLAUGHTER....
Because in my opinion... they have shown Dr Vincent Tabak... that they can do pretty much anything?????
Is this when they told him they could charge him with CHILD PORN!!! its not beyond the releams of possibility....
They could have told this man anything to get him to CONFESS..........
When did he get access to his solicitor... CLEGG originally ???????????? we know he lost COOK at some point !!!!!!
And in my opinion... thats exactly what they did..... Got him to confess to something he didn't do....
You now have to understand that once he agrees to confess ....
He needs to sign a statemment to say he's admitting guilt!!!!!!
Once the statement is signed..... HELL OR HIGH WATER will not change this.....
Only NEW evidence at trial.... something the defence could use to PROVE that it was a FALSE CONFESSION!!!!!
LIKE THE 1300 PAGE DOCUMENT!!!!
Dr Vincent Tabak probably thought he'd have a bit more chance at a FAIR trial......
But It wasn't fair was it.....
No CJ as a witness
No Tanja as a witness
No Family as a witness
NO 1300 page document till the day of trial that would go to proving your innocence....
No one checking the credentials of the Prosecution witness's...
SO... where was the fair trial.......
And in the eyes of the LAW.... A PRISONERS CONFESSION should not be accepted if the PRISONER WAS under DURESS!!!!
Well going from the behaviour of the Police and the prosecution.... I Say that Dr Vincent Tabak WAS under DURESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lucky man 3 prisons in 48 hours AND a man pretending to be a prison chaplain and no family to have contact with:
We British really know how to treat our European Brothers!!!!!!!
EDIT: As A Forgein National.. did they contact the embassy for him??????
9. Contacting your embassy or consulate
If you are not British, you can tell the police that you want to contact your High
Commission, Embassy or Consulate to tell them where you are and why you
are in the police station. They can also visit you in private or arrange for a
solicitor to see you.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/332266/CodeC-NoRE.pdf
Access to the evidence if your case goes to Court
If you are charged with an offence, you or your solicitor must be
allowed to see the evidence against you as well as evidence which
may help your defence. This must be done before your trial starts.
The police and the Crown Prosecution Service are responsible for
arranging this and providing access to relevant documents and
materials.
Think this applys to the 1300 PAGE DOCUMENT... Don't you???????
Before the trial starts???? Not dumped on the lap of the defence on the day of trial then???????!!!!!
Didn't think they could do that!!!!
EDIT: He was charged with murder on Saturday evening.
I believe I read he was arrested on Thursday 20th January 2011 at 5:55am
So if they Arrested him on the Saturday evening.. they have gone past the hours they had to hold him without charge!!!!
Even if they got an extension 36 hours from Thursday 20th January 2011 at 5:55am
Friday 21st `January 2011 at 5:55am =24 hrs
Saturday 21st January 2011 at 5:55am = 48 hr And add more until the evening.....
What extension did they get to hold Dr Vincent Tabak?????????
Jurors also heard evidence from Detective Constable Geoffrey Colvin, who had arrested Tabak before dawn at a flat in Aberdeen Road, Cotham, Bristol, where he had been staying.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/joanna-yeates-killer-confessed-to-chaplain-2372235.html
2. How long you can be held in custody
The police can hold you for up to 24 hours before they have to charge you with a crime or release you.
They can apply to hold you for up to 36 or 96 hours if you’re suspected of a serious crime, eg murder.
You can be held without charge for up to 14 days If you’re arrested under the Terrorism Act.
https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights/how-long-you-can-be-held-in-custody
-
A cell with a Perspex door indicates they are following the rules and applying a duty of care for Tabak's safety not the opposite you assume! As the move itself implies!
-
This is a transcript of the Video in the telegraph dated 5th January 2011....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8240280/Joanna-Yeates-murder-police-face-criticism.html
It is the Policeman in charge making a statement...
At this time, I cannot say where or when Jo was killed..... Or when her body was left on Longwood Lane... The significant snowfall in the early hours of Saturday 18th Dec.. has a conciderable impact on this..
And I'm working with a number of Forensic Specialists to determine the timings.. We Have had a number of reports of vehicles on Longwood Lane... During the late friday evening... And early hours of Saturday morning...Including a possible light coloured 4x4 vehicle..This 4x4 and other vehicles maybe completeley unconnected...
But I urge anyone in that car or any other driver in the Vicinity that night to come forward....
I know there was large christmas functions taking place at Long Ashton Golf Club... Bristol and Clifton Golf Club...And Red Wood Lodge...
I again would urge taxi drivers who used the road to call......... They may have information that could prove vital....
Detail surrounding the pizza and the Cider are relevant...... And I appreciate have been an on going interest..
What I can tell you is we still haven't found the pizza, we have searched bins in the aarea and we are working through 292 tonnes of domestic rubbish seized in the vacinity....
This is a demonstration of the level of detail we are pursuing on this enquiry.....At this stage... It is not absolutley clear whether Jo had eaten the Pizza... We continue to work with experts to detemine this..... I can assure you we are determined to solve this crime and bring Jo's killers to justice
Again I'm going to break the statement up:
At this time, I cannot say where or when Jo was killed..... Or when her body was left on Longwood Lane... The significant snowfall in the early hours of Saturday 18th Dec.. has a considerable impact on this..
So.... why is he not sure WHERE... Joanna Yeates was killed????? He's been insisting it was in her Flat!!
And we know he hasn't got a clue as to WHEN????? maybe that will become apparent??
Why does the snowfall have an impact on this???? How much was under her?????
And I'm working with a number of Forensic Specialists to determine the timings.. We Have had a number of reports of vehicles on Longwood Lane... During the late friday evening... And early hours of Saturday morning...Including a possible light coloured 4x4 vehicle..This 4x4 and other vehicles maybe completeley unconnected...
Forensic Specialists.... Lyndsey Lennen Maybe??? What timings exactly is he trying to determine???
Whether it was possible for Dr Vincent Tabak to have put Joanna Yeates on Longwood lane on the Friday 17th Dec 2010??
Why are they just concentrating on vehicles that where seen on Longwood Lane on the Friday night and Saturday Morning.... what about any other sightings after that...
Just vehicle reported on the Friday 17th Dec and Saturday the 18th dec 2010.???? No other times or other days??????
Lets not forget ,, he does say:
At this time, I cannot say where or when Jo was killed..... Or when her body was left on Longwood Lane...
Why not ask the public if they have seen anything from the time it was possible for Jo to disappear and the time that she was found !!!!
You can see he's decided that it has to be Friday or Saturday that she was deposited at Longwood Lane ....... He has totlally ignored the fact that she could had been put there later?? of died later?
But I urge anyone in that car or any other driver in the Vicinity that night to come forward....
I know there was large christmas functions taking place at Long Ashton Golf Club... Bristol and Clifton Golf Club...And Red Wood Lodge...
So ... Longwood Lane had LOADS of TRAFFIC going up and down it on Friday 17th December 2010.....
Now wouldn't it have been Advisable for Dr Vincent Tabak.... to have used his vast knowledge of space awareness... his cunning his meticulous attention to detail... To think that Longwood Lane with it's narrow Road and narrow verges would be the perfect spot to leave Joanna Yeates.....
I know they say he tried to lift her over the wall.....
But with Andrew Mott waving his unweildly Broom Handle about, I'm not truly convinced how the blood ended up on top of the wall......
WHY is The Policeman determined that it was Friday the 17th Dec that someone must have seen something???
Remember he's just said he didn't know when Joanna Yeates was Left in Longwood lane,...
But on the Other hand he wants everyone and anyone who was in Longwood Lane on Friday the 17th to LET HIM KNOW!!!!!
The Date of this video is 5th January 2011..... They had no clue at this point....
But... he is persuading us that she must have been left there on Friday the 17th Dec 2010...
Has he forgotten this IMPORTANT siting:
When Jo’s body was found 48 hours later, Marilyn realised the importance of what she had seen and her husband Phillip reported the van driver’s suspicious behaviour on the Crimestoppers number.
Worried Marilyn took our reporter back to the spot where she saw the suspicious van driver.
So this was on the 23 Rd December 2010 that this Lady has reported this sighting.. seems significant... Did he just ignore this sighting??
She said: “I came out of the gate at the end of the path and noticed a man sitting in a white van.
“At first I thought it was my husband, because he always picks me up at the bottom of the road after I’ve finished my walk.
“He also drives a van, but when I looked at it, I realised it wasn’t him. It was smaller than his van.
“The man was parked in the lay-by outside the quarry gates. It’s only a few steps from where Jo’s body was found and is where all the flowers are now, next to the wall.
This is very accurate to where Joanna Yeates was found... there is a gate oppsite... and not the one I have attached a picture of.....
The van had a square-type top and was fairly small, and white in colour. I described it later in detail to my husband and he said it sounded like a Citroën Berlingo or a Vauxhall Astramax.
“There was a man sitting in the driver’s seat with his elbow up on the window frame. But it was a left-hand drive which I thought was weird at the time.
“He was wearing a woolly hat, like a beanie, which was dark grey and knitted like a tea cosy. I couldn’t see what else he was wearing, and I only got a side view of him, but I would guess he was in his late twenties to early thirties.
She even give a discription.... This was never mentioned ..And if Joanna Yeates was Thawing as Andrew Mott says.. she could have been put on Longwood Lane nearer to when she was found!!!!!!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/cops-hunting-a-white-van-man-1694868
He wants people to think it's still CJ and as we now know Dr Vincent Tabak!!!!
There where so many other sites along the way........ Why not somewhere else??
Infact ... I'll still insist.. that statistically, a stranger moving a body from the scene of crime doesn't happen..... Let alone moving it several times....
Your trying to tell me... after being this calculating MURDERER that he decided not to think out where to leave the body?????
But I urge anyone in that car or any other driver in the Vicinity that night to come forward....
I know there was large christmas functions taking place at Long Ashton Golf Club... Bristol and Clifton Golf Club...And Red Wood Lodge...
Again.... he's saying Friday the 17th Decemebr is the time...
Do NOT forget he thinks CJ did at this point still!!!!!!
So....... did she go to any of these events????? Nobody has said how she left the Flat ??
Lets look at where these places are in conjuction to where she was found on Longwood Lane ;
I've attached 2 pics... one is an ariel view of Longwood Lane and surrounding areas and the other is the opening at the other side of the quarry.. which has an entrance leading up to Ashton Court Golf Club...
The entrance is not too far away from where Joanna Yeates was found...!!!!!
I know the Policeman didn't mention this... But it's just as feasible that someone brought her down that way and not up/down Longwood Lane.... And did this on a completely different day!!!!
Detail surrounding the pizza and the Cider are relevant...... And I appreciate have been an on going interest..
He doesn't know where the pizza is....!!!!! But why is the CIDER relevant??????
It's because Mr Policeman hasn't told the general public, that a different cider to what Joanna Yeates purchased was found in the flat...
HEALEY"S cider 750ml and a TATTINGER REIMS CHAMPAGNE CORK!!!!!!!!
The cider was never really made a big detail... it wasn't being looked for in the rubbish... So he definetaley knows the Cider in the Flat was not the cider she bought.........
AND.............. Nowhere in any statement or court apperance do the prosecution ask Dr Vincent Tabak about the bottle of HEALEY"S cider and the TATTINGER REIMS CHAMPAGNE CORK..........
How exactly do you explain these items Mr Policeman?????????????????
What I can tell you is we still haven't found the pizza, we have searched bins in the aarea and we are working through 292 tonnes of domestic rubbish seized in the vacinity....
This is a demonstration of the level of detail we are pursuing on this enquiry.....At this stage... It is not absolutley clear whether Jo had eaten the Pizza... We continue to work with experts to detemine this..... I can assure you we are determined to solve this crime and bring Jo's killers to justice
Is this an exerise in letting the public know your attention to detail..... What exactly would this pizza box have shown????
You would have no viable DNA on it... it would be contaminated with all of the other rubbish...
And if you didn't find a single FINGERPRINT of Dr Vincent Tabak in the Flat... then what are you expecting this Pizza Box to reveal....????
They do not reveal about the sock until the afternoon statement!!!!
What I can tell you is we still haven't found the pizza, we have searched bins in the aarea and we are working through 292 tonnes of domestic rubbish seized in the vacinity....
Now remember this quote and the date of the article....
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I Am Going To Start Explaining The Searches Dr Vincent Tabak Was Supposed To Have Made!!
I did want you to remember this quote and the timing of the release of the Video....
What I can tell you is we still haven't found the pizza, we have searched bins in the aarea and we are working through 292 tonnes of domestic rubbish seized in the vacinity....
8:20AM GMT 05 Jan 2011:
And this quote:
By Gordon Rayner, and Martin Evans By Gordon Rayner, and Martin Evans 1By Gordon Rayner, and Martin Evans 12:58PM GMT 05 Jan 2011
Det Ch Insp Phil Jones said it was possible the killer had kept the grey knee-length ski sock as a macabre trophy, and issued an urgent appeal to the public to help find it in the hope that it could be the vital clue that will crack the case.
12:58PM GMT 05 Jan 2011
I'm having to work out approximateley when the time lines relate to what date???
At Line 340 of the prosecution chart
Tabak Googled on 26 Dec 2010
So with the quote above from Dr Vincent Tabak line 340 of the timeline is the 26 th Decemeber 2010
At Line 368 of the prosecution chart
Tabak searched for the Press release about
‘domestic rubbish’
‘Yeates’
‘architect’s killer’
‘maps for Clifton Road’
‘Clifton Road rubbish’
‘393 tons of rubbish trawled through’
‘household collections- Bristol City Council’
‘recycling’
So we have jumped 28 timelines at this point: to get to when the Police release the video dated 5th January 2010 to talk about the 292 tonnes of rubbish they have trawlled through???
Does the timeline mean the 5th January 2011??? or the 3rd from the press article??
Remember the press release was at 8:20AM GMT 05 Jan 2011: Wednesday
So where is Dr Vincent Tabak at 8:20pm on 5th January 2011..... well he's either on his way to work or about to leave...
Why doesn't it say on home computer??? we still don't know if that timeline is the 5th January 2011!!!!
If this search is on the 5th January... where is his search that says PIZZA!!!! Even if it's before where;'s the Pizza search???
I think he went to work around 9;00am normally:
Defence Counsel: What time do you leave for work?
Tabak: 9.00 am.
That was on a different day so I don't know if that applys to his usual time for leaving work....
At Line 369 of the prosecution search
Tabak searched for the words
‘amounts of rubbish seized’
Now.... Dr Vincent Tabak is an incredibliy intelligent man... he has PHD's... etc....
Again... it's the DETAIL...... well if on line 368 it says the amount of rubbish being:
‘393 tons of rubbish trawled through
And notice it's not even the correct amount of tonnage..........
Why on line 369... would he then search
Tabak searched for the words
‘amounts of rubbish seized’
Hello aren't we talking about a highly educated man here???????????
Why would he look after for the amounts of rubbish seized if he already knows how much rubbish was searched!!!!!!! Der.......
Up until the about 5th January 2011 Nothing had been mentioned about the grey ski sock:
A range of date between 26th Dec 2010 and 4th January 2011:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=missing+sock+found+joanna+yeates&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=1006&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A04%2F01%2F2011&tbm=
Nothing .... so the first mention is at the media conference on the 5th January 2011 at 12:58PM GMT ??????
At Line 369 of the prosecution search
Tabak searched for the words
‘amounts of rubbish seized’
At Line 372 of the prosecution chart
Tabak Googled the words
‘BCC household rubbish collections’
At Line 376 of the prosecution chart
Tabak’s research was categorised by the police analyst into ‘
‘Google’
‘forensic’
‘location’
At Line 378 of the prosecution chart
Tabak Googled the word
‘Yeates’
Tabak went to Google map and searched for the words
‘Clifton Bristol’
‘woods and surrounding area’
Then Tabak Googled the words
‘average rubbish per person in UK’
‘Yeates’
‘rubbish’
At Line 382 of the prosecution chart
Tabak Googled
‘Yeates pizza’
‘Avon police seize rubbish’
‘Yeates
‘Sky news images’
‘Yeates’
‘police’
Tabak also searchedhe BBC news article for
‘missing sock when found’
‘Avon & Somerset police’
Then Tabak researched for a Dutch article of ‘18 year sentence for murder’
I've done it this way because we're trying to establish when timeline 368 and 369 is: they could be the 3rd January 2011.. I found an article on that date....
Because next we have:
On 5 Jan 2011 lunchtime, Tabak Googled
‘press coverage’
At 3.05 pm, Tabak Googled the words
‘press coverage’
‘missing sock’
And again before that he searched At Line 382 of the prosecution chart
Tabak Googled
‘Yeates pizza’
‘Avon police seize rubbish’
‘Yeates
‘Sky news images’
‘Yeates’
‘police’
Tabak also searchedhe BBC news article for
‘missing sock when found’
‘Avon & Somerset police’
Then Tabak researched for a Dutch article of ‘18 year sentence for murder’
Why would he search ‘missing sock when found’.... very specific on line 382
When they then say:
On 5 Jan 2011 lunchtime, Tabak Googled
That sounds like he has searched for the sock before the news of the sock was divulged??????? It was never found... it was never proven to have anything to do with a trophy.....
Thats what they want us to think....
I'd have been more inclinced to believe the search if he'd put HEALEY"S CIDER!!!!
Also what an odd search ‘missing sock when found’
Why when found???? What is it going to reveal.... Remember they say that he put it in the rubbish so it will be as contaminated as the Pizza box in all that RUBBISH!!!!!
You think his concern would be what they found in the Flat if he had been in it!!!!!!
The other odd thing is that there are only 28 timelines between=
26th Dec 2010 which is timeline 340
3rd ish January which is timeline 368
because we know that timeline 382 is where he supposed to check for the sock!!!
When is timeline 382??????
He apparently did nothing according to this from 26th Dec 2010 timeline 340 and about the 3rd January timeline 369.... only 26 timeline for about a week...!!!!!
What is GLARING OBVIOUSLY missing from these SEARCHES???????????????
(1): There is No search on CJ
(2) There is NO CONCERN about DNA
(3) There is no search on what CAR drove where!!!
(4) There is no extra searches of Longwood Lane (i'll explain later)
(5) No searches for Asda CCTV coverage
We Know that he gave a DNA in Holland on the 31st Dec 2010.... So why not the concern before or up until the 5th January 2011?????
Where are the searches about Cj's arrest... where are the Searches about the forensic's on the DOOR????
Why isn't he..... CONSTANTLY CHECKING THE INTERNET AT THIS POINT!!!!!!!!!
Remember the Police woman said when she saw Dr Vincent Tabak in Holland on the 31st January 2011:
He was Vague in some area's... He was over interested in other area's, Particulary around our Forensic examination...
There was things in his account that just didn't seem right.... to me.
And then his reluctance to give his DNA at the end of the process....... Again started to Ring Alarm Bells
So he's so interested in the Forensic's and every detail of this investigation, by the 5th January 2011... he hasn't
even checked out whether the DNA sample he gave in Holland on the 31st Dec 2010 would be a PROBLEM to him??????
You would think between Line 340 and line 368... if Dr Vincent Tabak was worried about DNA samples he's of been checking that all the time and the Prosecution would have JUMPED ON IT!!!!!!!!
On 5 Jan 2011 lunchtime, Tabak Googled
‘press coverage’
At 3.05 pm, Tabak Googled the words
‘press coverage’
‘missing sock’
At 4.03, Tabak searched online newspaper articles for the words
‘frozen DNA’
‘rubbish collection Clifton 23 December 2010’
They manage to get to the DNA ..... So suddenley after all this time he then thinks .... Hang on a wee moment there.... I'll check about frozen DNA... but I won't check whether the Police have a right to use the sample I gave them on the 31st Dec 2010......
And will they need to take another sample if they Arrest me????
To me these searches sound like someone following the case..... OR these searches weren't actually on Dr Vincent Tabak's computer!!
No search for DNA up until the 5th January 2011?????? I wonder what line number that search is????
At Line 376 of the prosecution chart
Tabak’s research was categorised by the police analyst into ‘
‘Google’
‘forensic’
‘location’
Line 376 does not mean that Dr Vincent Tabak Catergorised these events into GOOGLE..... FORENSICS.... LOCATION.....
It is the POLICE who do this at TIMELINE 376.... So if a jury member isn't on the ball they might just write these words down and the timeline number!!!
It would give the impression that Dr Vincent Tabak looked at these things on timeline 376
When we already know.. that he didn't look at FORENSICS by timeline 382!!!!!
But it's been planted in the minds of the JURY!!!!
That line of 376 should have been clarified by the DEFENCE!!
He was Vague in some area's... He was over interested in other area's, Particulary around our Forensic examination...
So what possible other area's has Dr Vincent Tabak got an over interest in.....
(1): Time of Death??
(2): Finger print analysis???
(3): What CJ could have told the Police
(4): The Front Door of Joanna Yeates???
(5):CCTV Footage of Clifton Suspension Bridge
(6):CCtV footage in and around Clifton:
(7):Asda CCtv
(8): Cars seen On Longwood Lane
(9): A Man actiing suspiciously on Longwood Lane on Friday 17th Dec 2010
(10):How much DNA gets leftbehind in the scene of crime
(11) EU Law and extradition....
I could go on......
At 4.03, Tabak searched online newspaper articles for the words
‘frozen DNA’
Now this is almost laughable..... That was the HEADLINE from the NEWSPAPER (Only in the sense of the words FROZEN DNA)....
Police hope frozen DNA sample on body will solve Joanna's murder as they warn women 'not to go out alone after dark'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343462/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Police-hope-frozen-DNA-sample-body-solve-murder.html#ixzz4SorklMZS UPDATED: 19:19, 3 January 2011
This is the only article on the words "FROZEN DNA" and the time is 19:19 .....
How many articles did he search????
A Range of dates from 17/12/2010 till 5th January 2011 only give you one result:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=frozen+DNa&biw=1920&bih=1006&espv=2&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A17%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A05%2F01%2F2011&tbm=
Now if this article was available on the 3rd January 2011 AND.... Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to be following every single move of this investigation......
WHY.... did he wait 2 DAYS to check about the FROZEN DNA!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You see by this point you would have thought Dr Vincent Tabak would not of hung around Britain, if he was the supposed murderer:
Defence Counsel: Then in Holland the English police took your DNA. What did you think
would happen?
Tabak: I was thinking I would be arrested anytime.
Defence Counsel: Do you know what DNA is?
Tabak: Yes.
Defence Counsel: What did you think if they found DNA on Joanna?
Tabak: A sure match.
If he SAYS.... when he's in court that the DNA Sample he gave on the 31st December 2010 would be a sure match....
WHY is he not planning his escape to Holland?????????
Why don't his early searches indicate that he was trying to flee to Holland????
Remember 48 hours to turn around all the samples ... So... this sample may not have even been tested!!!!
He knows what DNA is:....... So you would think he'd do a search more relevant to himself!!!
Remember this from the 5th January 2011: The Policeman says KILLERS....
He said: "I can assure you, we are determined to solve this crime, and bring Jo's killers to justice."
Lets see how Dr Vincent Tabak's other searches change after this date of 5th Decemeber 2010
Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't look too over interested in the case up until the 5th January 2010!!!!!!
For a man feverishly following everything so he could cover his TRACKS!!!!! He looks like he 's not that fussed!!!!
EDIT: Jo Yeates' body missing a sock when found, say police
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12117460
he wouldn't search it like it was a google search... why is it written like a google search when he's clicked on an Article??????
Tabak also searchedhe BBC news article for
‘missing sock when found’
The Article isn't worded like that!!!!!!!!
-
Just because a search has a date stamp to it.... doesn't mean that was the date that something took place:
I've attached 3 screenshots of one of my post today and I brought up my mac date and time ... I changed the date them to the year 2014 and different months :
It's easy enough to do anyone can do it by changing the time stamp.... I didn't join this forum in 2014
The date is shown from my notifications bar.... for some reason the stock and shares have stayed the same...
Anyway at the top of each screen shot will be the date and time I have changed them too.....
Screenshot : 2014-09-09 at 00.45.33
Screenshot : 2014-12-13 at 16.43.04
Screenshot : 2014-12-15 at 16.44.08
So anyone can change anything on a computer....
This is why the searches shouldn't be accepted into evidence .....
Unless they are independently verified by Independant EXPERT.... for both the Prosecution and the Defence
By Having a completley independant IT expert it would stop any issues of either side saying that the computer evidence has been tampered with.....
Once you change data... some of it you won't be able to retrieve........
Personally I would not allow computer searches into evidence .. they are not very safe....... And they don't show intent!!!!
By demonstrating this... I can say that all Dr Vincent Tabak the Computer expert only needed to Change the Date and time on his computer so that his searches didn't have timestamps relevant to the Joanna Yeates Case...
If he was trying to hide evidence. he could easily have done that..... Altenatively... he could have gone back over to Holland and dumped all of his hard drives... they would never have found them!!!!!
Another thing I would like to point out about searches people do, I think they are quite personal....
People tend to search for things in the same way:... For instance when I'm trying to find something on google.... I would more than likely write a whole sentence...
So ....... How does Dr Vincent Tabak search???????
-
I was going to edit my post about searches...
But when I was looking at it again... The First search doesn't make sense??
At Line 368 of the prosecution chart
Tabak searched for the Press release about
‘domestic rubbish’
‘Yeates’
‘393 tons of rubbish trawled through’
‘household collections- Bristol City Council’
‘recycling’
How is that a GOOGLE SEARCH????????????
Remember on line :
At Line 376 of the prosecution chart
Tabak’s research was categorised by the police analyst into ‘
‘Google’
‘forensic’
‘location’
The POLICE ANAYLSIST split the searches into 3 CATERGORIES.... GOOGLE.... FORENSICS.....LOCATION
So how did they show that he used google to search for press releases on rubbish...???
Does it say: To find these Dr Vincent Tabak.... put the words into google then clicked on NEWS?????
Because when you start a search in google you have to go on google first before you get an option to look at news relating to your search... But It doesn't say he went on Google first????
so..... At Line 368 of the prosecution chart
Tabak searched for the Press release about
‘domestic rubbish’
‘Yeates’
How did he search for PRESS RELEASES specifically?????
They lumped that lot together without explanation!!!!!
So which online Newspapers did he search????
That is a bizarre way to search????
Is that even POSSIBLE???
I honestly CAN NOT see how that is even possible????
Can anyone shed some light how you can search for PRESS RELEASE about anything without searching google first???
If he had some sort of news app he could be looking at the News for that day...
But that is not searching???
I'm stumped!!!!!
Because it's not until LINE 376: That the prosecution even says about which Catergories these searches are supposed to be split up into????
AND Press Releases is LINE 368
Ah...... WAS that so They jury would put these searches into CATERGORIES themselves and say:
Look as early as 3rd January he searched for tonnes of Rubbish??? (I'll put that under Google)
AHA... I think that was away to influence the `Jury (IMO)
-
Oh My Goodness.... I had to do this one...
On 6 Jan 2011, Tabak researched the words
Pizza box
Tabak Googled the words
‘Rubbish collection York Place Clifton Bristol’
‘Jo Yeates rubbish’
At 4.10 (pm) Tabak searched on Wikipedia for the words
‘Detention of a suspect’
‘letter and label sent to a public house’
This search doesn't make sense.....
But the idea about does work.....
I'll explain..... I had google in my head so i went to search google for the letter and label sent to pub!!!
So I checked my normal way: Range of dates: 1st January 2011 to the 6th January 2011:... I got this:...
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=letter+and+label+sent+to+a+public+house%E2%80%99&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=966&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A01%2F01%2F2011%2Ccd_max%3A06%2F01%2F2011&tbm=
I thought I remember something about a letter being sent to a pub... So i looked again:..
A letter making reference to murder victim Joanna Yeates and containing a torn-off pizza label was sent to the pub where she enjoyed a final drink with colleagues, it has emerged.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8250162/Joanna-Yeates-murder-letter-containing-pizza-label-sent-to-pub-where-architect-had-final-drink.html
It's DATED 10th January........
But that isn't really the funny part of the search.......
Why on Earth would he search:
At 4.10 (pm) Tabak searched on Wikipedia for the words
‘Detention of a suspect’
‘letter and label sent to a public house’
Why would Dr Vincent Tabak be searching WIKI for the Letter and label sent to a Public house?????
How the hell will WIKI help him......
(1) Does wiki give tips on how to send this label
(2) Does wiki tell you how to package these items
(3) will wiki tell you when the label and pizza arrived at the pub....
So two Questions here: How would he know about the Pizza and the label before it was released to the press..
And why would he search WIKI???
Another thought.... If they are implying that Dr Vincent Tabak sent those items to the pub... Then why didn't they get brought to court as evidence....!!!!!!
So like I said before .. if the Jury have the three catergories of GOOGLE... FORENSIC.....LOCATION
Which catergory will they put the WIKI search under??????
-
I think when you look at the earlier Police Press conferences... even if they do not give loads of information or detail.. They are probably the more acurate as to what is and has happened on a daily basis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8noQpXm0HQU
I want to try and understand how they went from this:
Avon and Somerset Police Conference: Police Announce death of Joanna:
They are taking questions: At 7:13 mins
DATED 28th December 2010:
Caroline from The Daily Telegraph:
Was there any other marks on Joanna's body aside from round her neck?
The Policemans's Reply:
Nothing significant.... As I said the cause of death was a erm.. was er.a compression to the neck which was strangulation..erm and the cause of death
Caroline:
No marks on her at all?
The Policeman:Well erm... Nothing significant
How did it go from that original STATEMENT that there were no significant injuries to joanna Yeates to:.......
Headline in the Evening standard:
Joanna Yeates suffered 43 injuries in desperate fight against strangler'
Tuesday 11 October 2011
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/joanna-yeates-suffered-43-injuries-in-desperate-fight-against-strangler-6452369.html
I have done a Range of dates From: 28/10/2010 to 31/1/2011 And there is nothing about these injuries in the newspapers!!!!
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=43+injuries+to+joanna+yeates&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=922&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A28%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A31%2F01%2F2011&tbm=
Again nothing there really...
Range of Dates From: 26/12/2010 to 10/2/2011 .....
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=43+injuries+to+joanna+yeates&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=922&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A28%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A10%2F02%2F2011&tbm=
Just one article ... but i think its a list of stories ...So the injures where not available to be see then:
It takes you to this: http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/briefing/joanna_yeates/
Range of Dates From 26th December 2010 to 28/2/2011 :
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=43+injuries+to+joanna+yeates&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=922&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A28%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A28%2F02%2F2011&tbm=
Nothing again:...... I'm starting to wonder when I will find an Article relating to the 43 Injuries!!!
Range of Dates 26/12/2010 to 31/3/2011
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=43+injuries+to+joanna+yeates&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=922&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A28%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A31%2F03%2F2011&tbm=
There is very little available at this point!!!!
Range of dates 26/12/2010 to 30/4/2011
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=43+injuries+to+joanna+yeates&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=922&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A28%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A30%2F04%2F2011&tbm=
Again NOTHING!!!!!!!!
Range of Dates 26/12/2010 to 31/5/2011
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=43+injuries+to+joanna+yeates&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=922&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A28%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A31%2F05%2F2011&tbm=
Again Nothing... By this Point you think the media would have been all over it!!!!
Lets not FORGET Dr Vincent Tabak has been to court and pleaded guilty to manslaughter in May... Nothing mentioned in the NewsPapers about the 43 injuries at all up until now!!!!
Range of Dates from 26/12/2010 to 30/9/2011 :
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=43+injuries+to+joanna+yeates&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=922&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A28%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A30%2F09%2F2011&tbm=
NOTHING AT ALL.... till be go to October...... you then get Articles....
'Joanna Yeates suffered 43 injuries in desperate fight against strangler'
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/joanna-yeates-suffered-43-injuries-in-desperate-fight-against-strangler-6452369.html
Why in the very begining did the Police Not Mention This!!!!!!!
It's like another THING to Bolster there case against Dr Vincent Tabak ... (IMO)
Remember Andrew Mott and his unweldly Broom Handle .. prodding and poking!!!!!!
Lets really think about the Implications of this:......
If the discrription of these injuries have been enhanced and they are marks from bumping herself.... anything that might leave a mark...( Plus obvious signs of strangulation..)
For instance Did she slip on her way home... treacherous weather according to the Police... so its not in the realms of possibility:
Have they made out for court that these INJURIES were CAUSED by Dr Vincent Tabak and this is not accurate!!!
How on earth must Joanna Parents feel having to listen to such inaccuracies...
We Remember Tanja Nickson... it didn't stop her showing a motuary picure in the court to Bolster her wall evidence...
These Photographs of joanna Yeates had already been shown to the jury on the Friday and Joanna Yeates Parents had KEPT away from court so they did not see such distressing Pictures of there daughter:
But..... That didn't stop Tanja Nickson showing the Pictures when she had no need too!! And causing massive distress to the Family...!!!!
Again i'm slightly stumped how we went from:
Well erm... Nothing significant
TO:......
Joanna Yeates suffered 43 injuries in desperate fight against strangler'
When someone is strangled there are always certain injuries associated with that...
I still believe it was someone who Jo knew!!!
If she was fighting back.. someone must have had scratches ...marks on them... she just didn't let someone do this!!!
Did they check Dr Vincent Tabak for this when they first saw him.... Did Tanja notice anything on Dr Vincent Tabak!!!
Did they just SENSATIONALISE the injuries...... This poor girl...... And poor family...
In someway I hope i'm wrong.... Because it would be a terrible blow to the Yeates Family....
But i Cannot Get over the HEALEYS Cider in the Flat and the TATTINGER REIM Champagne cork also... The photographs of these items were zoomed in at... they were on the Table in the alchove when, the Police allowed the media in to view the crime scene after the Jury had just seen it!!!
Why has nobody NOTICED or MENTIONED these items before???????
What happened to the Original Bottles of Cider that Joanna Yeates Purchased??????
Also Mr Reardon had removed all of his possesions from the flat before the Jury saw it..... If these items were connected to him and Jo he surely would have taken them!!!!
EDIT: The blood from her nose.... which Apparently was on top of the wall at Longwood Lane....
If this injury was caused by Dr Vincent Tabak in Joanna Yeates Flat....
Where are the Blood samples from the Flat of Joanna Yeates being in a fight and struggle...
THERE are no blood samples from Joanna Yeates that were collected from her Flat!!!!!
So how comes Dr Vincent Tabak manages to get some in the BOOT!!!
There were No evidence of BLOOD in Dr Vincent Tabaks Flat either????
Does that not suggest that this attack may have happened elsewhere???????
The Prosecution NEVER suggested that Dr Vincent Tabak was doing a CLEAN UP of his or Joanna Yeates flat... They say he just took the PIZZA AND THE SOCK!!!!!!!!
So.... Where is the BLOOD!!!!!
Double EDIT: Just a thought!.. It was never REALLY Established that this was a SEXUALLY MOTIVATED Attack.......
And all signs are that Joanna Yeates was not SEXUALLY ASSAULTED.........
So All this time they having been LOOKING For A Man who Committed this Crime???
WHAT...... What if it was a WOMAN!!!!!! Just a thought!!!!!
-
Like I had done with a post today... I thought I'd go back to the begining to see what was initially said:
And the early reports are quite revealing............
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8noQpXm0HQU
Police Announce Murder Inquiry:Launched over death of Joanna Yeates:
At 9:30 mins:
Daily Mirror
Was Joanna fully clothed when she was found?
Policeman Replies:
She was clothed .. yes
Remember he said... Clothed
DailyMail Reporter
Was there anything missing from her person...... er...Items of clothing at all ... like a shoe or?
Policeman Replies:
erm..She was fully clothed... so..
He SAYS FULLY CLOTHED!!!!
So No SKI SOCK????
At This point he could have said, I'm not at liberty to say!!!
Another Reporter asks:
Can I just Check.. we heard coat was in that the... was in the same coat she was photographed or caught on CCTV was that in the Flat? Is That Correct?
Policeman Replies:
Yes..
Reporter Says:
Did she have a coat on when she was found?
Policeman replies:
erm... As I said she was fully clothed..
Again... FULLY CLOTHED...... "So nothing missing Mr Policeman!!"
Reporter asks:
You can't say whether she had a coat on or not.....?
Policeman replies:
Well I'm not prepared to discuss at this stage..
This is ODD.....
When did the MISSING SKI SOCK , become Part of the investigation.... ( 5th January if you remember!!!)
He has already said more than once that when they found Joanna Yeates ....She was FULLY CLOTHED!!!!!...
The Reporter even asks if any ITEMS of clothing were missing.... he gives an example of.....LIKE A SHOE!!
The Policeman keeps with that she was FULLY CLOTHED........
So when did the BOOTS suddenly become part of the items left in the flat??? AND The SKI SOCK become the TROPHY???????
WHAT EXACTLY WAS JOANNA YEATES WEARING WHEN THEY FOUND HER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Because according to the Policeman leading the Investigation... She was fully clothed!!!!!!!!!
What happened in this Investigation!! It's gone from:
FULLY CLOTHED with NO SIGNIFICANT INJURIES
To............
MISSING A SKI SOCK AND 43 Injuries through fighting for her Life?
So did Joanna yeates have a Jacket or something similar on seeing as the Policeman keep saying she was fully clothed....
If that is the case... Does this also prove that Dr Vincent Tabak could NOT have been involved:
It could prove that HIS CONFESSION WAS FALSE!!!!!!!!
What Dr Vincent Tabak said on the witness stand:
Defence Counsel: After you put the body in the boot of your car, what did you do next?
Tabak: I went back to Joanna’s flat and switched off the TV and the oven; I took away the
sock and the pizza.
I always wonder how she managed to fit those great big socks under her tight boots:..... Her jeans are skin tight and her boots are tight....
The Ski socks are not over her boots... And they would ride around if they weren't secure and slip about... they'd be uncomfortable...
So did she even wear SKI SOCKS??????
EDIT:........ Is THAT WHY ....... there are NO SEARCHES For MISSING SKI SOCKS... On Dr Vincent Tabak's Computer till EARLY JANUARY??????????
-
Just thought i'd give one more example of changing the date on GOOGLE:
This is from my GOOGLE search HISTORY......
I have one search for "Tabak" Dated Friday 1st January 2038
And the other is a Daily Mail Article Dated today but the time is 5:58PM:
Like I said before.... Dr Vincent Tabak was a Computer Expert.... And I am NOT...
So If it's a piece of cake for me.... Covering his Track he could have easily done the same!!!!
I've done this because... I'd put the time FORWARD and the other examples were BACKWARDS:
And also to show that the DATES would Appear in the GOOGLE HISTORY !!!!
Basically:..... ANY HISTORY .. .. or File that is DOWNLOADED.. Pictures.. Films ....ETC!! can easily be changed by CHANGING the DATE ON ANYONES COMPUTER!!!!!!
As I Have Just demonstrated!!!!!
You could actually do it with Emails that are sent..... But... The Recipient would have the Correct Date That they Recieved it on... So There would be a WAY to challenge someone emails!!!!!
But as for Files on A Computer.. They Are easily enough to CHANGE:.....
-
changing the time of his searches doesn't really help does it as you have stated before . you said he didn't have time to search but maybe he had more time than you think!
It still doesn't take away his searches or the reasons for them
-
changing the time of his searches doesn't really help does it as you have stated before . you said he didn't have time to search but maybe he had more time than you think!
It still doesn't take away his searches or the reasons for them
Jixy:.. I have explained the problems with the searches: See Below.......
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg367908#msg367908
How could he possibly do a google search at 1:46am and again at 1:47am when he was seen leaving in Tanja's hatchback at 1:38am???
I'm sure it would have taken him more than 8 mins to get Tanja, A google map search of Canygne Rd to Park Street , gives a driving time of 6 mins....
he got lost for at least 2 minutes ,Then he rang her for directions... so we now have 0 minutes to find where Tanaj is.... Pick her up go for a burger eat it in the car and drive home....
A quote from the above post:..... There woulld have been No advantage for him changing the time on that search???
He had a witness he was with!!!!
I'm saying the searches are not acurate and what appears relevant isn't!!!!
So how did him searching WIKI help him with the PIZZA LABEL??
Have you ever gone on the Dutch WIKI and put in the word "DOODSLAG"
https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doodslag&prev=search
Manslaughter may refer to:
Manslaughter (euthanasia) , the intentional, but not premeditated, ending the life of another
There is more than one definition... .. Is he looking into Euthanasia... you don't know...!!!
Also if you look closely at the Dutch definition it say it says.. THE INTENTIONAL but not PREMEDITATED ending the life os another!!!! So it means EUTHANASIA in HOLLAND.....
Not as we see the word MANSLAUGHTER in ENGLAND!!!
The May Refer to Part is that theres a film in 2012 as another option to choose..... (Irrelevant To Dr Vincent Tabak)
At Line 271 of the prosecution chart
Tabak searched the Dutch word
‘doodslag’ (English meaning: ‘manslaughter’)
And that's telling you WHAT?????
It's under WIKI as well.... so which Catergory are the Jury going to put it under????
GOOGLE??
FORENSICS??
LOCATION??
There are plenty of searches that could be attributed to him looking at a case on a DUTCHMAN Called: Joran van der Sloot
Here a quote from an Article about him!!
The judges have 48 hours to render a sentence and the presiding magistrate, Victoria Montoya, said the panel would reconvene Friday to do so.
Van der Sloot's trial opened last week but was adjourned until Wednesday after he asked for more time to decide how to plead. He said then that he did not accept the aggravated murder charges the prosecution sought.
Van der Sloot, who wore faded jeans and an untucked light-blue button-down shirt, had confessed to the May 30, 2010, killing long ago.
He told police shortly after the murder that he killed Flores in a fit of rage after she discovered his connection to the disappearance of Holloway on his laptop while they played poker online.
The defense says it was manslaughter, for which the minimum sentence is 5 years.
http://www.cncpunishment.com/forums/showthread.php?4635-Natalee-Holloway
This story about the Dutchman Joran van der Slootwas all over the paper he would have seen in when he was in Los Angeles...
At Line 292 of the prosecution chart
Tabak Googled the words
‘manslaughter sentencing’
Then he went to Wikipedia website to search the words
‘manslaughter in English law murder in English law’
Tabak left work at 5.06pm \on 22 Dec 2010
and at home he Googled
‘Los Angeles murder case’
Why is wiki supposed to be the font of all knowledge??? can't see that ...
For a Clever man with a PHD you think he would actually look for Law papers on the internet that would give him that proper information!!!!! (download a pdf)....
Yes I do believe that Dr Vincent tabak didn't change any of his search times... And as I've said before he could have taken his Laptops and Hard drives over to Holland on the 31st December.. And DUMPED them!!!!!!
Dr Vincent Tabak was in Los Angeles for a month returning home on the 11th Dec 2010... So the searches could definetaley be attributed to : Joran van der Sloot!!!!
JiXy has nothing I've found out changed you opinion in anyway???????
Explain the: HEALEY"S CIDER AND THE TATTINGER REIMS CHAMPAGNE CORK!!!!!!!
The Trouble with INTERNET SEARCHES is that you CANNOT prove what someones .... INTENTION WAS!!!!!
The Real Problem With Anyone using Wiki as a Form of Knowledge is that too many INDIVIDUALS Contribute to it... So it is not always ACCURATE...
Which I'm sure Dr Vincent Tabak would have been aware of........
WIKI just Ain't gonna Cut It!!!!!!!
EDIT:...... Another question..... why are all his searches in ENGLISH????? He's DUTCH!!!!
Here's WIKI's page on Joran vander Sloot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joran_van_der_Sloot
There are plenty of words he could click on regards :
(1): Murder
(2) Manslaughter
(3) Extradition
How did he search wiki for a film of a BODY DECOMPOSING??????
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=film+of+body+decomposing&title=Special:Search&go=Go&searchToken=6bcdwbkhuu1mk1xxap9hhv69t
At Lines 311 (a to g) of the prosecution chart (on 23 December 2010)
Tabak searched Wikipedia for the terms
‘decomposition’
‘ how fast does body decompose’
‘ film of body decomposing’
‘what takes place from hour to hour after death’
‘what happens to human body after death’
WIKI SEARCHES:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=Search&search=what+takes+place+from+hour+to+hour+after+death%E2%80%99&searchToken=1qepvyjij0lax5jfto23mls8y
DOESN"T EXSIST!!!!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=Search&search=what+happens+to+human+body+after+death&searchToken=8yk85ldkhsmfqpv6ycns8gspx
AGAIN...... DOESN'T EXSIST
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=Search&search=how+fast+does+body+decompose&searchToken=8r48f1wo0l73zvksthomu1x3r
Which one did he CHOOSE?????
Decomposition is a Maths TERM..... Seeing he might use Maths for his work!!!!!
-
I keep saying these searches are NONSENSE...........
On 5 Jan 2011 lunchtime, Tabak Googled
‘press coverage’
At 3.05 pm, Tabak Googled the words
‘press coverage’
‘missing sock’
Range of dates: 1/1/2011 to 5/1/2011
Press Coverage you get this:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=press+coverage%E2%80%99&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=1006&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A01%2F01%2F2011%2Ccd_max%3A05%2F01%2F2011&tbm=
So the PRESS COVERAGE search was A waste of TIME!!!!!
What is searching the words "PRESS COVERAGE" going to tell him??? Unless he has a specific search that goes with it!!!
AND..... The Prosection show Press Coverage AND Missing Sock as Two SEPERATE SEARCHES!!!!!
Missing Sock you get this:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=press+coverage%E2%80%99&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=1006&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A01%2F01%2F2011%2Ccd_max%3A05%2F01%2F2011&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:01%2F01%2F2011%2Ccd_max:05%2F01%2F2011&q=missing+sock
But most of the stories are well after 3:05pm and the other just have a Date.... So what does IT PROVE???
At 4.03, Tabak searched online newspaper articles for the words
‘frozen DNA’
‘rubbish collection Clifton 23 December 2010’
I've already covered the FROZEN DNA.....
He'd get this:....... Range of dates from 20/12/2010 to 5/1/2011
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%E2%80%98rubbish+collection+Clifton+23+December+2010&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=1006&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A20%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A06%2F01%2F2011&tbm=
So Nothing there then!!!!!
On 6 Jan 2011, Tabak researched the words
Pizza box
Tabak Googled the words
‘Rubbish collection York Place Clifton Bristol’
‘Jo Yeates rubbish’
Here we GO............. Pizza box Range of Dates: 20/12/2010 to 6/1/2011
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=pizza+box&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=1006&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A20%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A06%2F01%2F2011&tbm=
So Pizza Box Search was a waste of time...
Rubbish collection York Place Clifton Bristol’ Range of Dates 20/12/2010 to 6/1/2011
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%E2%80%98rubbish+collection+Clifton+23+December+2010&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=1006&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A20%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A06%2F01%2F2011&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:20%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max:06%2F01%2F2011&q=Rubbish+collection+York+Place+Clifton+Bristol%E2%80%99
Again A Point less Search!!!!!!!!
Next one:......
Jo Yeates Rubbish
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%E2%80%98rubbish+collection+Clifton+23+December+2010&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=1006&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A20%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A06%2F01%2F2011&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:20%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max:06%2F01%2F2011&q=Jo+Yeates+Rubbish
Tells you what???? Seems an odd way to search... He's not going to get anything in particular!!!
These Searches are ABSOULTE TOSH........ They are supposed to be showing Dr Vincent Tabak's INTENT....
What they are showing.. IS THEY ARE POINTLESS!!!!!!!!!
Again: And at 5.00 pm, Tabak researched on
Google map
‘Clifton Richmond Terrace’
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=clifton%20richmond%20terrace
AND..... That search tells him EXACTLY WHAT!!!!!!!!!
Again POINTLESS........
I find this all very telling.............. These searches do not appear credible...(IMO) they make no sense what so ever........
I know if i did every search that Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have done I'd find the same:
In a much early post i covered:
On 23 Dec 2010 at 4.00 pm
Tabak searched the Dutch Wikipedia for the words
‘extradition’
‘Yeates’
‘missing persons’
‘% of grey cars in UK’
‘Renault Megan cars in UK’
And Dutch wiki doesn't even have an Answer for it...... BECAUSE THEY ARE DUTCH!!!!
They don't need to no % grey cars in the UK
Renault Megan cars in the UK
They have No use for that information!!!!
And for Missing Persons you would get this:......
https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%E2%80%98missing+persons%E2%80%99&title=Speciaal:Zoeken&go=article&searchToken=60814if5eyot5unfthzr9bdup
Anyone Can work out that these searches are completely IRRELEVANT And NONSENSICLE
What else can I say.......
AGAIN I"LL SAY........ Which Catergory will the Jury put them under????
GOOGLE
FORENSICS
LOCATION
Tabak also searched the BBC news article for
‘missing sock when found’
‘Avon & Somerset police’
Then Tabak researched for a Dutch article of ‘18 year sentence for murder’
Was Dr Vincent Tabak On a DUTCH WEBSITE????? Because he's reasearch for a DUTCH Article 18 years for Murder???
So is this even more telling???????
DOES HE LOOK FOR HIS SEARCHES IN THE DUTCH LANGUAGE???? Because that last search suggests that!!!!
So who Translated Dr Vincent Tabak's Computer info... if he searches in DUTCH!!!!
WHY.......Would he even bother to combine searching in ENGLISH THEN DUTCH!!!!!
Again total TOSH!!!!!
I've just text my Dutch Brother inlaw... Asked him about how Dutch People would do internet searches!!!
His Reply:
We Dutchies Google in Dutch!
-
Just a small one:
At Line 451 of the prosecution chart
Tabak did further research on 11 Jan 2011
Tabak continued his research
And That explains EXACTLY WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!
Be Specific......
What the Hell was he supposed to be searching for!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Research on:
(1): How many people you can fit in a lift
(2): What is the most popular day people are born
(3): How shit is WIKI
(4): Can Elephants really hide in custard
(5): How cold was it in Dec 2009
(6): Whats the latest Gadget on the Market
(7): Should I ask Wiki for advise
(8): How long does it take a caterpillar to turn into a butterfly
(9): How tall is the average Dutchman
(10): What does my Birth Sign mean
(11): Do sheep sleep standing up
(12): What does the ther side of the moon look like
(13): How long should you boil an egg for
(14): Which is the best side to sleep on
(15): What is pencil lead made from
(16): How many trees in a forest
(17): How many tulips do the Dutch grow
(18): How hard is it to Juggle
(19): Does the Queen fart
(20): Is Elvis still alive
Again... Explain... You are allowing the Jury to think he spent all his time researching anything that has to be Related to Joanna Yeates and the case.... When he could be looking at anything!!!! So if his SEARCHES were Related....... PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!
But... The problem is A Half Asleep Jury might just think...
He's been RESEARCHING ALL THIS TIME....WHICH Again the PROSECUTION have NOT PROVEN!!!!!!
So ...... What Catergory will they choose????????
11th January... what is he searching for when the PIZZA LABEL debarcle was the 10th January 2011
Wiki won't tell you about a PIZZA DELIVERY!!!!!
What the Hell is he continued his RESEARCH supposed to mean??????
Do you really want me to start again........
(1): How to fly a kite
(2): How do babies recognise their mothers
(3): What's the highest IQ
You get the Picture....... And AGAIN..... Why didn't the Defence challenge THIS????????
But... The Jury have in their Minds "RESEARCH" = Joanna Yeates Case....... And Covering His Tracks....
But does it REALLY!!!!!! ............. PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!!
-
Here Another Conundrum:
Police hope frozen DNA sample on body will solve Joanna's murder as they warn women 'not to go out alone after dark'
How can they identify a DNA Sample if it is FROZEN........????????
They may have gotten samples... But how do they know that the sample contains DNA?????
Did it stand up on its own ???? Here I Am?????????
They May have taken swabs.... But........... A FROZEN DNA Sample???
If the Sample is on the surface of the skin... It would Defrost pretty quickly...
Andrew Mott... Trying to stop the body from THAWING... So Any flesh That was EXPOSED would have THAWED FIRST!!!!!
So.............
Question: How do you get a FROZEN DNA SAMPLE?????????
The only way to get FROZEN DNA sample is to FREEZE some DNA ....
And not the other way round!!!
EDIT:.......................
I've been trying to establish..WHEN the sample of DNA was ANAYLISED On Joanna Yeates BODY:....
And I do believe I have found the ANSWER!!!!! 19:19, 3 January 2011
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343462/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Police-hope-frozen-DNA-sample-body-solve-murder.html
"Could DNA Traces Unlock Mystery"
A Sample of DNA found on Joanna Yeates body could be a crucial discovery in the hunt for her killer.....
It is understood that Police Forensic Specialist are working round the clock to find out to whom it belongs.
The sample was taken from Miss Yeates body soon After it was dumped at the side of a road on Christmas Morning.
Althought the freezing temperatures meant post-mortem examination results were serverally delayed, crime experts say as the cold weather provided excellent conditions for preserving the DNA evidence.
The sample is being tested for a match against DNA previously stored by police... as well as against samples that have been taken during the investigation..It is understood several potential DNA matches were tested within hours of the find.
The revelation came the day after the only man arrested over the killing so far was released,Chris Jefferies 65 spent three daysin police custody before being freed pending further inquires,and has had his flat two floors abovethe one rented to Miss Yeatesand her boyfriend turned upside down by forensic teams.
The forensic examination at Mr Jefferies flat continued Yesterday, with two crime scene investigators.. entering carrying brown evidence bags.
Scientists have also examined at least three vehicle kept near the building in which Miss Yeates lived.
This followed an immediate and intensive inch by inch search of the area surrounding the spot where her body was discovered on a roadside in Failand outside Bristol.
Again I'm going to break it down and cross reference:.......
The sample was taken from Miss Yeates body soon After it was dumped at the side of a road on Christmas Morning.
Althought the freezing temperatures meant post-mortem examination results were serverally delayed, crime experts say as the cold weather provided excellent conditions for preserving the DNA evidence.
So... the sample is taken on the 25th Dec 2010...... NOT DNA RESULTS!!!!!!
Remember samples that have been taken already.......
Lyndsey Lennen said:
"The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky." Under the media glare, the work was flat-out: clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours.
That makes the time they had the DNA turned round 27th Dec 2011.........
The revelation came the day after the only man arrested over the killing so far was released,Chris Jefferies 65 spent three days in police custody before being freed pending further inquires
So when they arrested CJ they would have had his sample done immediatley... So it was not the DNA that they were keeping CJ under Arrest for...!!!! Also CJ says:
All the people who lived in 44, Canygne Road... were interviewed, statements were taken... So... my statement was taken along with everyone else...
DNA samples were taken, finger prints, were taken.... It was all entirely Voluntary..But obviously nobody had anything to hide....
So nobody was in the least bit concerned.. erm.... about co-operating in that way...
So if CJ had given a sample very EARLY ON.... Why did they keep him on POLICE BAIL till MARCH!!!
They new very early on in the investigation it could not have been CJ's DNA.....
So the DNA sample you see CJ giving on the Honour of CJ.. Is his second!! They didn't really need it!!!!!!
Because...................
It is understood several potential DNA matches were tested within hours of the find.
So they had TESTED.... THE FROZEN DNA OF JOANNA YEATES BY THIS POINT...... NO GETTING THAT WRONG..
The Article actually refers to the frozen state the samples they were collecting at the time when they took the samples from Joanna Yeates..... 25th Dec 2010
So they DEFINETLY knew it was not CJ's DNA!!!!!!!
But they thought he had an accomplice:
Under Suspicion.. Now I gather that one of the reasons for the delay was that Vincent Tabak when he was arreated.... refused to say anything...And therefore the police continued to entertain the suspicion that possibly there had been some sort of collusion... Between myself and Vincent Tabak
So Cj's still in the picture............
So..... who SHOULD this RULE OUT!!!!!!!
(1): CJ
(2): Possibly Friends of Jo's
(3): Dr Vincent Tabak.......... If he gave the sample like CJ said......
But we will go with the Offical line:
Then his reluctance to give his DNA at the end of the process.....
He did give a sample.... The DATE: 31st Dec 2010 because what test would the yhave used otherwise???
The sample is being tested for a match against DNA previously stored by police... as well as against samples that have been taken during the investigation
Lets Remind ourselves AGAIN...................
It is understood several potential DNA matches were tested within hours of the find.
So.... they are saying that they as soon as they got a SAMPLE OF DNA From someone ....
They tested it within hours.................
The sample is being tested for a match against DNA previously stored by police..
So... that is definately SAMPLES OF DNA Taken before they found Jo...!!!!
Again Dr Vincent Tabak gave a sample of DNA... to The Police woman in Holland on the 31st Dec 2010
Which Again going from what they said ... The sample they already had were tested within hours!!!!!
So Dr Vincent Tabaks Test would be done within hours!!!!! Say they didnt get back till the 1st of January 2010
They would have done it within hours:
But...... There's always a but......... This Article that the quote comes from is DATED:3rd January 2010 !!!!!
They obviously have tested Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA by NOW!!!! Why isn't it in the Paper?????????
CJ AND Dr Vincent Tabak should have been ruled out by now!!!!!!
We go from this:
The sample is being tested for a match against DNA previously stored by police... as well as against samples that have been taken during the investigation..It is understood several potential DNA matches were tested within hours of the find.
With this to accompany it: From Lynsdey Lennen:
"The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky." Under the media glare, the work was flat-out: clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours.
Those two STATEMENTS MATCH UP!!!!
So... why do we then get this:
Then shortly before the reconstruction was due to air... They made a dramatic break through.... Forensic Scientists had spent weeks enhancing the tiny DNA sample found on Jo's body. enabling them to establish a link to Vincent Tabak
AND THIS:..............................
We also have The Policemans statement of:
It was around the 20th January that erm.... we positively identified, that there were components, in mixed DNA of Vincent Tabak
What the **** is that!!!!!!!!!
Those last two statement are an UNTRUE ...(IMO)............
YOU TESTED Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA ALREADY.........
THE TINY SAMPLE OF DNA ON JOANNA YEATES DID NOT TAKE WEEKS!!!!!
They Obviously KNEW that Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA did NOT MATCH......!!!!
Why on GODS EARTH IS THAT MAN IN PRISON......
How many TIMES do I have to say:
Dr Vincent Tabak is INNOCENT....... They have IMPRISONED A COMPLETELEY INNOCENT MAN!!!!!
A Sample of DNA found on Joanna Yeates body could be a crucial discovery in the hunt for her killer.....
It is understood that Police Forensic Specialist are working round the clock to find out to whom it belongs.
The sample was taken from Miss Yeates body soon After it was dumped at the side of a road on Christmas Morning.
No mistaking Joanna Yeates..... DNA SAMPLE IS DONE IMMEDIATLEY AND NOT WEEKS LATER!!!!!!
Dr Vincent Tabaks Sample was taken at the latest 31st Dec 2010.......
WHY DID IT TAKE 20 days to arrest Dr Vincent Tabak......
Lets NOT FORGET..... They had CJ.. In pretty sharpish.......
Dr Vincent Tabak is No more the Contributor to that DNA sample than I AM!!!!!!
Something SERIOUSLY NEEDS TO BE DONE FOR Dr Vincent Tabak!!!!!! NOW!!!!!
So what is Lyndsey Lennen saying:
"Eventually, we found something," Lennen says. "On swabs and tapes from her breasts, and tapes from three areas of her jeans. There were DNA components that matched one of the suspects, Vincent Tabak." But there wasn't enough, of enough quality, to evaluate – perhaps because of the high salt levels where the body was found, following heavy snowfall.
So the team deployed an LGC technique known as DNA SenCE, which purifies, concentrates and enhances otherwise unusable DNA: "We couldn't say whether the DNA was from saliva, or semen, or even touch. But we could say that the probability of it not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion."
DNA SenCE is the process they use to ENHANCE the Sample that they found on Joanna yeates....
So if Dr Vincent Tabak was a MATCH!!!! It would have come back STRAIGHT AWAY NOT 20 DAYS LATER!!!!!!
Oh.... And do not Forget: THE HEALEYS CIDER AND TATTINGER REIMS CHAMPAGNE CORK on the table in the crime scene:....
Who did they ask about that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Double EDIT:
Ms Lennen said the statistical interpretation of the results from Miss Yeates's jeans showed that it was 1,100 times more likely that the DNA was from Vincent Tabak and another person, rather than two unknown people unrelated to the defendant.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/joanna-yeates-killer-confessed-to-chaplain-2372235.html
But MS LYNDSEY LENNEN..... I thought you said this:
So the team deployed an LGC technique known as DNA SenCE, which purifies, concentrates and enhances otherwise unusable DNA: "We couldn't say whether the DNA was from saliva, or semen, or even touch. But we could say that the probability of it not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion."
HOW DID YOU GO FROM: But we could say that the probability of it not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion.
RIGHT DOWN TO: 1,100 times more likely that the DNA was from Vincent Tabak
AH...... I Know... You were under oath when you said it was 1,100 likely to be from Dr Vincent Tabak....
Naughty!!!!!!!!!!!!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
i think searching his searches will send you round in circles... I found some very interesting articles online during a search as little as 3 years ago, they don't appear now no matter how hard you search.
Your search to Tabak's could show various results
-
I agree jixy, I've also done google searches in the not too distant past and oh my what I discovered was unbelievable. Now if I did the exact same searches the same results don't show up. Never mind though screen shots from the time do have their advantages.
-
Sounds interesting Kayden. Have you been Googling?
-
Gasman, film maker, criminologist, internet blogger, forum troll and not forgetting sex offender and what they all equate to is one big con artist. Thought I would have my user name in their inimatable way on here. Just split the two names and you have it.
-
As always when points of order , facts and truths are shown and proven time and time again you fail to come up with an answer why is that & lets not hide behind your fake name anymore Drew Ashman lets just say we all know you are fake , A Conman, have had more faces than a town hall clock as a Gasman, Film Maker, Researcher ,criminologist, Internet blogger, forum troll and a Numpty .....
-
oopsie... i edited that wrong
-
You can be as rude as you like.... Andrew who fixes boilers... I Remember your slip with the PRIVATE MESSAGE to somebody......
I know my investigations are backed up ALWAYS with "QUOTES" and LINKS....... I may have bored the Pants off people who don't like long posts....
But... I'll take you back to the very begining........ I said and i'll quote!!!!!!!!!
I just Like Fair!!!!
And when I grew up in the sixties... Honour... Morales And a Fair Playing field was all that was required!!!
So... just old fashioned values...... I hate the under dog,, being kicked... And as i see it.. A PLACID Dutch National is the UNDER DOG.......
AND... No MATTER HOW RICH OR POOR I MAY BE....... All i care about is what is RIGHT!!!!!
I was brought up in an era ... where .... MORALES AND VALUES COUNTED!!!!!!
And (IMO).... THEY STILL DO!!!!!
-
the last post is confusing, not sure who you are referring to or answering. I do read your posts and question what you say and add my own thoughts/comments on them
Not sure people have the time to spend looking for further answers as you seem to have as it looks like a full time job lol
-
I was trying to find out about the Policeman in charge of the investigation:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http:/www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-DCI-Phillip-Jones.pdf
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/philjones488
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/former-south-wales-cid-chief-1930856
Alot of Police with the Same name in Top positions?????
It's hard to find anything on him...... Didn't he recieve a commendation for his work on the Joanna Yeates case???
Andrew Mott recieved:
1 - Crown Court Commendation – Melanie Road investigation team
Detective Chief Inspector Julie Mackay, Case Review Criminal Investigation Officer Gary Mason and civilian Senior Investigating Officer Andrew Mott were recognised for their relentless pursuit of justice for Melanie’s family.
https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/newsroom/commitment-and-tenacity-celebrated-at-force-awards-ceremony/
Strange there's no mention of Avon and Somerset Polices Biggest media covered crime??????
Detective Sergeant- Serious and Major Crime
Avon and Somerset Constabulary
december 2010 – juli 2011 (8 maanden)
• Supervision and management of Investigators and Investigations of serious and major crime
• Performed periods in role of Reactive CID Detective Inspector
from linkedin
There cant be 2.... different picture?????
EDIT: You need to sign into linkedin today to access the information.... yesterday I didn't!!!!!
-
Why isn't the Joanna Yeates Case Featured here????
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/successes_of_the_month/successes_of_the_month_-_october_2011/
Again why is it not featured????
This is all i can find tucked away...... It was a huge CASE!!!! why isn't there!!!! they only reference to Tabak... is just a statement...
You think for such a high profile case it would be there at the top!!!!!
28/10/2011
CPS statement on the trial of Vincent Tabak
Ann Reddrop, head of the South West Complex Casework Unit, said: "Vincent Tabak was a cunning, dishonest and manipulative man who knew exactly what he was doing when he killed Joanna Yeates. Today, he has been convicted by a jury in Bristol of her murder last year, despite claiming he meant her no harm.
"He was cunning and dishonest towards his girlfriend with whom he maintained a normal relationship - even going so far as to text her shortly after Joanna was dead to say he was bored.
"He manipulated the police by virtue of his own in-depth research on the Internet to keep one step ahead of the investigation before his arrest, looking up extradition and medical details of decomposition.
"He made very selective admissions surrounding the circumstances of Joanna's death, which sought to cast her in an unfavourable light and he kept this up even when he was giving evidence to the jury. Tabak thought his cleverness and deceit would prevent him being convicted of a brutal murder. He was wrong.
"Joanna went missing on 17 December 2010 after meeting friends for drinks. For several days the police mounted a missing person enquiry but with the discovery of her body on Christmas Day it became a murder investigation. The police team undertook a painstaking enquiry into this murder and Vincent Tabak became the focus of their attention following the finding of his DNA on Joanna's body
"Late in December 2010, the police asked for assistance and guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service. That assistance has come from the South West Complex Casework Unit based here in Bristol. I reviewed the evidence, advised that Vincent Tabak should be charged with Joanna's murder and began preparing the case for trial.
"In May 2011, Tabak admitted the manslaughter of Joanna but that was only part of the story. The Crown's case is, and always has been, that it was a deliberate act on his part and that is why we refused to accept his plea to manslaughter and he has faced trial for murder over the past four weeks.
"Joanna's family has been here in Bristol during the trial and have listened to much of the evidence. Our thoughts are with them today as Tabak begins a life sentence for killing their daughter."
Ends
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/cps_statement_on_vincent_tabak/index.html
In late December 2010... that evidence was in connection with CJ.....
Not much to say for such a high profile case!!!
Why isn't Dr Vincent tabak listed here??????? for the child porn charges?????
But when you look at the Becky Watts case on there ... there alot more information.... why is that????
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/cps_authorises_charges_in_relation_to_death_of_becky_watts/index.html
So where is the authorisation of charges for Dr Vincent Tabak ????
-
The Texts.............. What Time did Joanna Yeates get home??????
She phoned several male friends and told how she was bored.
She texted Samuel Ashcroft:
“Where are you this fine eve?”
His reply was “Home- sorry”.
She then texted Peter: “Where are you?”
Peter replied “On my way to a wedding. Where are you?”
She replied: “At home- on my todd”.
She texted a third male friend.
Sally Ramage papers:
BDP architect Samuel Huscroft said he had planned to go to the Ram but he was not feeling well and because of the pre-Christmas crowds he went home.
He said that later on he received a text from Miss Yeates which said: ''Where are you this fine evening?''
Mr Huscroft said he texted back but did not receive a reply.
Jurors also heard a statement from Peter Lindsell, a former colleague of Miss Yeates at BDP, who she had also texted that evening.
She wrote: ''Where art thou?''
Mr Lindsell said he replied immediately and said he was at Bristol Temple Meads station waiting for a train to Reading.
At 8.24pm, Miss Yeates replied: ''On my tod, just thinking about how much fun your birthday was.''
Jurors also heard a statement from Matthew Wood, who was a friend of Miss Yeates' older brother Chris and who lived in Bristol.
At 8.26pm on the night Miss Yeates died he received a text from her, which said: ''Matt, are you out tonight?''
Mr Wood said that he was at his staff Christmas party and did not see the message until 9.22pm when he replied. He said he never got a reply.
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/9305123.amp/
Matthew, 28 – who is not a suspect – said: “The text message she sent me was, ‘Where are you? Do you fancy a drink?’
“I replied saying I was at the office Christmas party and I was busy. It was just a text message between friends. I didn’t see her message at first because I was at the party. I sent her one back at 9.20pm but she never replied. It is horrifying to think that she may have been dead when I texted her.”
http://www.anorak.co.uk/270061/news/joanna-yeates-matthew-wood-and-the-daily-mirrors-blurry-detectives.html/
Why would he expect a reply if he said he was busy? That's a little strange.....
Peter replied “On my way to a wedding. Where are you?”
She replied: “At home- on my todd”.
If she replied she was at home??? weird because that was at 8.24pm according to the quote below????
Mr Lindsell said he replied immediately and said he was at Bristol Temple Meads station waiting for a train to Reading.
At 8.24pm, Miss Yeates replied: ''On my tod, just thinking about how much fun your birthday was.''
She replied: “At home- on my todd”.
Sally Ramage
Mr Bellew said he had received a call from Miss Yeates' phone at midnight on the Sunday night, which he didn't respond to immediately.
He later texted her phone back, saying: "Hi Jo, is everything OK, sorry I didn't answer."
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/tabak-drank-bubbly-killing-joanna-yeates/story-13554530-detail/story.html#0IK2iDpQskwR35ib.99
Matthew Wood, a friend of Miss Yeates' brother Chris who showed Miss Yeates Bristol, gave a statement saying Miss Yeates texted him and asked if he was out that Friday night.
He replied, saying he was at his work's Christmas party but wasn't sure about later, and heard nothing more.
Father George Henwood told the court he set out on his usual dog walk around Clifton around 8.15pm to 8.30pm when he spotted a couple, as well as Miss Yeates.
He recalled the freezing conditions, and saying to Miss Yeates: "It's slippy, isn't it?"
She replied "Yes, it is." According to the Crown these are the last words she spoke before she met her killer.
Read more at http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/tabak-drank-bubbly-killing-joanna-yeates/story-13554530-detail/story.html#0IK2iDpQskwR35ib.99
So if The Crown Prosecution are saying these where the last words she spoke.... Then it defineatley had to be earlier!!!!!!!!!!
Because her Text to Peter says: "At Home on my Tod!!!!!!1
Is the time on the Tesco's Video incorrect???????????
Time stamping comes in handy when presenting surveillance footage in a court of law. The evidence must be accurate for it to be approved for legal use. Many videos have been thrown out as evidence simply because they did not display the date and time. In some cases the time and date were displayed, but the time was off by an hour or so, and the footage was ruled invalid.
http://www.2mcctv.com/blog/2012_08_09-time-stamping-on-security-cameras/
Father Henwood see's her between 8:15pm and 8:30pm
She replies that she's at home when she replies to peter at 8:24pm
Did she eat the PIZZA????
How long was she at home for???
At 8:30pm she speaks to Rebecca Scott for 15 minutes....
Rebecca, 25, said: ”I was the last person believed to have spoken to Jo. She rang me at 8.30pm on Friday as she walked back from the pub.
I always wondered how long that telephone call was for... because if she was in Tesco's the phone call couldn't have been for 15mins.... But if the tesco's time stamp is incorrect.. which it very well could be then her phone call to Rebecca sounds right.....
Does that then mean... what CJ said aabout seeing or hearing people at the little gate about 9:00pm make more sense????/
http://swns.com/news/last-person-to-speak-to-joanna-yeates-tells-of-missing-bristol-womans-christmas-plans-12636/
But she had to be home at that time?????/
Odd thing.....
Tesco's is the only video with a time stamp......
When Joanna Yeates is about to walk into Waitrose... there is NO Snow???????
Would the reciepts have the correct time on them???
Why was The Bargain Booze receipt never shown?????
This is crazy..... So What is this saying??????
Defence Counsel: Can you look at item where you sent message to Tanja ‘missing you’
Can you remember if you sent it before you decided to go to Asda.
Recapping- you come off the Internet at 7.37pm (our entry 47) & remain in your flat until
9.29pm (our entry 88).
This is really WEIRD!!!!!
Another piece of information:
Michael Breen, another BDP employee, said he was at The Bristol Ram that Friday night and described how a seemingly bored Miss Yeates talked about baking bread or rowing that weekend.
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/tabak-drank-bubbly-killing-joanna-yeates/story-13554530-
detail/story.html#0IK2iDpQskwR35ib.99
ROWING!!!!!!!! who was she going Rowing with??????? When did she die???
HEALEY"S CIDER, CHAMPAGNE CORK ,NOW ROWING!!!!!
It's only just over a mile from Bristol Ram to Canygne Road...
https://www.reference.com/health/average-time-walk-one-mile-4ead32baef6bea30
So 20 mins plus popping into shops that she didn't spend much time in... ..
And she was very physically fit ..she could have easily been home when she said she was at 8.24pm
In The leveson enquiry The Police says about the last person to see her alive... So they must believe it was Father Henwood ... unless there's something else we don't know....
The Train Times are about right...8:30pm..
He must have stayed over in Reading..... Otherwise he'd of had only an hour at the wedding... if that ....
So Peter could have texted at 8:24pm for sure!!!!
So the BIG Questions Are:
Did she get home earlier than we are lead to believe???
And is the TimeStamp on the Tesco's Video CORRECT????????
It is possible to change the timestamp on video's.... wouldn't the operator of the cctv have to be in court to validate it????
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMNSGGihXHY
EDIT: when she walks past waitrose there is NO SNOW...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1338191/Big-freeze-Snow-spells-chaos-run-Christmas.html
So when did it SNOW????
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
interesting little video.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDg4eHHqmmA
It has the missing poster just behind.... when was this recorded????? Think it's within days...
Here in Longwood lane and you see something which suprises you
I would have expected to come along here and seen absoultely nothing. Certainly nothing that DNA could be taken from. There's a bottle there. There's another bottle there. There's a plastic cup down there. All of these potentially get DNA from. I would expect this whole area to be completeley clear
So....... they clearly DID NOT..... collect items that could have lead to a potential suspect.... WHY???
CRIME: Joanna Yeates murder: New CCTV image released by Daily Mirror
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeW_Jwn43g0
Keep watching this video... the time seems to run ok....
But How does she pay for the PIZZA????????
When she's in Bargain Booze she goes into her bag???
So... what happens at TESCO???
The continuity seems wrong??
The speed is slowed down??? when you look at bargain booze it's a more natural pace....!!
-
How narrow????/
There is NO way that she lay unseen for 8 days!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=856uPophiLM
It's so busy that Road!!!!
A better persepctive of how the road looks... !!!!
And on a busy road, still no Police effort to stop drivers and ask them what they may have seen,
If they haven't put anybody on this road ,if they haven't stopped from this road, if they haven't questioned people ,their driving up and down here, over that period of time. Then that clearly is very laxed , and it should be done because. There are undoubtedly people driving up and down this road, who do it day in day out,and may provide vital information
The video word for word... stood on Longwood lane at the time they found Joanna Yeates .. Flowers by the wall..
CRIME: Joanna Yeates murder: New CCTV image released by Daily Mirror
Just another little thought.... if people jog there and the road is busy...... would't they jog on the verges??????
-
Again:......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_Iwy9i5XOQ
Messages are mixed and even the experts are con fused
The Police are saying that there's no sexual assault ,but there could be a sexual element to it. Well where does that come from? And then I think we also look at the premises, they where saying very early on there was no forced entry and then they said yesterday that there could have been someone who forced there way into the premises.
Well.. what are we saying?
He took the words right out of my mouth.....
CRIME: Joanna Yeates murder: New CCTV image released by Daily Mirror
Are these above video's that ITN Reporter and criminologist
Williams-Thomas interview SOT ................
Were these ITN reports the REASON for the ITN Ban by Police??????/
https://www.journalism.co.uk/news/itn-accuses-police-of-censorship-over-ban-from-joanna-yeates-press-conference/s2/a542171/
-
Just looking at the CPS Statement.......
When did they write it???????????????? I know what date it says!!!!
Yesterday, on the second day of his murder trial, the jury at Bristol Crown Court heard described in harrowing detail the final moments of the landscape architect’s life.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2047800/Vincent-Tabak-trial-Joanna-Yeates-suffered-43-injuries-slow-painful-death.html#ixzz4TNW9xXOD
DATED: By Andy Dolan for the Daily Mail and Ryan Kisiel for the Daily Mail
UPDATED: 23:49, 11 October 2011
Vincent Tabak guilty of Joanna Yeates murder
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/vincent-tabak-guilty-joanna-yeates-murder
Dated: Friday 28 October 2011 15.16 BST
Then I noticed the CPS's Statement:
In May 2011, Tabak admitted the manslaughter of Joanna but that was only part of the story. The Crown's case is, and always has been, that it was a deliberate act on his part and that is why we refused to accept his plea to manslaughter and he has faced trial for murder over the past four weeks.
So WHAT 4 WEEKS????????????????
Why is the information Incorrect on the CPS's website????????
28/10/2011
CPS statement on the trial of Vincent Tabak
Ann Reddrop, head of the South West Complex Casework Unit, said: "Vincent Tabak was a cunning, dishonest and manipulative man who knew exactly what he was doing when he killed Joanna Yeates. Today, he has been convicted by a jury in Bristol of her murder last year, despite claiming he meant her no harm.
"He was cunning and dishonest towards his girlfriend with whom he maintained a normal relationship - even going so far as to text her shortly after Joanna was dead to say he was bored.
"He manipulated the police by virtue of his own in-depth research on the Internet to keep one step ahead of the investigation before his arrest, looking up extradition and medical details of decomposition.
"He made very selective admissions surrounding the circumstances of Joanna's death, which sought to cast her in an unfavourable light and he kept this up even when he was giving evidence to the jury. Tabak thought his cleverness and deceit would prevent him being convicted of a brutal murder. He was wrong.
"Joanna went missing on 17 December 2010 after meeting friends for drinks. For several days the police mounted a missing person enquiry but with the discovery of her body on Christmas Day it became a murder investigation. The police team undertook a painstaking enquiry into this murder and Vincent Tabak became the focus of their attention following the finding of his DNA on Joanna's body
"Late in December 2010, the police asked for assistance and guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service. That assistance has come from the South West Complex Casework Unit based here in Bristol. I reviewed the evidence, advised that Vincent Tabak should be charged with Joanna's murder and began preparing the case for trial.
"In May 2011, Tabak admitted the manslaughter of Joanna but that was only part of the story. The Crown's case is, and always has been, that it was a deliberate act on his part and that is why we refused to accept his plea to manslaughter and he has faced trial for murder over the past four weeks.
"Joanna's family has been here in Bristol during the trial and have listened to much of the evidence. Our thoughts are with them today as Tabak begins a life sentence for killing their daughter."
Ends
This sounds like the guilty verdict was reached before the trial started!!!!
I REMEMBER that they said the trial would take 4 weeks in MAY 2011.....
Tabak has entered a plea to manslaughter however this has not been accepted by the Crown.
"Until this trial takes place it would be inappropriate and potentially prejudicial for us to comment further."
The trial is expected to last four weeks.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8496027/Dutch-engineer-Vincent-Tabak-admits-I-did-kill-Jo-Yeates.html
That's even weirder!!!!!!
-
As always when points of order , facts and truths are shown and proven time and time again you fail to come up with an answer why is that & lets not hide behind your fake name anymore Drew Ashman lets just say we all know you are fake , A Conman, have had more faces than a town hall clock as a Gasman, Film Maker, Researcher ,criminologist, Internet blogger, forum troll and a Numpty .....
I can assure you I am NOT... Drew Ashman.....
I'm a lady in here fifties.........
-
I decided to go back to the Searches... and maybe look at them in a different way....
I think things are becoming clearer!!!!!
One thing we have to remember is that the Police say that they looked at more than one computer, laptops etc!!!!
Is the Devil and the detail going to rear it's head.....
I think it Just Might:
I want to deal with line 305..............
I think Line 305 is extremeley Interesting!!!!!
At Line 305 of the prosecution chart
PC Karen Thomas went to 44 Canynge Road to search
Now what reason do you think that PC Karen Thomas went to 44 Caynge Road to search???????
Think I'll do my usual and let CJ tell you............
From the Leveson Enquiry......
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http:/www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf
My second statement to the police oil Wednesday 22 December 2010
,
On Tuesday 21 December 2010 1 provided a statement to the police who were at that
time searching the entire house and all the flats in it and taking statements from all tile
residents. I was not being treated as a suspect. At the time the police said to all of us
that if we subsequently remembered anything that could be material we should get
back in touch, That evening I remembered something else that I had not mentioned to
the police that I thought could possibly be material. This was that one evening, which
might have been Friday 17 December 2010, as I was coming back from fine gym at
about 9pm, I had parked my car on the road and was just walking through the gates of
the main driveway, when I became aware of what sounded like two or perhaps three
people leaving by the side gate on the other side of the house which I could not see a
there is a hedge in between and it was dark, I duly telephoned the police and relayed
this.
,
The next day, Wednesday 22 December 2010, the same officer who had taken my
first statement came back to my fiat and took a second statement about this. The
officer asked me if one of tile voices could have been a woman’s voice. I responded
that it could have been but that I could not say either way. The police have since
confirmed to me that the fact flint I gave a supplementary statement raised their
suspicions in relation to me. On the basis of what ensued, I believe it is likely that the
police passed these suspicions on to rite media.
So that's what he says....
Again lets break it down...........
On Tuesday 21 December 2010 1 provided a statement to tile police who were at that
time searching the entire house and all the flats in it and taking statements from all tile
residents. I was not being treated as a suspect
So As CJ stated the Police had taken witness Statements from Residents and SEARCHED all the Flats... on the 21st January 2011
Obviously without coming up with any evidence what so ever... But at this time they searched all the Residents Flats....
Now on line 292
At Line 292 of the prosecution chart
Tabak Googled the words
‘manslaughter sentencing’
Then he went to Wikipedia website to search the words
‘manslaughter in English law murder in English law’
Tabak left work at 5.06pm \on 22 Dec 2010
and at home he Googled
‘Los Angeles murder case’
Now I wondered what was Obviously Staring me in the face with this Time Line......
And I don't believe Anybody spotted it.... The Jury wouldn't know, And The defence didn't pick up on it.....
Tabak left work at 5.06pm \on 22 Dec 2010
Why did I find that Little Gem interesting?
Well DR Vincent Tabak Didn't leave for work Normally till around 9:00am
Defence Counsel: Turn to entry 11.
‘Entry 11- seen past the flat at 9.05 where Tanya had already left for work in a lift-share’.
Text message from Tabak: ‘Love you’.
Text answer from Tanja: Love you too. Pretty snow.
So here he is seen Leaving past the Flat at 9:05am... where he is seen is anyones guess???
Defence Counsel: What time do you leave for work?
Tabak: 9.00 am.
So He probably caught the 9:07am Train To Bath which would arrive at Bath Spa at 9:11 am
Sounds about correct....
BURO HAPPOLD OPENING TIMES ARE : 9:30am to 6:00 pm
Sounds like an average work day.....
Now the next bit is confusing.... WHY???
Tabak left work at 5.06pm \on 22 Dec 2010
Why would he leave work at:
(A): Such an odd time
(B): Before work had finished.....
See that sounds like someone who has a typical 9 to 5 job....
But we Know that he doesn't leave for work normally till 9:00am because his place of employment doesn't open till 9:30am
So he wouldn't finish work at 5:00pm it would be 6:00pm like the Opening times suggest!!!!!!!
By him supposedly leaving at 5:06 he would be able to catch the :
17:12
ON TIME
Bath Spa
17:31
ON TIME
Bristol Temple Meads
19m
Direct
OFF PEAK
Good timing... NOT!!
But I think he left work at his usual time of just after 6:00pm and would have caught the:
18:08
ON TIME
Bath Spa
18:28
ON TIME
Bristol Temple Meads
Which would coincide with the time he would normally reach home:
Timeline 45- Vincent Tabak’s journey home- 6.54 at Constitution Hill. Home just after
7pm by which time Tanja had already left. Text message to Tanja- ‘Just got home’.
No I'd think A man in Dr Vincent Tabak's position would more than likely spend longer at work than less time at work, seeing he has a responsible role....
Now lets go back to CJ:
On Tuesday 21 December 2010 1 provided a statement to tile police who were at that
time searching the entire house and all the flats in it and taking statements from all the
residents. I was not being treated as a suspect. At the time the police said to all of us
that if we subsequently remembered anything that could be material we should get
back in touch, That evening I remembered something else that I had not mentioned to
the police that I thought could possibly be material.
Now this is where CJ gives his Supplementary Statement.......
And the Police's Response is:
The next day, Wednesday 22 December 2010, the same officer who had taken my
first statement came back to my fiat and took a second statement about this. The
officer asked me if one of tile voices could have been a woman’s voice. I responded
that it could have been but that I could not say either way. The police have since
confirmed to me that the fact that I gave a supplementary statement raised their
suspicions in relation to me.
Now Again a telling Statement.....
The Police Spring into action and run around to CJ's to Talk to him about his supplementary statement!!!!
Notice the DATE!! 22nd Decemeber 2010
Now.... This is were that Little Devil pops it's Head Up!!!!
The next day, Wednesday 22 December 2010, the same officer who had taken my
first statement came back to my fiat and took a second statement about this.
Oh My.... I do believe I can here Alarm Bells!!!!
Tabak left work at 5.06pm \on 22 Dec 2010
and at home he Googled
‘Los Angeles murder case’
At Line 305 of the prosecution chart
PC Karen Thomas went to 44 Canynge Road to search
Now.... We Already Know that it was the 21st Dec 2010 that the Police:
On Tuesday 21 December 2010 1 provided a statement to tile police who were at that
thue searching the entire house and all the flats
The Flats had been searched on the 21st Dec 2010... so why go back to "SEARCH" on the 22nd Dec 2010....
Another telling slip up (IMO)
I'll Let CJ tell you:.......
The next day, Wednesday 22 December 2010, the same officer who had taken my
first statement came back to my fiat and took a second statement about this.
And in the Honour of CJ,.. We see him sat talking to the Police whilst the dog sniffs about.....
So.... I Believe It was NOT Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat that was searched on 22nd Dec 2010...
It was CJ's... and the entry was for CJ......
Lets not forget : They thought that CJ had colluded with Dr Vincent Tabak....
And with CJ's Supplementary Statement the Police russhed round to see him....
Why Would they need to SEARCH Dr Vincent Tabaks Flat again on the 22nd Dec 2010.. when they already had just done it the day before!!!!
They needed to search CJ's Flat because they suddenly had a suspect in there eyes!!!!!!!!!
So I do believe the entry line 305.... Is an UNTRUE (IMO)
As CJ' Says: The police have since
confirmed to me that the fact that I gave a supplementary statement raised their
suspicions in relation to me.
So.... Definetaley CJ who's home the Police Searched on the 22nd Dec 2010....
No reason whatsoever for the Police to search Dr Vincent Tabak AGAIN on this date as he DID NOT make a SUPPLEMENTARY statement till 31st dec 2010.......
Strange that showed up as a Visit to Dr Vincnet Tabak.... wonder what TIME that Visit was at !!!!!
SO I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT PC KAREN THOMAS VISITED DR VINCENT TABAK ON THE 22ND DECEMBER 2010!!!
And always in my opinion!!!!
If you look at the screenshots... Saturday is the only day BURO HAPPOLD Close At 5:00pm!!!
22nd December 2010 was a WEDNESDAY!!!!
-
BURO HAPPOLD...............
I'm starting to come to the opinion... that i don't trust The Computer Anaylist's finding....
So far I have managed to show the irrelevance of alot of those searches and some, where they were impossible to be done.....
I want to look at his earlest searches I think they are important:!!!!
Let me start with BURO HAPPOLD................
Now Buro Happold are a specialist engineering company that have worked on some of the most prestigous Buildings in the world and I'm sure that all of their computer data is highly confidential....
I personally Cannot see BURO HAPPOLD handing over any of there computers without some kind of a warrant!!!
I wonder when the WARRANT for searching `BURO HAPPOLD was Served????????
I have attached a couple of photo's which show an office enviroment that has small desk area's shared by a
number of people...
Now I Do NOT know if Dr Vincent Tabak had a Seperate Office... BUT.... As he wasn't a CEO... I doubt it!!!!
So we can now picture him in his natural work enviroment!!
See how closely people are working together...
I did say it was possible for anyone to go and use anyones computer!!
Now I do find it a real shame that I can't find anything about what anyone from BURO HAPPOLD said at trial.....
But mostly what I find , is BURO HAPPOLD's willingness to hand over any computers to the POLICE as I'm sure the information contained in them is HIGHLY SENSITIVE!!!!
From Sally Ramage:
15.5. Witness evidence on Wednesday 19 October 2011
The police analyst gave evidence on Wednesday 19 October and claimed that the
following (partly set out below in blue) is the result of her analysis of the metadata from
Buro Happold’s computers and Tabak’s laptops at Flat 2. Prosecuting counsel related to
the witness and she confirmed that her analysis shows that Tabak researched ‘police’,
‘missing persons’, ‘recycling’, etc.
The jury were told that some webpages couldn’t now be recovered as they had been
changed but that some webpages had not changed, and so the prosecution showed films of
some pages that had not been changed.
Again lets split this up!!
Buro Happold’s computers and Tabak’s laptops at Flat 2
COMPUTERS??????? How Many COMPUTERS are BURO HAPPOLD Going to let out of their SIGHT!!!!
The police analyst gave evidence on Wednesday 19 October and claimed that the
following (partly set out below in blue) is the result of her analysis of the metadata from
Buro Happold’s computers
NOW............. like I said.. Buro Happold's Computer Data would be HIGHLY SENSETIVE INFORMATION.... And as we can see, the Police Computer IT Expert has been apparently checking this computer that belonged to BURO HAPPOLD!!!
AGAIN.............
The jury were told that some webpages couldn’t now be recovered as they had been
changed but that some webpages had not changed, and so the prosecution showed films of
some pages that had not been changed.
Can you IMAGINE BURO HAPPOLD CEO being Happy that the supposed IT Expert from the Police has been Messing around with their computer data ... And has changed some web pages!!!!!
Now what are these WEB PAGES ???
Do these web pages pertain to anything to do with BURO HAPPOLD... If So.... did they loose any information???
I'm sure they would have wanted compensation for the Police Destroying the pages contained within the computer Hard Drive....
Question????? Did the Prosecution Bring to Court Buro Happolds COMPUTER to show as Evidence...
OR...... Did they just show slides of what apparently was on them????
Defence Counsel: What project were you working at on December 17?
Tabak: I had been working on a very big project- A Holy Mosque in Mecca- I was doing
some analysis on it – the flow of pilgrims to the Holy Mosque. This was a project that
Buro Happold was tendering for.
See...... HUGH PROJECT!!!!!!!!!!!
https://www.dezeen.com/2011/05/05/cultural-centre-in-tirana-by-big/
Cultural centre in Tirana by BIG
Rose Etherington | 5 May 2011 14 comments
Danish architects Bjarke Ingels Group have won a competition to design a mosque, Islamic centre and museum in Tirana, Albania.
The three buildings will cluster in a triangle at the corner of the site, with two sides aligned with Tirana's city grid and the third facing Mecca.
Cultural centre in Tirana by BIG
Each will twist to curve over a public plaza in the centre, making this public space into an extension of the cultural centre.
Cultural centre in Tirana by BIG
The mosque will accommodate 1000 worshippers for daily prayers, with the ability to expand through courtyards and the public plaza to accommodate up to 10,000 people for holy days.
Cultural centre in Tirana by BIG
BIG won the competition in collaboration with Martha Schwartz Landscape, Buro Happold , Speirs & Major, Lutzenberger & Lutzenberger, and Global Cultural Asset Management.
So Buro Happold WON in Collaboration with the above... And that was in MAY 2011
So I ask again.. would BURO Happold be happy to hand over any computers to the POLICE?????
The Reason I've started with this is because:...........
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’
Then the Defences timeline for the same day....
Defence Counsel: Turn to entries 6 and 7. Incoming text message 7.35 and reply 7.40.
Defence Counsel: Turn to entry 11.
‘Entry 11- seen past the flat at 9.05 where Tanya had already left for work in a lift-share’.
Text message from Tabak: ‘Love you’.
Text answer from Tanja: Love you too. Pretty snow.
Defence Counsel: What time do you leave for work?
Tabak: 9.00 am.
Defence Counsel: Do you always access weather reports on the Internet?
Tabak: I always access the Internet for weather reports even whilst in Los Angeles. I had
my computers set up for that.
Defence Counsel: Let us look at your movements on Friday 17 December:
Time line 11- left for work
Timeline 12- Cycled to Bristol T Stn
Timeline 13- Train to bath
Timeline 16- Arrive Bath 9.41
Timeline 17- Accessed Internet for weather- at work
Timeline 18- Accessed weather report.
Timeline 19- Accessed weather report.
Timeline 20- Telephone call to Tanja.
Timeline 21- Another telephone call to Tanja.
Now according to the prosecution he accessed the weather for Bristol and Bath at:
On 17 December 2010 at 7.45:54 am
But The Defence say that it is not until line:
Timeline 17- Accessed Internet for weather- at work
Timeline 18- Accessed weather report.
Timeline 19- Accessed weather report.
With Line: Turn to entries 6 and 7. Incoming text message 7.35 and reply 7.40.
Being before he left for work....
Those being the recieved and the replied to Text messages at that time..
According to the defence he doesn't Access the Weather till line 17..
And we Know what time it is on Line 16: Timeline 16- Arrive Bath 9.41
So it would be later rather than earlier that he accessed the weather...
Now..........
What you have to Remember is that The Defence have got their TIMELINES From the Prosecution...
That LOVELY 1300 Pages Document That they dropped on the defences lap on the First Day of Trial.....
I Do NOT Know how much of the Information regarding Dr Vincent Tabak' that the Defence Compiled...
But Again.... Did BURO HAPPOLD ..... Also allow the Defence to mess around with their SENSITIVE INFORMATION????
I'd say NO............(IMO)
So i would suggest the information came from the 1300 page Document...
WHY THE DIFFERENT TIMES??????
How can The Prosecution and the Defence Have Different Times regarding the Computer Searches???
AND................ where was the defences Computer IT Specialist????????
Obviously didn't have one.... So they used the information that the Prosecution Provided them with on the DAY of Trial.....
So who would be more accurate????
Lets see how many Times Dr Vincent Tabak used BURO HAPPOLDS COMPUTERS TO SEARCH!!!!!
Timeline 17- Accessed Internet for weather- at work
On his computer at work, Tabak searched for news on
‘Melanie Hall’
‘Avon and Somerset police home page’
‘News’
‘Murder of Melanie Hall’
Now why would Dr Vincent Tabak be searching for MELANIE HALL?????
I can't find anything on Melanie Hall on those Dates...
Range of DATES: 17/12/2010 to 21/12/2010
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=melanie+hall&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=966&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A17%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A21%2F12%2F2010&tbm=
This is between Timeline: 217 and 224
It would have tio RANGE between these DATES BECAUSE:....
At Line 267 of the prosecution chart
at 15.00 pm on 21 December 2010, Tabak searched the words
What reason would Dr Vincent Tabak Possibly have to search for Melanie Hall?????
The only person I believe that search would be for is CJ..... (IMO) Because they believed CJ had something to do with it... And I presume they where looking for links to Melanie Hall and Glenis Caruthers cases..!!!
Dr Vincent Tabak would not have been in the country when Melanie Hall Died.... He was 18 years old at the time!!!!
At Line 258 (afternoon- at work)
Tabak performed Google searches on the words
‘manslaughter’
‘previous offenders’
‘Maximum sentence Manslaughter’
Tabak then performed a Yahoo search for the words
‘penalty for manslaughter’
At Line 281of the prosecution chart
in the morning -at work, Tabak Googled
‘police’
‘weather forecast’
At Line 286 of the prosecution chart
Tabak at lunchtime- at work-on 22 December 2010
Searched Google for the words
‘What happens forensic?’
Wiki
‘Forensic science and trace evidence
On 5 Jan 2011 lunchtime, Tabak Googled
‘press coverage’
At 3.05 pm, Tabak Googled the words
‘press coverage’
‘missing sock’
At 4.03, Tabak searched online newspaper articles for the words
‘frozen DNA’
‘rubbish collection Clifton 23 December 2010’
On 6 Jan 2011, Tabak researched the words
Pizza box
Tabak Googled the words
‘Rubbish collection York Place Clifton Bristol’
‘Jo Yeates rubbish’
At 4.10 (pm) Tabak searched on Wikipedia for the words
‘Detention of a suspect’
‘letter and label sent to a public house’
At Line 422 of the prosecution chart
At 9.10 am (at work)
Tabak searched for press articles on the murder.
Then he Googled the words
‘DNA test’
‘Waste recycling’
‘rubbish collectionAt Line 427 of the prosecution chart
Tabak researched on Wikipedia the words
‘life imprisonment’
‘previous offenders’
‘named persons’
‘sentencing’ ’
WOW... He was at work early that day.....
Now quite honestly I think most of these searches could easily be applied to CJ' looking on the Internet...
Remember the Police believed CJ had done the DEED!!!
Because they could easily apply to CJ....
At Line 340 of the prosecution chart
Tabak Googled on 26 Dec 2010
‘Yeates’
At 3.00 pm he search the Telegraph Newspaper online
At 3:43 pm he searched online global newspapers
At 3.45 pm he searched the words
‘Suspension bridge police footage’
Now we Know he didn't go across The SUSPENSION BRIDGE!!!
But The Police interviewed a witness/suspect who did... And I believe that was CJ.....
I find these searches difficult to believe..... I CANNOT SEE BURO HAPPOLD LETTING GO OF SEVERAL COMPUTER WITH HIGHLY SENSETIVE INFORMATION ON THEM..........
I'm sure they would have put up a fight to release these COMPUTERS!!!! (IMO)!!!
http://www.burohappold.com/about/
EDIT: One Thought... why would Dr Vincent Tabak search these google searches on a works computer???
When if he was trying to be furtive and NOT allow anyone to see what he was searching....
Why DIDN"T he do these SEARCHES on his MOBILE PHONE?????????????
And is it possible to search the Interent on a works computer.....
Alot of companies BLOCK or Ban STAFF for using THEIR COMPUTERS for such ACTIVITIES!!!!!!!
EDIT: To make a point as to whether Dr Vincent Tabak was alone and if the picture i have provided show his work enviroment...
Vincent works as part of a small team. Most people know him but I doubt many
would class him as a friend.”
AGAIN....................
“He was well thought of and was always being sent to other offices to help
out. He was very clever and very good at his job.
So... He was on his own............ NOT...(IMO)
He had time to search the internet with ... No one seeing him..... NO... (IMO)
SO..............HOW DOES HE HAVE TIME TO LOOK FOR PORN WHILST HE'S IN AN ENVIROMENT SURROUNDED BY OTHER TEAM MEMBERS!!!!!
IMPOSSIBLE..... (IMO)
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/321964/vincents-cool-calm-incredibly-intelligent/
EDIT:“He was well thought of and was always being sent to other offices to help
out. He was very clever and very good at his job.
Just thought I'd add it again... where would he find the time for these searches...porn or otherwise...
I would imagine the free time he had he'd be contacting TANJA!!!!!!!
EDIT:... Tabak: I always access the Internet for weather reports even whilst in Los Angeles. I had
my computers set up for that.
Shouldn't that have been LAPTOPS!!!!
I get the feeling Dr Vincent Tabak is trying to tell us something... And that is NOT the first time I have noticed this!!!!!!!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The Porn...................
I WILL WARN YOU..... I'm going to get SHOUTY!!!!!!
Now we only heard about the porn because, it was mentioned in the Papers after the Trial:
But I find some of the descriptions, quite interesting................
Judge said it would be unnecessary for the jury to hear how he had cheated on girlfriend Tanja Morson with a prostitute he met on an escort website
In the weeks after the murder, Tabak Googled 'Jo Yeates' before accessing home-made sex videos
He had looked at porn on the morning of the murder
Police believe he was aroused by the killing
Pictures found on his laptop of blonde woman closely resembling Miss Yeates
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2054945/Vincent-Tabak-trial-Jo-Yeates-killer-obsessed-sex-strangulation-prostitutes-porn.html#ixzz4TTWxIm9J
So Homemade MOVIES.... thats one I hadn't heard before.............
Pictures on his laptop of a blonde woman resembling Joanna Yeates.......
Well Tanja Is Blonde maybe they are pictures of her????
Who did he make these homemade MOVIES with??????
No One has come forward to say that they STARRED in them...
You would think they would want there 15 mins of fame!!!!!!
Are the papers suggesting it's Tanja??? I hope not!!!!
Footage found on his laptops depicted women tied up in car boots - just as Miss Yeates's body was temporarily left after she died.
Three pictures also showed a blonde woman in a pink T-shirt and jeans closely resembling Miss Yeates on the night of her death.
Images seized by officers showed the woman with her top pulled up in a similar pose to the one in which Miss Yeates was left when Tabak dumped her body.
Now I don't know about you.... But I remember these pictures were supposed to be of someone in the boot of a car......
Now here is where the problem lies!!!!!!
She was in a BIKE BAG/COVER in the boot of the car.. And her top was supposed to have ridden up as he was struggling to get her over the wall!!!!!
Other images found on Tabak’s home and work computers included a series in which-semi naked women lay bound and gagged in the boot of a car.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8847951/Vincent-Tabak-developed-sexual-fetish-after-watching-violent-porn-films.html
Now we haven't YET Established if BURO HAPPOLD gave the Police permssion to search there Computers... or if they had a WARRANT.....
Or..... if it was even possible to acess such sites on a work computer!!!!!!
Analysis showed he had viewed films from a series called Sex and Submission, featuring shocking scenes of sexual violence towards women.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8847951/Vincent-Tabak-developed-sexual-fetish-after-watching-violent-porn-films.html
Now me searching for the Title SEX AND SUBMISSION... then looking for images of the girl in the pink T shirt...
I can tell you I got quite an eyefull of something I wasn't quite ready for...!!!
But Then I did my usual and put in a RANGE of DATES:17th Dec 2010 to 31st Dec 2010
And the first one you come to is :
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4076060/
Which is a TV show.... might not be pleasant... But a TV show all the Same... Now if its a series that they are talking about.. then;
Cast
Series cast summary:
Mark Davis Mark Davis
(168 episodes, 2005-2016)
James Deen James Deen
(93 episodes, 2005-2015)
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1071658/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm#trivia
She's Bleached Blonde
There were PLENTY of EPISODES in the SERIES... So I think that this is Probably what was being refered to!!!!
So how did he watch this TV series????? If they suggest Payment TV would be the way forward!!!
Now I can see it possible in America... but in this country it would be a little harder to view in the same way...
Where are the transactions showing payment for this series????
In the weeks following the murder, Tabak also spent hours on his computer poring over reports about the investigation – before then logging onto depraved porn sites some of which showed women being choked.
Now we know he didn't spend hours following the investigation... we can see by the timelines!!!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8847951/Vincent-Tabak-developed-sexual-fetish-after-watching-violent-porn-films.html
WoW.... looking for Sarah Jay... she's all over the internet... But it's free to watch....
I tell you i'll be gladwhen I've covered this topic!!!!!
But that is the EXACT POINT!!!!!!!
Who Really is going to check whether Dr Vincent Tabak searched for illegal porn or just porn... Or did he even search for porn???????
No one is gonna check it out!!!!!!!!!!! unless you are me.....( I didn't access any Illegal porn site... The pics of the legal one was enough)!!!
He explained that Tabak had even been thinking about pornography on the day he killed Miss Yeates.
From same Telegraph Article:...
How did he know what Dr Vincent Tabak was thinking???????
Details of the Dutchman’s sinister interest in violent pornography can only now be revealed, after the judge Mr Justice Field took the decision to rule such evidence inadmissible on the eve of the trial at Bristol Crown Court.
During legal argument held without in the presence of the jury Tabak’s defence team successfully argued the viewing of such material did not provide evidence that he had intended to kill Miss Yeates or cause her serious harm.
William Clegg QC, defending, argued such evidence might unfairly influence the jury.
During legal argument, the prosecution team led by Nigel Lickley QC told Mr Justice Field: "Pornography depicting violence against women was found in a series of films that the defendant has viewed on his computer, some more than once.
"They depict violent images of women being held by the neck. We submit that these images explain why he held Miss Yeates by the neck."
He went on: “The defendant liked those films because he watched them more than once. That is suggestive of derived sexual pleasure from them.”
He added: “We submit these have a real significance in explaining why the defendant held Joanna Yeates by the neck and killed her.
“We submit that the killing was sexually motivated given the evidence of the movement of the clothing and the DNA on the breast area.”
Now lets break that up:
Details of the Dutchman’s sinister interest in violent pornography can only now be revealed, after the judge Mr Justice Field took the decision to rule such evidence inadmissible on the eve of the trial at Bristol Crown Court.
The EVE??? thats the day before????? So what day did the Trail start??????
If we go from the 4th October which was a Tuesday .. Then Monday would be the EVE!!!
But if we go from after the Jury were sworn in then the start date would be the 10th Oct 2011 which would be a Monday and the EVE would be the SUNDAY!!!!!
So I'm hazzarding a guess that this was on the 3rd Oct That they were in judges chambers.....
So if they were in Judges Chambers Arguing about the porn on the 3rd Oct 2011.... which I cannot see....
Because it's the day before the Trial starts... so what is the EVE of the porn being admissible or NOT!!!!!!!!!
This is EXTREMELEY IMPORTANT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Think I've found when they got the 1300 page Document!!!
3.2. The jury was sworn on 7 October, 2011. The trial was postponed for a day because
Vincent Tabak's defence team, led by William Clegg, QC, pleaded o he judge for extra
time to read an additional 1,300 pages of documentary evidence which the prosecution had
disclosed to them at the last minute.
3.3. The court clerk told the jury that
So with this Information I would guess that this is the day they argued about the Porn charges!!!!!
This Day the Friday 7th October 2011:..................
It could be later but Not before.......
Because The Prosecution would have had to reveal that they had 1300 pages of EVIDENCE on the 4th Oct 2011
So.... what becomes the eve NOW!!!!!!
Lets get back into it.......
So Monday the 10th Oct 2011 is the First Day of Active duty by the JURY!!!!!
Ah................ Again... the devil is in the Detail......
The ORIGINAL 1300 PAGE DOCUMENT HAD TO BE LOTS AND LOTS BIGGER!!!!!!
I'll tell you for why.... If The Prosecution were trying to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak had spent the rest of his TIME viewing VIOLENT PORN,.......
Then That in turn would have created..... LOADS more PAGES to go with the 1300 Page Document!!!!!
Again.... I love the Devil in the DETAIL:................
So we have 15 copies made of this MASSIVE 1300 PAGE DOCUMENT which has MORE PAGES ADDED TO IT...
When the Prosecution Gave NICK CLEGG... His Copy on Friday 7th Oct 2010:
(1):12 Jurors
(2): 1 Judge
(3): 1 Prosecution Counsel
(4): 1Defence Counsel
That is 1300 X 15 = 19500 pages... These are not including the EXTRA PAGES OF THE PORN SEARCHING TIME LINES!!!
So on the 7th October 2011 The Prosecution Council now had to go away... And make 15 more COPIES of the 1300 page DOCUMENT!!!!
Not only that.... they had to spend the Time removing all the Porn related SEARCHES on the DOCUMENT..
So........ That they would have FRESH COPIES FOR THE JURY TO SEE.........
LETS REALLY THINK ABOUT THIS!!!!!!!!!!
They would have to do all the TIMELINES AGAIN........... And WOULD the TIMELINES now differ??????
There were 566 timelines to change from what ever number they were before!!!!
BUT....... AGAIN........ Another BIG BUT.....................
Would they have FURNISHED THE DEFENCE with the NEW REVISED DOCUMENT!!!!!!
So now we have..... Sally Ramage
When prosecution counsel Nigel Lickley opened the case, he produced copies of an
A3- bound document which consisted of colour-coded pages of the timeline of the alleged
murder: every incident from emails, mobile texts, landline telephone calls, travel,
shopping, etc of the parties involved, ieJoanna Yeates and her cohabitee; and Vincent
Tabak and his cohabitee. Importantly, these schedules also include alleged internet
searches by Dr Tabak. This A3 document looked dauntingly complex and one wonders if
all members of the jury followed this document;
Again look............ I have to say the PROSECUTION... MUST HAVE WORKED ALL WEEKEND!!!!!
When prosecution counsel Nigel Lickley opened the case, he produced copies of an
A3- bound document which consisted of colour-coded pages of the timeline of the alleged
murder: every incident from emails, mobile texts, landline telephone calls, travel,
shopping, etc of the parties involved, ieJoanna Yeates and her cohabitee; and Vincent
Tabak and his cohabitee.
Not ONLY did THE PROSECUTION HAVE TO..............
(1): Revise the time lines so they didn't have any reference to PORN!!!!
(2): Print 15 More Copies so 12 Jury Members 1 Judge Defence and Prosecution had 1 each..
(3): That 19500 pages MORE to print OFF !!!!!!
(4): He Then had to spend the time STUDYING his NEW REVISED FOLDER.... TO.............
(5): Colour CODE them......!!!!!!
At this point the jury on Wednesday morning 19 October 2011, were invited to write into
their copy of the prosecution chart where they see the words typed in by Tabak
SO THE JURY DID HAVE COPIES!!!!!!!!!!!
We can totally understand why he might have left the word "DEFINITION" out of the NEW COPIES....... *&*%£
At this point the jury on Wednesday morning 19 October 2011, were invited to write into
their copy of the prosecution chart where they see the words typed in by Tabak
‘definition’ before the words ‘sexual conduct’. The jury were invited to write the word
‘definition’, so that this entry is more accurate, the prosecution counsel Nigel Lickley said,
because these words were missed out when the prosecution constructed the chart of
evidence.
Such A BUSY WEEKEND..... To be all prepared for court on MONDAY 10th October 2011.!!! "NOT (IMO)
Are they trying to take us for a RIDE..... I DO NOT BELIEVE that they reproduced any more DOCUMENTS....
AND IF THERE WAS NO REPRODUCTION OF THE 1300 PAGE DOCUMENT ................ THEN.. what happened to the Porn SEARCHES!!!!........
every incident from emails, mobile texts, landline telephone calls, travel,
shopping, etc of the parties involved, ieJoanna Yeates and her cohabitee; and Vincent
Tabak and his cohabitee.
HOW LONG WOULD THAT TAKE???????????????
(A): How many Colours Did he have ??
(B): Where Dr Vincent Tabaks A different Colour from everyone one else???
(C):So there 5 Catergories there........... 5 COLOURS for INDIVIDUAL CATERGORIES
(D): How Difficult would that be do DO!!!!!
I Do Not Believe That There Was ANY PORN Which the Prosecution let The MEDIA believe...
Because I think it's PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.......... For Them to Reproduce All of the TIMELINES x 15 And Colour Code over 566 EVENTS In The 1300 Page DOCUMENT OVER THE WEEKEND...
According to the expert police computer analyst and as tabulated in he prosecution’s thick
A3 booklet of a timeline of 566 events, Dr Tabak went to the computer and created the
following Prosecution Internet evidence:
Oh DEAR................ I forgot about her......... THATS ANOTHER LOAD OF WORK!!!!!!!
She used a computer screen to tell the STORY OF dr Vincent Tabak's COMPUTER SEARCHES.....
NOW......... Does that mean that the IT...... EXPERT.... HAD to Then spend her TIME... Reajusting ALL The TIMELINES of Dr Vincent Tabak's Computer SEARCHES... So they would be in LINE with the PROSECUTIONS..
New AND REVISED TIMELINES................. I THINK NOT...............(IMO)!!!!!!
The Prosecution would have had to PAINSTAKING go through every time line, which not only included searches for PORN... But APPRANT TRANSACTIONS FOR PORN............ "OUCH!!!"
THAT"S 1300 PAGES PLUS!!!!!!!
WHO DID THE PROOF READING OF THIS DOCUMENT READY FOR COURT ON MONDAY 10th OCTOBER 2011.......
How long Do You Think it would Have Taken The Prosecution to COMPILE this Document in the First Place???????
How did they manage to have 15 x 1300 pages on a surface and put them all in the correct ORDER in Time for court?????
Making DAMN SURE That EVERY SINGLE COPY WAS IN THE CORRECT ORDER!!!!!!!
They might have shown the JUDGE Pictures ETC.... BUT THEY STILL WOULD HAVE NEEDED TO ADJUST THE TIMELINE...............
And if it was the 4thOct.... he still had only a few days... because he gave CLEGG a COPY on the 7th JANUARY 2011
But AGAIN.... Dr Vincent Tabak didn't appear in court till the 4th... So I'm going with the 7th October 2010 for the first time the defence saw anything to do with the PORN!!!!!!
EDIT:........
5.5. Witness evidence on Wednesday 19 October 2011
The police analyst gave evidence on Wednesday 19 October and claimed that the
following (partly set out below in blue) is the result of her analysis of the metadata from
Buro Happold’s computers and Tabak’s laptops at Flat 2. Prosecuting counsel related to
the witness and she confirmed that her analysis shows that Tabak researched ‘police’,
‘missing persons’, ‘recycling’, etc.
WHAT IS GLARING OBVIOUSLY MISSING FROM THIS STATEMENT:???????????????????????????????
Two counts of making indecent photographs of children between 2009 and 2011, relating to 23 images found on external hard drives, were ordered to lie on file.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/vincent-tabak-joanna-yeates-murderer-5260659
WHY WASN'T THE EXTERNAL HARD DRIVE MENTIONED BEFORE??????????????
It is NOT MENTIONED IN THE SALLY RAMAGE PAPERS..................
SOZ........ANOTHER EDIT:
Experts were also able to show that Tabak logged onto a pornographic website on the morning of December 17, the day he murdered Miss Yeates.
Noticed he LOGGED ON..........= INTERNET SEARCH....... WHERE THE BE JESUS IS IT!!!!!!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8847951/Vincent-Tabak-developed-sexual-fetish-after-watching-violent-porn-films.html
And sureley if there was Evidence on there it would have been Part of the supposed PORN"............AND AT LEAST A MENTION WOULD HAVE HAPPENED!!!!
So................. NO CHILD PORN EITHER.................
And Why would they need to leave these LIE ON FILE........????? A BIT OF LEVERAGE FOR THE FUTURE......... PERHAPS!!!!!
No child Porn.... No Porn.. Porn.....either!!!!
THERE WAS NO PORN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(IMO)..........
DOUBLE EDIT: RANGE OF DATES 8/12/2010 to 11/11/2011
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=vincent+tabak+porn+external+hard+drives&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=966&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A08%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A11%2F11%2F2011&tbm=
Not A SNIFF!!!!!!!!!!!! NO MENTION OF EXTERNAL HARDDRIVES!!!!!!!!!!!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg370681#msg370681
Just to add to this post.....
How would Dr Vincent Tabak be ready to leave work at 5:06pm?????
Most Cyclists wear Cycle gear....
My Husband does... And what he needs when he's cycled to work, is a shower and a change of clothing...
So did Dr Vincent Tabak need to change clothes when he got to work or when he was about to leave work????
That would defineatley change his timelines!!!!!!
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg370742#msg370742
Just another wee thought............
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/01/child-porn-on-joanna-kill_n_1069041.html
Did they have to remove all these from the timeline DOCUMENT the Jury SAW!!!!!!!!
Does that mean these didn't exist either???????
-
Lets apply it to CJ.............
Now of course I am not saying that CJ had anything to do with this Crime...
But when I looked at the Computer searches I thought, with what CJ said at the Leveson Inquiry, what if I change the name from Dr Vincent Tabak to CJ....
And Knowing That the Police believe right up until.. March that he was involved, lets suggest the searches are CJ's...
(of courses they're not) But Just for arguments sake........
Maybe That was why the IT EXPERT lost some PAGES......... (Oopsie... Naughty)... A mere Suggestion (IMO)
Lets Start with CJ's Leveson Inquiry Statement...............
My second statement to the police oil Wednesday 22 December 2010
,
On Tuesday 21 December 2010 1 provided a statement to the police who were at that
time searching the entire house and all the flats in it and taking statements from all tile
residents. I was not being treated as a suspect. At the time the police said to all of us
that if we subsequently remembered anything that could be material we should get
back in touch, That evening I remembered something else that I had not mentioned to
the police that I thought could possibly be material. This was that one evening, which
might have been Friday 17 December 2010, as I was coming back from fine gym at
about 9pm, I had parked my car on the road and was just walking through the gates of
the main driveway, when I became aware of what sounded like two or perhaps three
people leaving by the side gate on the other side of the house which I could not see a
there is a hedge in between and it was dark, I duly telephoned the police and relayed
this.
,
The next day, Wednesday 22 December 2010, the same officer who had taken my
first statement came back to my fiat and took a second statement about this. The
officer asked me if one of tile voices could have been a woman’s voice. I responded
that it could have been but that I could not say either way. The police have since
confirmed to me that the fact flint I gave a supplementary statement raised their
suspicions in relation to me. On the basis of what ensued, I believe it is likely that the
police passed these suspicions on to rite media.
So he knew that the Supplementary Statement... had changed the Polices view of him......
The prosecution’s Internet evidence
On 17 December 2010 at 7.45:54 am
CJ performed a Google search on the words
‘Weather’
‘Bristol’
‘BathOn 18 Dec 2010,CJ searched at
1.26 am- ‘BBC news’ and ‘weather forecast’
1.46 am- ‘weather forecast’
1.47 am- ‘BBC Bristol news’
At Line 129 of the prosecution chart
CJ accessed
‘murder of 4 year old girl in London’
At Line 171 of the prosecution chart
CJ accessed ‘Map of Bristol’.
Again, the Prosecution repeated their show the film of the road where Joanna Yeates was
found although this could not be accessed on Map of Bristol.
At Line 216 of the prosecution chart
CJ searched
‘Weather’
At Line 217 of prosecution chart
CJ searched for
‘Murder inquiry- 4 arrested in Bristol’
He also searched
‘South African murder’
‘Dewani’
On his computer CJ searched for news on
‘Melanie Hall’
‘Avon and Somerset police home page’
‘News’
‘Murder of Melanie Hall’
At Line 224 of prosecution chart
CJ searched the words
‘Missing persons’.
Melanie Hall.... Fits better with CJ... As we know CJ had NOTHING to do with Melanie Hall... But at the time of this crime the police were looking for conections to unsolved cases... Including Glenis Caruthers.....
This is from the Leveson Enquiry :............
The Police may now re-open the
nearby unsolved 1974 killing of Glenis Carruthers".
Dated: The Daily Mirror, 31 December 2010:
Notice the Date!!!! It was when CJ was in Police Custody!!!!
At Line 226 of prosecution chart
CJ searched for the words
‘Avon Police’
‘Bristol area weather forecast’.
At Line 225 (sic)
CJ searched using the words
‘Joanna Yeates’
‘Salt supplies in the Bristol
At Line 257 of the prosecution Chart
CJ searched on Google Maps for
‘Longwood Lane’
At Line 258
CJ performed Google searches on the words
‘manslaughter’
‘previous offenders’
‘Maximum sentence Manslaughter’
CJ then performed a Yahoo search for the words
‘penalty for manslaughter’
What Really is the difference so far??????? I've had to change The "Netherlands for Bristol and remove references for work... But..
All in All...... This looks the same!!!!
At Line 267 of the prosecution chart
at 15.00 pm on 21 December 2010, CJ searched the words
‘Jo Yeates’
At Line 271 of the prosecution chart
At Lines 276-277 of the prosecution chart,
at 11.00 pm on 21December 2010, CJ searched
‘Press coverage’
At Line 281of the prosecution chart
CJ Googled
‘police’
‘weather forecast’
At Line 286 of the prosecution chart
CJ at lunchtime-22 December 2010
Searched Google for the words
‘What happens forensic?’
Wiki
‘Forensic science and trace evidence’
This Internet Searching could be Applied to Just about ANYONE!!!!!!
At Line 287 of the prosecution chart
at 1.00 pm, CJ searched the words
‘Yeates’
‘Police’
At Line 288 of the prosecution chart
CJ Googled the words
‘CCTV Canynge Road’
At Line 291 of the prosecution chart:
In the afternoon of 22 Dec 2010, CJ searched Wikipedia for the words
‘Crown Prosecution Service’
‘Jo Yeates’
Then he Googled the word
‘manslaughter’
Then back to Wikipedia, CJ searched the words
‘murder
It's looking Good.....
At Line 292 of the prosecution chart
CJ Googled the words
‘manslaughter sentencing’
Then he went to Wikipedia website to search the words
‘manslaughter in English law murder in English law’
CJ \on 22 Dec 2010
and at home he Googled
At Line 305 of the prosecution chart
PC Karen Thomas went to 44 Canynge Road to search
At Line 311 of the prosecution search
CJ Googled the words
‘body discomposition time’ (sic)
Now...... That Last QUOTE... would tie in with this................
The next day, Wednesday 22 December 2010, the same officer who had taken my
first statement came back to my fiat and took a second statement about this.
That would fit in with Line:305
Also I believe that this would be around the time Dr Vincent Tabak went to Cambridge for Christmas to see Tanja's
family... Think It was the 23rd December 2010.... But i'm not positive....!!!!
At Lines 311 (a to g) of the prosecution chart (on 23 December 2010)
CJ searched Wikipedia for the terms
‘decomposition’
‘ how fast does body decompose’
‘ film of body decomposing’
‘what takes place from hour to hour after death’
‘what happens to human body after death’
At Line 318 of the prosecution chart
CJ searched the words
‘penalty for manslaughter’
At Line 321 of the prosecution chart
CJ Googled the words
‘Jo Yeates’
What is the difference so far?????? Can't see any!!
At Line 340 of the prosecution chart
CJ Googled on 26 Dec 2010
‘Yeates’
At 3.00 pm he search the Telegraph Newspaper online
At 3:43 pm he searched online global newspapers
At 3.45 pm he searched the words
‘Suspension bridge police footage’
At Line 347 of the prosecution chart
CJ searched Google maps for
‘maps to Longwood lane’
‘Mirror newspaper website’
‘BBC news’
‘alcohol –police limits’
NOW.... We are aware that somebody was Interviewed regards going over Clifton Suspension Bridge.. And it was NOT Dr Vincent Tabak.........
At Line 368 of the prosecution chart
CJ searched for the Press release about
‘domestic rubbish’
‘Yeates’
‘architect’s killer’
‘maps for Clifton Road’
‘Clifton Road rubbish’
‘393 tons of rubbish trawled through’
‘household collections- Bristol City Council’
‘recycling’
At Line 369 of the prosecution search
CJ searched for the words
‘amounts of rubbish seized’
At Line 372 of the prosecution chart
CJ Googled the words
‘BCC household rubbish collections’
At Line 376 of the prosecution chart
CJ research was categorised by the police analyst into ‘
‘Google’
‘forensic’
‘location
Well..... the searches are pretty none descript really... So all you have to do is change the name of the person who it applies to!!!!
At Line 368 of the prosecution chart
CJsearched for the Press release about
‘domestic rubbish’
‘Yeates’
‘architect’s killer’
‘maps for Clifton Road’
‘Clifton Road rubbish’
‘393 tons of rubbish trawled through’
‘household collections- Bristol City Council’
‘recycling’
At Line 369 of the prosecution search
CJ searched for the words
‘amounts of rubbish seized’
At Line 372 of the prosecution chart
CJ Googled the words
‘BCC household rubbish collections’
At Line 376 of the prosecution chart
CJ's research was categorised by the police analyst into ‘
‘Google’
‘forensic’
‘location
Again Could be anyone....!!!!
CJ Googled the words
‘Rubbish collection York Place Clifton Bristol’
‘Jo Yeates rubbish’
At 4.10 (pm) CJ searched on Wikipedia for the words
‘Detention of a suspect’
‘letter and label sent to a public house’
CJ Goggled the words:
‘Yeates’
‘Avon & Somerset police’
And at 5.00 pm, CJ researched on
Google map
‘Clifton Richmond Terrace’
At Line 422 of the prosecution chart
At 9.10 am
CJ searched for press articles on the murder.
Then he Googled the words
‘DNA test’
‘Waste recycling’
‘rubbish collection’
What is it saying..... Nothing!!!!
At Line 427 of the prosecution chart
CJ researched on Wikipedia the words
‘life imprisonment’
‘previous offenders’
‘named persons’
‘sentencing’
In January 2011, at Line 10 of the prosecution chart
CJ Googled news about Joanna Yeates and a label and letter sent to a public house.
He Googled the words
‘Jo Yeates’
‘Jo Yeates murder’
At Line 443 of the prosecution chart
CJ researched the words
‘Yeates’ under news!
At Line 444-447 of the prosecution chart
CJ continued his research. He Googled the word
‘Yeates’
At Line 449 of the prosecution chart
CJ Googled the words
‘police found significant evidence’
At Line 451 of the prosecution chart
CJ did further research on 11 Jan 2011
CJ continued his research
At Line 457 of the prosecution chart
CJ did a Google search of the word
‘aggravating’
What I find odd... Is where we don't have specific dates when its round the time CJ would be in custody!!!
And the fact that i already pointed out that Dr Vincent Tabak hadn't searched for anything regarding CJ's arrest...!!!!
Or Landlord... Or The Blue Door...... Tabak being away when CJ was arrested.....
NINE did a Wikipedia search of the word
‘murder’
Again.... Anyone..!!
At Line 458 of the prosecution chart
CJGoogled the words
‘average manslaughter’
At Line 459 of the prosecution chart,
CJ had Googled the words:
‘penalty manslaughter’
At Line 464 of the prosecution chart
CJ searched for the words
‘CPS’
‘Sentencing’
At Line 465 of the prosecution chart
CJ went to the Wiki page to search the words
‘Definition of murder’
At Lines 488-491 of the prosecution chart
CJ searched for an article on ‘Yeates’.
On 13 January 2011 at 5:04 pm
CJ Googled
‘news articles on Yeates’’.
At Line 523 of the prosecution chart
CJ accessed a Magazine articleAt
Line 566 of the prosecution chart
At 6.00 pm on 19 Jan 2011, CJ searched the webpage of Avon & Somerset police.
Basically these searches could be applied to Anyone who had the slightest connection to Jo Yeates....
So searches DO NOT.... show intent.....
They should not be allowed in court....
Now ..... I'm going to add a couple of quotes that have WORK references or DUTCH References :
On his computer at work, Tabak searched for news on
‘Melanie Hall’
‘Avon and Somerset police home page’
‘News’
‘Murder of Melanie Hall’
Theres one........
At Line 258 (afternoon- at work)
Tabak performed Google searches on the words
‘manslaughter’
‘previous offenders’
‘Maximum sentence Manslaughter’
Tabak then performed a Yahoo search for the words
‘penalty for manslaughter’
Why is AFTERNOON-AT WORK... in Brackets?????
At Line 281of the prosecution chart
in the morning -at work, Tabak Googled
‘police’
‘weather forecast’
Little hyphen there .....
At Line 286 of the prosecution chart
Tabak at lunchtime- at work-on 22 December 2010
Searched Google for the words
‘What happens forensic?’
Wiki
‘Forensic science and trace evidence
Again.... A little Hyphen???/
At Line 292 of the prosecution chart
Tabak Googled the words
‘manslaughter sentencing’
Then he went to Wikipedia website to search the words
‘manslaughter in English law murder in English law’
Tabak left work at 5.06pm \on 22 Dec 2010
Again A Backslash there.................
At Line 422 of the prosecution chart
At 9.10 am (at work)
Tabak searched for press articles on the murder.
Then he Googled the words
‘DNA test’
‘Waste recycling’
‘rubbish collection’
Brackets again for AT WORK....??????
At Line 267 of the prosecution chart
at 15.00 pm on 21 December 2010, Tabak searched the words
‘Extradition of Dutchman’
‘Jo Yeates’
At Line 271 of the prosecution chart
Tabak searched the Dutch word
‘doodslag’ (English meaning: ‘manslaughter’)
Now i find this Interesting... This is one of the few times he apparently searches in DUTCH.... And as we know now...
DOODSLAG means EUTHANASIA in DUTCH!!!!!
Again Brackets.....
On 23 Dec 2010 at 4.00 pm
Tabak searched the Dutch Wikipedia for the words
‘extradition’
‘Yeates’
‘missing persons’
‘% of grey cars in UK’
‘Renault Megan cars in UK’
Now I like this one...... because like i have said many times before... this search would not be in a DUTCH wiki!!!!!
They don't give a flying fig about how many MEGAN cars are in the UK and what %........
But if we do this:....................
On 23 Dec 2010 at 4.00 pm
CJ searched the Wikipedia for the words
‘Yeates’
‘missing persons’
‘% of grey cars in UK’
Vauxhall cars in UK’
Sorry I don't know what car CJ had, so I'm hazzarding a guess!!!
But The search makes more sense when applied to CJ........!!!! I've attached a picture of CJ's car being towed away....
Now..... This could be a reason why they are all the searches are in English... and not DUTCH!!! Because as my Brother in law says:
We Dutchies Google in Dutch!!!!
Again.... the Computer search NONE EVIDENCE is NONESENSE!!!!
The jury were told that some webpages couldn’t now be recovered as they had been
changed but that some webpages had not changed, and so the prosecution showed films of
some pages that had not been changed.
Showed Films??????? wheres the hard EVIDENCE..... I can show anyone a film!!!!!!!!!
APOLOGIES CJ..... I'm Just using you as an example ?{)(**
And... Sally Ramage papers for my info.....
-
Now After All the negative Press That Dr Vincent Tabak recieved after the Trial....
which I'm sure you will agree.... I have proven it's all Rubbish..... I'd like to take the opportunity to put forward the descriptions of Dr Vincent Tabak that where made before this complete c**k up!!!
I WILL START WITH THE POLICEMAN'S COMMENT:
Quote
A very PLACID individual to deal with
His PhD thesis mentions drinking as one of his interests and refers to an
initial “struggle” after arriving in England.
Thats how they used the drinking against him!!!!!!!!!!!
Jeroen Harink said: “I’m totally shocked. I had to think to remember who
Vincent is because he was such a quiet and serious person.
One colleague at consultant engineers Buro Happold in Bath said: “He is
everything you expect from a Dutch bloke.
Joanna Yeates murder suspect Vincent Tabak. Blonde women is believed to be girlfriend Tanja Morson
“He’s quiet, very laid-back and from what I know has a good sense of
humour. He never seems to be flustered and is very polite.
He was a computer whizkid and would help analyse 3D images of buildings.
“He was generally known by everyone for being very smart and very
hard-working. I think he was a nice guy — but I would never see him out in
the bars or clubs.”
“Vincent is an incredibly intelligent man. He was popular. and never struck me
as the sort of person who had enemies.”
“He was well thought of and was always being sent to other offices to help
out. He was very clever and very good at his job.
Former fellow students in Eindhoven, where Tabak studied architecture, were
amazed someone so ordinary could be under suspicion.
Daan Willems added: “He was just an ordinary guy, just a boy, just normal.
I can’t imagine anything like this could be possible.”
“We weren’t close friends, but I worked with him occasionally. He was generally regarded by everyone as being very smart and very hard working.
His wife Elizabeth added: “We have seen what happened to the landlord (earlier suspect Chris Jefferies) – and we don’t want the same to happen to our lovely Vincent.”
One of his former neighbours said yesterday: “He is serious-minded and highly intelligent – an interesting chap to have around.
“The only reason he left was because he wanted to set up home with his girlfriend.
“We never saw her – Vincent always lived a fairly solitary sort of life, but he was always very polite. He had a bike and went out a lot but we don’t know where he went – we never saw him drunk or anything like that. I think he was writing a thesis.”
A spokesman at Tabak’s workplace refused to comment yesterday, saying: “We have no information to give. Please contact the police.”But a colleague revealed Tabak worked on what the company called its “smart team”.
The workmate added: “He was obviously very bright and highly regarded. He’s quite tall and would always come to work wearing the same leather jacket.
“We’re all stunned by his arrest. He seems like a decent bloke.”
His brother, Marcel, said relatives in his native Holland were devastated to learn of the arrest. Speaking from his home in the village of Doornenburg, 60 miles east of Amsterdam, he said: ‘He’s a lovely man and I absolutely think they have got the wrong person.’
Speaking at her home in Doornenburg, near Arnhem, Pauline Tabak, the suspect's sister-in-law, said: "He is a kind, friendly, intelligent guy. He is well-educated and has a good family and a good job. He is not capable of murdering anybody – absolutely not. He is a sweet, gentle person.
The sister of Vincent Tabak, the man accused of murdering Joanna Yeates, insisted last night that her “little brother” could not be not a killer.
Dr Cora Tabak, an adviser on public health, said his family had been dumbfounded by the news that he had charged with the murder.
His brother, Marcel, suggested he had been made a “scapegoat”.
Speaking at her home in Utrecht in the Netherlands Dr Cora Tabak said: “I have been sitting open-mouthed since Vincent was charged.
“We can't believe it. Anyone who knows him knows he could never be a killer.
“He is very gentle and social. There is no aggressiveness in him in any way.
He is a straight-forward and open person. What you see is what you ge
His girlfriend Tanja is as upset and shocked as well, they are still very much together and she is very concerned about him,” she said.
Meanwhile Mr Tabak’s brother insisted: “It is nonsense, he has been made a scapegoat.
“I can't imagine they have got anything on him - the police have panicked and arrested him and then charged him … There is no way Vincent could have done this.
“It is completely impossible. My mother is very upset by this, we all are.”
AND MARCEL........ I TRUELY BELIEVE YOUR STATEMENT......................... IT"S IMPOSSIBLE
And I'd like to add the last quote from the Dr Vincent Tabak himself..............
Last but not least, I want to thank my girlfriend Tanja Morson for her
support in the last difficult month of my PhD. I am very happy that she
entered my life.”
He also thanks his late father and Tanja for help and support with his
research work.
Tabak writes: “I miss you and regret that you are not able to see the end
result of my PhD.
All of the above quotes are from the links below.. appart from the Policemans quote... which you can find on aa program "JUDGE RINDER CRIMES: Joanna Yeates.....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8276162/Jo-Yeates-did-not-know-Vincent-Tabak-says-her-father.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349356/Joanna-Yeates-murder-suspect-Vincent-Tabak-split-girlfriend.html#ixzz4TbP3mxpH
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/321964/vincents-cool-calm-incredibly-intelligent/
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-vincent-tabak-105736
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8277067/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Vincent-Tabaks-sister-insists-he-could-not-be-the-killer.html
-
http://www.bowlandcentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=98506&page=2&p=1590032#post1590032
Kingdom noticed why ITV were BANNED!!!!!
-
Something I was just thinking about............
With all of Dr Vincent Tabak's supposed searches.... I was just wondering..........
Who as actually seen these 1300 page document......
There really should be quite alot of Dutch translated.... (texts Emails... etc)
We know he text Tanja Regularly, But No one has mentioned ,Whether he text His Brother Marcel..
Or his sister Cora.... what about his other sister and his mother....
Infact......... where are all the call logs and texts to his family in this Document??
He was planning to stay with them for the New Year,....
Yet there isn't one mention of any contact with his family...
The only time we here about Dr Vincent Tabak's family is after he's arrested????
This is another reason, I find the supposed searches that Dr Vincent Tabak had brought against him in Court...
ONE.... Dutch word in how many days???????
At Line 271 of the prosecution chart
Tabak searched the Dutch word
‘doodslag’ (English meaning: ‘manslaughter’)
I find it impossible for a Dutchman to use just ONE Dutch word in.........
Do you realise that is One Dutch word from the early morning of the 17th December 2010 to the 19th January 2011.......
That is impossible!!! he would be craving to either speak in his Native tongue or Converse on the Internet or phone in his Native Tongue!!!!!!
Do people really believe that these searches were even his????? where is all the translations???
They chuck in a couple of Dutch References and ONE Dutch word and expect everyone to believe, that it's his computer searches!!!!!!!!!! (IMO)
I have a real question here:..............
Does anyone know if Lyndsey Farmery is Bilingual???????
It's a really fair point !!!!!!!
We know Dr Vincent Tabak is Tri-lingual , He speaks, Dutch, English AND German....
I'll make my apologies now..... But... I honestly do not believe that Lyndsey Farmery speaks DUTCH!!!!!!
So.... how can you have an IT Expert who does not speak Dutch, Translate, the Google Searches of a DUTCHMAN!!!!
I'm am more than positive that he would Google in Dutch....
And unless Lyndsey Farmery can explain, when she learnt Dutch and how she managed to Translate, the Crap about Porn... or all of the searches that make up the 566 timelines !!!!
Lyndsey Love????? Do you speak DUTCH... if yes, accept my apologies........... BUT I DOUBT IT!!!!(IMO)
OMG.......... I think when I was trying CJ as the person for the Searches, thats why they fit...
And believe me I am not saying CJ did those searches either......
Who has been porkie pie-ing It.. !!! (IMO)
So NOW,... what should we make of these SEARCHES????????
You see..... I know for a fact the Dutch like to converse in Dutch... when my brother in-law Visits, he and his son chat away in Dutch all the time... And when they are involved in the conversation they both speak English..
My nephew is 5 years old..... And even though he learnt English from his mother first... his preferred language is Dutch!!!
He seems to find speaking English tiring!!!! He even prefers me to find him something Dutch on the internet for him to watch...... and he chats away in Dutch at the screen... laughing and giggling..
Which brings to mind another possibility... How tiring is it speaking another language??? i mean in general??
Much was made out about when Dr Vincent Tabak went and meet friends with Tanja on the 18th December 2010.. I think it was.....
Some said he was bored and looking around ,.. I think a few may have thought that he was disinterested..
Has anybody thought for one minute he may have been extremely tired??
He had only got back from the U.S.A on the 11th December 2010.. (JET LAG).....
Then back to work on the 14th December 2010... In a meeting no doubt about the project he was working on...
So by the weekend he was probably knackered... Not in the mood for socialising.....
I think all he really wanted to do was spend his time with his girlfriend Tanja...
(1): So what's left????
(2): The Porn doesn't Exist!!!!!
(3): The DNA doesn't fit!!!! and he would have been ruled out at the latest 3rd January 2011.. (i'm being generous
there.........(48 hours to turn round )......
(4):The Searches I can't even see them being his... (IMO) NOT ENOUGH DUTCH!!!!!
(5): So why is this man in PRISON????????????????
(6): Because I do NOT Believe he killed Joanna Yeates!!!! (IMO)
(7):The Confession to the Pretend Vicar.. was not a Confession....
And we still don't know why there where 8 fire trucks there on Christmas Day.....
Think my brother in law's ear is going to get some bending when he comes.... Can't see a DUTCHMAN Not speaking or at least Writing in Dutch for all that time.....
AGAIN....... It's not possible...
Did the defence not ask Dr Vincent Tabak about conversing in DUTCH???
And I do not mean on the WITNESS STAND!!!!!
So again I was thinking... If he was on Buro Happold computers searching... PORN.. SEARCHES ETC... Then he would have done it in Dutch as not to be found out by his work mates and anyone else that was close to him...
But i still don't believe BURO HAPPOLD HANDED OVER THEIR HARDRIVES without a FIGHT!!!!!!
I DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF THIS!!!!
Wouldn't they have TWO COPIES of anything Dr Vincent Tabak.. searched text etc..!!!!
The Original DUTCH AND THE TRANSLATED TEXT... So what happened to the ORIGINAL DUTCH TEXT????
You would need both..So the Translations could be verified AND... Google is never a good idea to use as a TRANSLATOR!!!!!!
LYNDSEY.... How's your DUTCH??????????
I think I will try and do a Tally of how many times they speak Dutch, in the week that I see them!!!!
Oh Yes..... And the HEALEYS CIDER AND TATTINGER REIMS CHAMPAGNE CORK ON THE TABLE IN JO'S FLAT... that wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak's either!!!!!!!!!
Hang on a MO......
15.5. Witness evidence on Wednesday 19 October 2011
The police analyst gave evidence on Wednesday 19 October and claimed that the
following (partly set out below in blue) is the result of her analysis of the metadata from
Buro Happold’s computers and Tabak’s laptops at Flat 2. Prosecuting counsel related to
the witness and she confirmed that her analysis shows that Tabak researched ‘police’,
‘missing persons’, ‘recycling’, etc.
The jury were told that some webpages couldn’t now be recovered as they had been
changed but that some webpages had not changed, and so the prosecution showed films of
some pages that had not been changed.
The jury looked at pages that have not been changed, allegedly (as the defence did not
dispute (by defence forensic analysis or otherwise) any of the police computer evidence
whatsoever. Defence lawyers did not even attempt to show that metadata cannot be
preserved and thus such electronic evidence may be partly unreliable. The prosecution
evidence was bounded into a huge volume of A3 width and one wonders whether it was
lack of Legal Aid funding that prohibited the defence team from challenging this evidence.
Sally Ramage:......
The jury were told that some webpages couldn’t now be recovered as they had been
changed but that some webpages had not changed, and so the prosecution showed films of
some pages that had not been changed.
So............. The Jury had to NOW TRANSLATE DUTCH?????? If these were the ORIGINAL FILES they were looking at of Dr Vincent Tabak.. How DID THE JURY UNDERSTAND DUTCH!!!!!!!
*&*%£
You Couldn't make this stuff up ...could you....... (IMO)
Who was in COURT as An INDEPENDANT Translator... when Dr Vincent Tabak was on trial?????
We KNOW he didn't have a Translator!!!!!!!!
So which clever dick Translated all the DUTCH.... ???????
EDIT:.... I've attached another picture from twitter..... Can anyone Translate it???????????
-
'm going to keep with Lyndsey Farmery for a moment......
Her job Title is Interesting for starters: Internet Use Analyst ?????
What in gods name is that?????
Where back to Beyoncey Again!!!!!
Now does she have a degree in IT ?????????
Probabaly Not...........
Here's a job with the Police for :
Crime Analyst
Department
Force Intelligence (Berkshire Hub)
Location
Slough
Salary
Circa £24,888 per annum. Progression based on performance
Part/Full Time
Full Time
Type of Contract
Permanent
Document Attachment File upload field, to activate press space bar
Crime Analyst - Job Description 10122013.pdf
Document Attachment File upload field, to activate press space bar
2 Online GUIDANCE NOTES - 11 Sept 14.doc
Converted file
Document Attachment File upload field, to activate press space bar
Temporary and Police Staff Self Assessment Questionnaire 140828.doc
Converted file
Job Advert
In this interesting role you will provide analytical support to assist Area and Tactical Tasking & Co-ordination Group (TTCG) in respect of crime patterns, crime trends, hot spots and offender details to identify established or emerging crime series. You will also provide analytical support to assist prevention initiatives, targeting, disruption and detection of crime.
You will have proven experience of using statistical methods, an understanding of charts and tables and the ability to interpret and develop inferences from data along with problem solving and analysing large quantities of data. You will be IT literate and proficient in MS office applications including Excel and Word with a good understanding of social network sites and internet capability. You will be self-motivated and able to use own initiative whilst working with minimum supervision and remaining team focused.
You must have the capability to travel to different locations across the Force and undertake all assignments in a timely manner. Due to the requirement to work flexibly, unsocial hours and personal safety for lone working, public transport may not be available or suitable at these times. For this reason a full driving licence is considered essential.
Along with all other posts in the Force CID, Intelligence and Specialist Operations departments, this role will require an enhanced level of vetting.
If you have any queries please contact People Services Recruitment Department on 0845 2 66 66 77 (internal 701 5853) quoting reference 12852.
The closing date for enquiries and receipt of completed applications is Monday 2nd January 2016.
https://www.indeed.co.uk/Internet-Analyst-jobs
OR........ Is she one of these:
HomeTechnology Recruitment Specialists
+44 20 8315 9000
hello@networkerstechnology.com
I'm looking for
Job Title
in
Location
Advanced Search
Home
Data Analyst / Developer
Ref No. EMP376728
Salary Up to £52/hour
Location Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Start date ASAP
Job type Contract (6 Months)
Date updated 17/10/2016
Job Status Applicants Required
Apply Now
Save Email
Share:
Introduction
A Data Analyst / Developer is required for an initial 6 month contract basis on our client site in Edinburgh.
Important
Data Analysis, Java, Development
The Job
**Introduction**
Support and Service Solutions (S3) uses proprietary, business critical, advanced computer systems to provide its customers with the optimum possible service.
Significant quantities of data is received from and sent to a number of other systems belonging to suppliers, partners and customers. The majority of this data is transmitted in the form of XML messages which are processed into and out of the main Oracle 12C database. The messages are transmitted either using proprietary systems or using Internet Web Services.
With the expansion of the projects supported on SAMS there is a need for an additional development and support person with particular expertise in the Java language and relational databases.
**Outline Job Specification**
To become a key member of the S3 Management Information Systems support team primarily developing and supporting the SAMS system.
· To develop message handling software in Java and interfaces to relational databases.
· To support existing software and applications written in java on Linux and/or Windows platforms.
· To contribute to the design and development of the overall system architecture.
· To design, develop and implement additional messaging systems in Java and to advise and assist other members of the team.
· To support users as required as a second or third level help-desk.
· To assist with the development and support of the system covering other technologies as required.Skills, qualifications & knowledge
Education:
· Required: First degree or equivalent formal qualification in computer science or similar.
· Desirable: A formal qualification in a modern European language.
· Desirable: A formal qualification in business studies.
Skills, Knowledge and Expertise:
· Required: Extensive knowledge of the Java language and its application to message handling applications.
· Required: Ability to write well documented, high quality, supportable applications in Java.
· Required: Knowledge of XML based messages and Web Service Description language (wsdl).
· Desirable: Knowledge of Oracle SQL and interfacing to relational databases.
Experience:
· Required: Two or more years’ experience as a Java developer working with an asynchronous message system.
· Required: One or more years’ experience of building XML messages within Java and of parsing incoming messages.
· Desirable: Experience in supporting or developing multi-technology systems.
· Desirable: Experience in supporting existing Java systems.
Key responsibility areas
Personal:
· Willingness to undertake occasional travel (air and road) which may involve over-night accommodation away from base.
· Driving licence acceptable throughout Europe.
· Comfortable working within a multi-skilled flexible team environment.
· Comfortable working with tight deadlines and willing to be flexible as regard to tasking and schedule as required.
· Willingness to work to understand user needs and business processes.
· Willingness to assist with software support and development
https://www.networkerstechnology.com/job/EMP376728/data-analyst--developer-edinburgh-united-kingdom?utm_source=Indeed&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Indeed&utm_content=public_sector
I'll go with the first one...... (IMO)
So with her vast knowledge and Computer Accumin I'm sure she did what anyone does and went straight in Googles Internet history....
My Real problem and I'm not letting it go ... Is I do not believe these searches were even Dr Vincent Tabak's (IMO)
It's the Dutch wiki thing...... It's NOT RIGHT......
At Line 271 of the prosecution chart
Tabak searched the Dutch word
‘doodslag’ (English meaning: ‘manslaughter’)
A
It's because of this Line...... Line 271....
I think I know what was Done!!!!!!
Now if you want people to believe that he searched the word DOODSLAG.... And as she Implies it means Manslaughter, how would you Do THAT??????
Quite easily..... you would go to the ENGLISH GOOGLE And put the search in: Dutch word for Manslaughter!!!!!!
And the result below is what you get is this....
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=dutch%20word%20for%20manslaughter
But if you are Dutch you would simply put the word DOODSLAG into GOOGLE!!! And wouldn't need to go to the DUTCH WIKI.....
Because AGAIN...... The FIRST SEARCH IS GOOGLE.......... THEN WIKI.................
But whoever wrote the word DOODSLAG.... Wanted to know it was English for Manslaughter!!!!!!!
The Dutch Wiki = https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doodslag In DUTCH..
And now the TRANSLATION = https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doodslag... Translated into English...
But we have come to Understand that DOODSLAG actually means Euthanasia in Dutch!!!!!
So she OBVIOUSLY is NOT BILINGUAL....... OOspie Lyndsey... You Not Bilingual Love?????
In My Opinion...... These searches are made up..... I believe that they are a COMPLETE UNTRUE...!!!!!!!!
BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS GONE TO GOOGLE AND THE FIRST OPTION IS Wiki!!!! That is why I trueley believe that these search pages HAVE been interferred with!!!!!! (IMO)
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=doodslag
She never TRANSLATED ANYTHING ON Dr Vincent Tabak's Computer in my Opinion.... And by looking what i have shown you...
I'm sure you'll come to the same conclusion ,that it wasn't the Dutch Wiki That Was Searched!!!! It was The ENGLISH GOOGLE looking for the DUTCH WWORD DOODSLAG!!!!!!!!!!!(IMO)
HE"S DUTCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! he would know the word DOODSLAG....
OMG.... Some people are Dorks!!! Do they really believe people ARE THAT GULLIBLE??????
BUT.........A Jury that is not concentrating....... They wouldn't pick up on it!!!!! And where back to!!
GOOGLE.......... FORENSIC............ LOCATION.........
WOW Again......... This is just Unbelievable.......
In My Opinion Miss IT USE ANALYIST.....!!!!!
I Believe,,... That these Are not The Web searches of Dr Vincent Tabak.... (IMO)
You Did Not Have Buro Happold's Computers to search...... As They would not let them out of there hands to someone who hasn't got at least a PHD In An IT FIELD......(IMO) Have you Miss It Person... A Little Degree in IT anywhere about your person?????
And if Dr Vincent Tabak had done any searching he was keeping PRIVATE he would have SEARCHED IN DUTCH!!!!!
And I'm sure your a little Rusty with Your DUTCH........
I Believe.... That because you did not UNDERSTAND That the word Doodslag in Dutch means EUTHANSIA, that YOUR Understanding of the DUTCH LANGUAGE is NONE EXISTENT........
I Believe That Dr Vincent Tabak would not look at a Dutch Wiki to find what Manslaughter meant!!!! (IMO)
I Believe thats why this line exists:Line 258 (IMO)
At Line 258 (afternoon- at work)
Tabak performed Google searches on the words
‘manslaughter’
‘previous offenders’
‘Maximum sentence Manslaughter’
Tabak then performed a Yahoo search for the words
‘penalty for manslaughter’
[/quote]
After Preforming this search.....
Why would he then need to look at a Dutch wiki for the word Manslaughter on line 271
I believe it's because someone thought it a GOOD Idea to chuck a bit of DUTCH in There!!!!!! (IMO)
Well......It would have been more believable if there was tons od DUTCH In THOSE Searches!!!!!!! (IMO)
When line 258 He apparently already new what manslaughter was!!!!!!!!!!
Because by putting that in line: At Line 271 which was on the 21st Dec 2010
And later when on the 22nd Dec 2010
According to these naff searches he put this :
At Line 291 of the prosecution chart:
In the afternoon of 22 Dec 2010, Tabak searched Wikipedia for the words
‘Crown Prosecution Service’
‘Jo Yeates’
Then he Googled the word
‘manslaughter’
Then back to Wikipedia, Tabak searched the words
‘murder in English law’
At Line 292 of the prosecution chart
Tabak Googled the words
‘manslaughter sentencing’
Then he went to Wikipedia website to search the words
‘manslaughter in English law murder in English law’
Tabak left work at 5.06pm \on 22 Dec 2010
So why didn't he just check that on the 21st December 2010... when it says he googled "DOODSLAG" ?????????
You see... the only reason you would have to write the words "MURDER IN ENGLISH LAW"... OR "MANSLAUGHTER IN ENGLISH LAW"...
Was If He was in a DIFFERENT COUNTRY,..... IE .... HOLLAND!!!!!! Because it would not come up with the ANSWER ..
But if you were in ENGLAND at the Time you would only need to put : Law on Murder into Google!!
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=the%20law%20on%20murder
The SAME would apply to: The Law Manslaughter:
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=the+law+on+manslaughter
And if we want to simplify it.. you would just write the Word "Manslaughter"
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=manslaughter
Dr Vincent Tabak was still in England at the Time!!!!
And scroll down the definition's there ............
The same with "Murder..............
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=murder+
Anyone in Any Foreign Country Knows your In Deep Doo Doo..........
If He Had Murdered someone.......
He doesn't need to put the "ENGLISH LAW part in... ....
To do with his search....
Its the Word.. "ENGLISH" that is the Problem with the search.... It's not needed if he's searching on his laptop in England!!!!
The screenshots I have attached:
(1): Dutch word for Manslaughter
(2): Doodslag... which on the right hand side of the google search shows the English meaning for Manslaughter
Manslaughter is a legal term for homicide considered by law as less culpable than murder. The distinction between murder and manslaughter is sometimes said to have first been made by the Ancient Athenian lawmaker Draco in the 7th century B.C.E. Wikipedia
(3): Dutch wiki Doodslag.... which says; Manslaughter (Euthanasia) the intentional,but not premeditated,ending the life of another.
(4): Doodslag in the Dutch language... This is WHAT I want to Understand... Did the IT EXPERT Read the Dutch language and Translate it because she speaks DUTCH.. Or did she just put it into a Google or other Translator???
Because as I keep saying I do not Believe she speaks DUTCH!!!(IMO)
(5):The English Detector.. ..
As you can see.............. Manslaughter in England the definition is Legal term for Homicide...
But in Dutch.............. It's NOT A Legal term!!!!
Again... All of this evidence is complete Nonsense (IMO)
-
Remember Lyndsey Lennen and her Admissions....
"The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky." Under the media glare, the work was flat-out: clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours.
Eventually, we found something," Lennen says. "On swabs and tapes from her breasts, and tapes from three areas of her jeans. There were DNA components that matched one of the suspects, Vincent Tabak." But there wasn't enough, of enough quality, to evaluate – perhaps because of the high salt levels where the body was found, following heavy snowfall.
Ms Lennen said the statistical interpretation of the results from Miss Yeates's jeans showed that it was 1,100 times more likely that the DNA was from Vincent Tabak and another person, rather than two unknown people unrelated to the defendant.
Ok lets look at those statements..........
The DNA was 1,000 times likely to be Dr Vincent Tabaks.....
But that means it also could be anyone elses....
There was DNA on her Breast Area and three area's of her Jeans..........
One thing that was not Clarified about these seperate Area's of DNA........ WAS.......
Were all of the DNA samples contributed to ONE person????
We are lead to believe that all of the DNA samples come from one person ... But is that ever established..????
I'll explain why.........
All of these sample could quite easily be more that one person.... And how random DNA could have been transferred onto Joanna Yeates.....
The court heard that traces of Tabak’s DNA was also found on the back of Miss Yeates’s jeans, behind the knees.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8820130/Vincent-Tabak-told-prison-chaplain-I-killed-Joanna-Yeates.html
DNA behind the knee area of her Jeans.....
It's transfer DNA.... It's suggested that it is transferred from Dr Vincent Tabak....
But I'd like to put forward another way in which a Transfer of DNA of anyone could have got behind the knee of Joanna Yeates Jeans...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxJwSkKu4IY
When we look at the CCTV of Joanna yeates in The Brisol Ram.. After she comes out of the ladies, she walks over to her friends whom are sat at a table.........There are a few people who appear to be sat on chairs But the table is a booth with TWO fixed bench type seats....
One of her friends stands up and she slides along to bench type seat to take her place back at the table....
She shuffles along.... this seat.... Her Jeans knees are touching the edge of the seat....
It is just as plausible that the DNA on the back of the knee of her Jeans, could have quite easily come from contact with the seat inside the Ram pub...
It is just as viable an answer as it apparently coming from Dr Vincent tabak... whom when in court his statement doesn't make sense!!!!
Defence Counsel: Your hand being on what part of her body?
Tabak: One arm was underneath her knees.
It's almost like he'e telling a story because he's admitted manslaughter... But he doesm't actually say where else he held her...
It is obvious he could not pick her up with one arm just under her knees......
When ever I read Dr Vincent Tabak's account in court it's like he covers all the bases... he says the things that just about cover the evidence.....
Like when he mentions putting her on the bed... so that covers the earring in the duvet part.....
Anyway back to the DNA.........
Defence Counsel: What did you do then?
Tabak: I put my hand around her neck. I panicked.
With this statement you would imagine that the DNA wouldtransfer......... his hands must have been sweaty......
He's in the throws of killing someone.. he would be sweating, he would not be able to control that...
Also skin cells show have left his hands and been transferred to Joanna Yeates neck.....
Lets concider the more sensitive area...... and once it is suggested that her chest area had been interferred with that brought the idea of sexual contact into play..............
How else would any transfer DNA end up in this area of Joanna Yeates?????
There are various explanations to that possibility........
Did Joanna Yeates have a new bra on?????
I say this because you can get DNA transfer in the maufacturing process.... people handling the material as they make the item, same would apply if it was a new top she was wearing...
But lets say, she didn't have any new items of clothing on.... How else would the possible transfer of foreign DNA possibly happen???
Well it could be as simple as her scratching her own skin... her hands have touched various object throught the day and in the pub....
Could be a case of her just re-adjusting herself.... Men re-adjust themself's in public all the time....
Woman not as much...
But bra's can become uncomfortable.. And from time to time woman will adjust them...
So that in itself could lead to a DNA Transfer....
As much as some woman won't admit... Just like men rearrange their Jewels... in turn, women do re arrange there breast in their bra's... So transfer on the breast area could be attributed to that possibility.
Remember this DNA sample is tiny....it's only 1000/1 it could be just about anyone!!!
Did the weight of the DNA evidence sway the Jury or was it the plea to Manslaughter that did it....
I feel his confession to manslaughter was false.... He really doesn't know anything in great detail....
But i feel the inferance that the DNA was his... along with the confession... helped support the jury's belief that it must have been Dr Vincent Tabak's..DNA... whether it was 1 billion to one or 1000/1...
The jury were not interested by that point that the DNA really belonged to Dr Vincent tabak.. their minds new he was guilty of something.... It was just a matter of what degree..... manslaughter or murder...
So bu him explaing away how the DNA ended up behind her knee..
Defence Counsel: Your hand being on what part of her body?
Tabak: One arm was underneath her knees.
Or that his DNA was on her breast........
Defence Counsel: Part of her breast was exposed- how did that happen?
Tabak: Perhaps when carrying her body.
or
Defence Counsel: Your DNA was found on the breast of the body- how did that come
about?
Tabak: I think as I was trying to put the body over the wall.
His defence is Telling the jury that his clients DNA is on Joanna Yeates body... when it truely has not been established that this sample of DNA really belonged to Dr Vincent Tabak..........
That statement by his defence bring to mind the words.... Throw and bus and under !!!!
Why did the defence NOT challenge this DNA evidence???? I do not understand why he did not!!!!!
1000/1 is an extremely low number.............. in DNA terms
This transfer could have also come off the little gate where people went through at the bottom of the garden... if she went into the main house of the door handle....
Literally a tiny transfer does not prove that the contributor was the perpetrator....
Realistically........ there should be DNA in Joanna Yeates flat if that is where she was killed or in Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat if that was where he was supposed to have taken her...........
So i will say again...... when and where was Joanna yeates killed... because I don't think it was in her flat.... especially as her mother insisted that she had been abducted!!!!
And again I do not believe that Dr Vincent Tabak killed her..
-
We couldn't say whether the DNA was from saliva, or semen, or even touch. But we could say that the probability of it not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion."
-
We couldn't say whether the DNA was from saliva, or semen, or even touch. But we could say that the probability of it not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion."
Jixy go back and read my posts:......
In court Lyndsey Lennen says that it was 1 in 1000 .... not one in a billion!!!!!
-
It's her article I took that from along with others. Seems selective posting understanding and use of info going on.
While they may not be sure what the source was the guilty party is definite.
-
Under The Bus..... (thrown).......... (IMO)
Lets just think about the Thrown under the bus..... What statements make me believe that he was thrown under the bus.....
His defence lawyer could not have been more helpful......
He left his flat; was walking towards his car and went past her kitchen window.
The kitchen blind was broken and so stayed up all the time, as Greg Reardon had
confirmed.
Now this is what the Prosecution should be confirming and NOT the defence.... why does he feel the need to clarify that the kitchen blind was broken???
He really doesn't need to mention the blind.. he could say he walked passed the kitchen window... But he has to clarify it was broken... And I believe that the blind needed to be broken....
Because....... he would not have been able to see into the kitchen window as he was too tall and those basement flats were not a regular height....
Defence expert Dr Carey will give evidence on Friday 21 December 2010 on this matter.
Prosecution pathologist expert witness, Dr Delaney, said on 18 October that it may well
have been 10 seconds.
10 seconds..... I cannot get my head around it being as little as 10 seconds... And when he's repeating what the prosecution have said... the jury probably believe that 10 seconds is far too short atime!!!
This does mean that one really hasn’t got a real clue as to when Tabak went into
Joanna’s flat except that it was between the time he went to Asda and the time he texted
his girlfriend, say, between 9.00 pm and 11.00 pm.
Now this Statement is clearly UNTRUE........... The defence contradict this statement several times.....
Here:
One thing is certain. Joanna Yeates was killed between 21.00 and 21.30 pm on Friday 17
December 2010.
The he goes on to say that his client didn't leave his flat until:.......... 9:29pm
Defence Counsel: Can you look at item where you sent message to Tanja ‘missing you’
Can you remember if you sent it before you decided to go to Asda.
Recapping- you come off the Internet at 7.37pm (our entry 47) & remain in your flat until
9.29pm (our entry 88).
So.... he does KNOW how long Dr Vincent Tabak was in his own Flat!!!! why would he then play to the prosecution and keep with the idea that Dr Vincent Tabak Killed Joanna Yeates????
Were you to conclude that the couple heard Joanna’s screams and not the scream that Mr
Sweet heard; if the Laymans and Sweet‘s evidence were to be dismissed, it would tie in
with the scientific evidence.
If the scream he at first tells the jury might not have been able to be heard by the people at the opposite side of the road and the times for these screams may not be at the relevant time.... As who established she defineatley died at that time as the charge is between 16th Dec 2010 and the 26th December 2010..
Those arriving at the party at Number 53 said they heard screams.
It is for the jury to decide whether a scream from inside Flat 1 could be heard from
outside 53 Canynge Road.
So how does this tie in with the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE????? The Scientific evidence does not establish her EXACT time of Death...
He's just saying to the jury .... this is a story .. this is how it fits together.......
Where is the so called Scientific Evidence that.....
(A): Show that Dr Vincent Tabak was actually in Joanna Yeates flat
(B): That Joanna Yeates was in Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat
(C): And the exact time and day of death of Joanna Yeates....
He is helping the Prosecution (IMO)
The reaction of all four people who heard screams was initially put down to students out
celebrating as term had finished that day.
You may think that the whole of those screams is totally unconnected.
You just couldn’t hear anybody from that distance.
This does mean that one really hasn’t got a real clue as to when Tabak
So why didn't he question Dr Vincent Tabak's confession??? The screams could be anything....
But No... he goes on to further say:...............
This does mean that one really hasn’t got a real clue as to when Tabak went into
Joanna’s flat except that it was between the time he went to Asda and the time he texted
his girlfriend, say, between 9.00 pm and 11.00 pm.
He's disrespecting his own Client here...... He calls him TABAK!!! He doesn't give him the respect of calling him Dr Vincent Tabak......
It's like he has contempt for his own client!!! (IMO)....
Not only that.... he manages to give a timeline of between 9:00pm and 11:00pm to actually kill Joanna Yeates ..
(or maybe not... i'll come back to that one)....
But if the Jury are taking notes... they will write down the defence say it happened between 9:00pm and 11:00pm
A very important piece of evidence is that what Tabak wrote in his statement is nearly the
same and corroborated the undisputed pathologist expert witnesses.But his conduct
afterwards was frankly disgusting.
I was always under the impression that Dr Vincent Tabak signed a typed statement and did not phsyically write it!!!!
Again... calls Dr Vincent Tabak by his last name.....
Undisputed!!! Yes no one really challenged anyone in this case... apart from the Prosecution challenging Dr Vincent Tabak......
Where's the bit where he should be creating doubt????????
This bit is interesting.................
But his conduct
afterwards was frankly disgusting.
Wow.......... And I'll say WOW again!!!!! He is driving the bus at this point ...(IMO)
He has no reason to tell the Jury his personal beliefs on what the behaviour was or wasn't......
Really by this point he should have to be saying he has expert witness's to prove it was manslaughter and that it was diminished responsibilites... But instead he bolsters the Prosecutions case by agreeing that his own client is....
DISGUSTING!!!!!!!
He caused anguish to her family.
His defence will not be heard to excuse this behaviour.
We are all well aware of the anguish of the poor Yeates Family... it goes without saying....
But he doesn't back that statement up with anything that would excuse his clients behaviour........
He clearly states!!!!!
His defence will not be heard to excuse this behaviour.
So his defence will not defend him????????? Excuses????????
Did Dr Vincent Tabak ever have a psychological evaluation????
Where there ever any Doctors present to make any claims to Dr Vincent Tabak's mental health state before the crime or after and including his Incarceration?????
His defence don't like him obviously!!!!!
He was obviously concerned with the incident, trying to track everything.
Track everything..... Now the defence did NOT recieve the 1300 page document until the 7th October 2011.. And if they had recieved it a lot earlier they would have been able to show that the searches where NONSENSE....
So common sense should have told him that his Client didn't do the crime... But it's almost like he hasn't put the time into really finding out what happened !!!!
Did he NOT see that his client had not tracked everything... No mention of tracking CJ's Arrest!!!!!
It was only a matter of time before the police came to arrest him.
Again he told lie after lie and you will hear no excuse from me about that. It shows a very
calculating person trying to wriggle out of her death but it does not help in thinking of
what happened at the flat….
Where did he tell lie after lie????? where has this been established.....
Again.. we know that it was Dr Vincent Tabak's supplementary statement that lead the Police to fly to Holland.... who said that what him and Tanja had to say was a lie????
Again.... No excuses from me!!!
Are you actually defending your Client here or Giving the prosecution a leg up!!!!!
He Calls his own client "Calculating".......... I bet Dr Vincent Tabak is thinking......
"Well..... Gee's My Defence lawyer... Thank you so very kindly for the great Character Statement!!!"
And then, despite the awful secret that he was carrying, he tried to carry on as before:
going to parties, living with his girlfriend, etc, instead of going to the police.
There will be no excuse from me for that. He will be called to give evidence on Thursday
20 October
Doesn't that statement sound like it's a Prosecution STATEMENT!!!!!!!!!
Again.... No Excuse from me.............
I don't know about a Bus...... at this point "TRAIN"... springs to mind ... and who is driving it!!!!
Honestly... what would any Jury member think if the Defences opening statement does not provide anything in the way of support for their own client!!!!!
Probably.... He's as Guilty as sin... even his defence is agreeing!!! (IMO)
You didn't need the Porn to be seem as Prejudcial to the case.... The Defence did a good job on there own (IMO)
I said I'd come back to this:....
This does mean that one really hasn’t got a real clue as to when Tabak went into
Joanna’s flat except that it was between the time he went to Asda and the time he texted
his girlfriend, say, between 9.00 pm and 11.00 pm.
Does this mean that he knew where his client was at 11:00pm and not in Joanna Yeates flat... Maybe back home?????
Did the Defence know ... Dr Vincent Tabak's exact whereabouts at 11:00pm on the evening of 17th Dec 2010?????????
Quotes taken from Sally Ramage Papers.
-
It's her article I took that from along with others. Seems selective posting understanding and use of info going on.
While they may not be sure what the source was the guilty party is definite.
You can call anyones post selective.....
But I'll ask again............
Why is there a bottle of HEALEYS Cider And A TATTINGER REIMS CHAMPAGNE CORK in the Crime Scene?????????
They were never mentioned!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Jixy... you've never said anything about that lack of Dutch A Dutchman would speak or Write!!!!!!!
Hasn't that pricked your ears !!!!!
-
ITV...........And there Banning at a crucial time .............
ITV were banned from anymore press conferences of the Joanna Yeates case and i believe the timing was pivitol!!!!
ITV News was today banned from a press conference by Avon & Somerset police after broadcasting a critical report on the force's investigation into the murder of Joanna Yeates.
Dated 5th January 2011......
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jan/05/itv-news-joanna-yeates-investigation
The Police had already had ITV questioning basic things that the Police did........
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg370499#msg370499
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg370500#msg370500
I believe my two posts above the links I have made available , show just why The Police didn't want ITV at the Press Conference........
because what was revealed at the 5th January 2011 Press Conference was the "Missing Sock"...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSjd-UPHg2A
Can you imagine what ITV would have asked!!!!!!
They would have questioned when in the original Police conferences when they where asked several times that Joanna Yeates have any missing items of clothing do we suddenly have a "Missing Sock"..............
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg369560#msg369560
Questions posed by the Press in the very early stages of the Investigation.......
Avon And Somerset Police did not want anyone questioning the investigation Period!!!!!!!
So if you don't question the Evidence how do you know that it is Evidence????
If you don't question procedure... How do you know procedure was followed???
There is nothing wrong with people asking questions!!!!
If Evidence and Procedure are in tact there should be no problem with any question posed!!!
Avon & Somerset constabulary has also complained to the media regulator, Ofcom, about what it claimed was the "unfair, naive and irresponsible reporting" of the case on ITV1's News at Ten last night.
The broadcaster's reporters were told they would not be allowed into today's briefing on the murder of the landscape architect in Bristol last month, but were given no further detail about why.
Yes.... WHY... were they Banned???????
Last night's News at Ten ran a report critical of the force's investigation into the 25-year-old's murder, claiming that police were no closer to finding her killer 10 days after her body was found.
Reporter Geraint Vincent questioned whether the Avon & Somerset constabulary's inquiries had followed procedure. A former murder squad detective, interviewed for the programme, claimed that the police were failing to conduct "certain routine inquiries", such as painstakingly sweeping the murder scene for fresh evidence.
Yes we remember the rubbish left on the verges near where Jo was found!!!!
Vincent reported: "There may be good reasons why certain routine inquiries may not have been followed. But while this investigation has arrested and released one suspect, 10 days in it is still apparently short of evidence."
And then like Magic..... A sock appears!!!!!!
David Mannion, the editor-in-chief of ITV News, called the force's decision "irresponsible" and claimed it had developed into "an issue about the freedom of the press".
"There's an issue in the interim period if we have a situation where there's numbers of the press summarily banned from press conferences – and that's what happened this morning before the complaint was made," he said. "We made numerous attempts to contact Avon & Somerset police – between eight and 10 – before the programme went out and didn't get a single response."
That's like a 3 no trumps...... do the police play bridge????
Pre-empt a bridge move....
ITN, which produces ITV News, said it was "hugely disappointed" by the police's decision to "exclude" the broadcaster from its press conference.
"This decision will result in millions of viewers not being able to see new evidence or hear the latest police calls for witnesses," an ITN spokesman said.
ITV quotes speak for themselves ............................
"Avon & Somerset constabulary's decision to ban ITV News follows reports on last night's ITV News at Ten which raised apparent inconsistencies of the police's handling of some elements of the case. The force was contacted numerous times ahead of broadcast but Avon & Somerset constabulary did not use this opportunity to register any issues or raise a complaint with ITN."
I wonder why????
-
We couldn't say whether the DNA was from saliva, or semen, or even touch. But we could say that the probability of it not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion."
Ok... Jixy... Lets start from the Top...... You answer me all these:...........
(1): http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg370926#msg370926
(2): http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg370742#msg370742
(3): http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg370721#msg370721
(4): http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg368089#msg368089
(5): http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg368125#msg368125
(6): http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg368156#msg368156
(7): http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg368675#msg368675
(8): http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg370480#msg370480
(9): http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg370926#msg370926
(10): http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg368908#msg368908
(11): http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg371404#msg371404
(12): http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg371447#msg371447
(13): http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg369101#msg369101
(14): http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg369560#msg369560
And they're just for starters!!!!!! ?{)(**
And Ultimately....... That little 1300 page document..... the one if you remember has every single timeline in of ......
(A): Joanna Yeates
(B): Greg Reardon
(C):Tanja Morson
(D): Dr Vincent Tabak.......
Everything from ... emails... text messages ... phone calls.... shopping etc..... everything that if the defence had well in advance may have stopped Dr Vincent Tabak making a false confession!!!
-
These searches are always Extremely Revealing:........
I have to try work out why they are worded in such a way........ One of the searches that have always annoyed me
Is the one about "Sexual Conduct".......
At this point the jury on Wednesday morning 19 October 2011, were invited to write into
their copy of the prosecution chart where they see the words typed in by Tabak
‘definition’ before the words ‘sexual conduct’. The jury were invited to write the word
‘definition’, so that this entry is more accurate, the prosecution counsel Nigel Lickley said,
because these words were missed out when the prosecution constructed the chart of
evidence.
So wrong on many levels......
Firstly I have pointed out before, The Prosecution actually telling the Jury to add the word "Definition, before the word sexual conduct....
Completely out of order.........
What happened to the defences Objection to this..!!!!!!!
But................ SEXUAL CONDUCT.............
Again.... it sounds wrong..... It should be Sexual Misconduct.... Everyone knows that, it's a term that would be used in the Work Enviroment, so Dr Vincent Tabak would have been aware of "Sexual Misconduct" at the work place..
So Again.... I'm trying to understand where the Term "Sexual Conduct came from!!!!!!!!!!
Honestly you wouldn't Google it...........
If you google "Sexual Conduct"..... this is what you get!!!!
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=sexual%20conduct
Then.... I started to rack my brain.... I needed to understand how those words exist!!!!!!
So.... As I have already said I do not believe that the searches were even Dr Vincent Tabak... So decided to approach it as if these searches had been made up... (IMO)
So I put a search into google for:
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=sexual%20conduct
And then I happened upon the legal definition!!!!!!!!
Sex Offenses
Sex Offenses
A class of sexual conduct prohibited by the law.
Since the 1970s this area of the law has undergone significant changes and reforms. Although the commission of sex offenses is not new, public awareness and concern regarding sex offenses have grown, resulting in the implementation of new rules of evidence and procedure, new police methods and techniques, and new approaches to the investigation and prosecution of sex offenses.
It's a LEGAL TERM.....!!!!!!!!
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sex+Offenses
Non-forcible sex offenses include sexual conduct with individuals that the law assumes are not capable of giving consent to sexual acts. Because of this legal principle, it is said that in non-forcible sex offense cases, lack of consent by the victim may be a Matter of Law.
Well...... I don't know where to start......
Did he google "SEXUAL CONDUCT"??????? Not in my Opinion!!!
We can clearly see that he would not have come straight to the "Legal Definition"????????????
And even if as the Prosecution says the word "DEFINITION"...... was missed from the search of Dr Vincent Tabak...
It makes NO DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!!
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=+Definition+sexual+conduct
Because (IMO)......... WE SEE THE FLYING PIGS AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!
Dr Vincent Tabak is not going to Look for a Legal Definition of the term "SEXUAL CONDUCT"......
Where does his GOOGLE searches show that he went and searched the FIRST WORD... "Being"...... Legal
It doesn't................... it is not THERE!!!!!!
Again... (IMO) These searches are an UNTRUE!!!!!!!!!
Sodomy is defined as anal intercourse but is often used in the law as a generic classification including bestiality (sexual intercourse with an animal) and fellatio and cunnilingus (two forms of oral sex). These forms of sexual conduct were outlawed because widely accepted religious beliefs and moral principles dictate that they are unnatural forms of sexual activity, often called "crimes against nature." Forcible rape and sodomy are generally perceived as similarly grave offenses.
Unrelated ... utter NONSENSE!!!!!
Again... I will say:............ I believe Dr Vincent Tabak is INNOCENT!!!!!!!
-
Don't forget who showed all those fire engines on their news broadcast-----ITN!!
I don't suppose that endeared them to the police, either.
-
I want to go back to another problem I have realised about the timelines:..........
When prosecution counsel Nigel Lickley opened the case, he produced copies of an
A3- bound document which consisted of colour-coded pages of the timeline of the alleged
murder: every incident from emails, mobile texts, landline telephone calls, travel,
shopping, etc of the parties involved, ieJoanna Yeates and her cohabitee; and Vincent
Tabak and his cohabitee. Importantly, these schedules also include alleged internet
searches by Dr Tabak. This A3 document looked dauntingly complex and one wonders if
all members of the jury followed this document;
So here from the Sally Ramage Papers:
We can clearly see that the 1300 page document had time lines from 4 people"..........
At Line 340 of the prosecution chart
Tabak Googled on 26 Dec 2010
‘Yeates’
At 3.00 pm he search the Telegraph Newspaper online At 3:43 pm he searched online global newspapers
At 3.45 pm he searched the words
‘Suspension bridge police footage’
At Line 347 of the prosecution chart Tabak searched Google maps for
‘maps to Longwood lane’ ‘Mirror newspaper website’ ‘BBC news’
‘alcohol –police limits’
At Line 368 of the prosecution chart
Tabak searched for the Press release about ‘domestic rubbish’
‘Yeates’
‘architect’s killer’
‘maps for Clifton Road’
‘Clifton Road rubbish’
‘393 tons of rubbish trawled through’ ‘household collections- Bristol City Council’ ‘recycling’
So between line 340 which is 26 th December 2010
And line 368........
That is 28 timelines.. To cover 8 days minimum!!!!!!
How is that possible????
The timeline document has 566 timelines which if you remember is supposed to contain 4 people's timelines and events.....
They are of Joanna Yeates ... Which at this point is excluded!!
But we still have Greg Reardon
Tanja Morson
Dr Vincent Tabak......
So this should have the information of
(1): Tanja Morsons... Where are her texts....phone calls and Internet searches???
(2): Greg Reardon... Where are his phone calls ,texts .. Internet searches???
(3): Dr Vincent Tabaks... Phone calls Internet searches and texts!!!
28 timelines divided by 3 people is roughly 9 timelines each......
Which would equate to 1 timeline per day per person!!!
I think everyone forgot this fact that it was everyone's entries!!
Defence Counsel: Turn to entry 11.
‘Entry 11- seen past the flat at 9.05 where Tanya had already left for work in a lift-share’. Text message from Tabak: ‘Love you’.
Text answer from Tanja: Love you too. Pretty snow.
As you can see... Tanja is included early on in her text messages and again:........ We have her using the laptop at home!!!!
Defence Counsel: Continuing to look at our timeline- timeline 24 was a ‘Divert voicemail’.
Timeline 27- telephone call.
Timeline 28- text message from Tanja and to Tanja at 4 pm.
Timeline 29- there was a much longer telephone call at 4.23pm.
Timeline 30- Internet use at home- Tanja used the laptop – The Defendant was still at work.
The jury and everyone is getting swept up in the Prosecution showing what Dr Vincent Tabak is doing they forgot that Tanja Morsons movements would also coincide with the relevant time as she was with Dr Vincent Tabak between those timelines and if they had returned to work, where are all of their usual email,s text messages and phone calls the have between each other...!!!
Timeline 31- Vincent Tabak texted girlfriend Tanja: ‘How are you? Getting ready for party?’
Timeline 37- Vincent Tabak leaves his workplace.
Timeline 45- Vincent Tabak’s journey home- 6.54 at Constitution Hill. Home just after 7pm by which time Tanja had already left. Text message to Tanja- ‘Just got home’.
So we can see 8 timelines from 1 day of contact between Tanja Morson and Dr Vincent Tabak....
So why does this pattern not continue.... They were in constant contact with each other daily... If it wasn't,t texts or emails it was phone calls...
The Prosecution are supposed to be showing Dr Vincent Tabak was so busy searching the Internet checking every movement the Polices investigation had covered and he also has to keep in communication with Tanja if they have returned to work...
He should be checking about CJ,s arrest and what other evidence they might have found against him...
If they return to work on 2nd January, there should be approx 8 timelines of contact between them...
That again leaves only 20 timelines for all of this checking of Police activity... Covering his tracks etc.....!!
About 3 searches a day.... We have Tanja who is also part of these timelines...
So Why such little information and searching or anything else for more than a week????
Doesn't,t make any sense???
So we are back to looking at timelines 340 to 368......
Which we can clearly see between timeline 340 and 368 he clearly wasn't searching or doing anything.. A reminder of the time...It covers about a week of time plus...
The jury the media the defense didn,t even question where everyone else's timelines where!!!
Even if we remove Greg Reardon from the list..... As Tanja Morson was his cohabitee then at least her Internet searches and email, text messages should be in that timeline between 340 and 368.......
Ludicrous..... That is Not possible......
So"......... None of these three people made more than 1 phone call or text ,email or Internet search??
NOW"........... This brings me to another problem.... As we remember we know about the phone call that was made around the 31st December from Holland...
We haven't truly establish if it was Dr Vincent Tabak that actually made this phone call or Tanja??
Again.... We have a Devil!!!.......
If we are supposed to have a timeline for every event that Dr Vincent Tabak.. Tanja Morson and Greg Reardon did...
Where is the phone call to the Police???
I know what you are going to say.... He made the call from Holland so it wouldn't show up on his phone log??
So I'll go with the phone call being made from Dr Vincent Tabaks mother phone and not his own mobile phone....!!!
It most probably was his own mobile phone he made the call from and that should show up in the timeline!!!!
But we,ll go back to the possibility that it was his mums home phone and they didn't get a warrant for her phone.....
WELL.....
That doesn't,t matter... I tell you for why"........ The Police record all phone calls that come to them and they would have had a LOG of this phone call from Dr Vincent Tabak!!!
I do not ever remember the phone call that Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to of been made from Holland ever being played in court!!
Does anyone have any evidence that this supposed phone call that they say Dr Vincent Tabak was trying to incriminate CJ was ever played in the court room???
I do not believe it was!! Because if the recording of the phone call to the Police was played in court it would be between the timelines of 340 and 368
You would agree?
And if the phone call to the Police is not in the timeline....... Why not???
There could be a simple answer to this....... I and other people have always been of the understanding that the telephone call from Holland was actually made by Tanja Morson and NOT Dr Vincent Tabak...
If this is true and it was Tanja who phoned the Police.... It would explain, why the phone call was never played to the jury....
And that throws up Another BIG Question???
If it was actually Tanja who rang the Police whilst her and Dr Vincent Tabak were in Holland with family...
What REASON did the Police have to go over to Holland AND interview Dr Vincent Tabak as a Suspect!!!
Remember I have covered the 6 hours detention of interviewing a suspect that Dutch Law allows before you either charge..release or apply for an extension...
Which I,ll repeat... Too much hassle to do that in Holland ( and other reasons ..I'll cover later)......
So is the Police recorded telephone call in the timelines???
I would have imagined it would have been in the media at the time of trial!!
So.... No coverage in the media??
We have to remember the defence And prosecution made a great deal of Dr Vincent Tabak apparently trying to incriminate CJ with this phone call...
So Why Wasn't it played in Court????
Perfect evidence for the Prosecution......
Again.... If this phone call does exist ..... Why wasn't it played.... If it exists maybe it is TANJA who made the call...
And"......... If it doesn't exist... ..errrrrrrrrr!!!
Either way they had No Reason to go to Holland to Interview Dr Vincent Tabak and In turn he NEVER implicated CJ!!!
This case/conviction throws up more and more questions!!
Their big recording of Dr Vincent Tabak trying to incriminate CJ....
This all singing all dancing piece of evidence which everyone including the jury...
The judge and ever media person in the building....
Could say.... Yes.... He was trying to incriminate CJ"........
Or.......... He was just making a supplementary statement that CJ had said he had also done!!!!
Tell me please........ Was this phone call ever played in court!!!!
I say not(IMO)....
So where does that leave Dr Vincent Tabak??
Who as far as I can see has had no one really look at this 1300 page document... Which looks more and more shaky the more you study it.....
And that's only with some of the timelines!!!
Oh I would so love to see this document.... Just think what we could discover if we had all of the timelines!!!!
EDIT:.......
In fact according to the prosecution,s timelines.... In the time we can see right up until his arrest, he NEVER..
(1): Texts Tanja Morson
(2): Rings Tanja Morson
(3): Emails Tanja Morson.....
This is untrue.... Dr Vincent Tabak says that him and Tanja kept in constant contact..!!
Defence Counsel: Do you and Tanja often communicate every day?
Tabak: Yes. Tanja and I constantly emailed, telephone and text several times a day including all the time I was in Los Angeles, USA.
So where are ALL the timelines for this communication... Not only between line 340 and 368... But in any of the prosecutions timelines they have shown to the Jury!!!
-
Just been reading a very indepth article on Tabak and how his own actions, despite his perceived personality lead to the finger of suspicion being pointed firmly and correctly in his direction
Timescales presumed methods of searching or not doing so, clearly all put to rest along with DNA and a true confession.
I don't normally get drawn to crime magazines but on this occasion I am glad I did!
-
Just been reading a very indepth article on Tabak and how his own actions, despite his perceived personality lead to the finger of suspicion being pointed firmly and correctly in his direction
Timescales presumed methods of searching or not doing so, clearly all put to rest along with DNA and a true confession.
I don't normally get drawn to crime magazines but on this occasion I am glad I did!
A link to the article jixy?? Please
-
I think that maybe we need to get back to first principles on this. In almost all miscarriages of justice, the defendant protests their innocence to the last. They will not accept a plea bargain, for example, accepting a lesser plea in exchange for a less severe sentence.
The problem I have with this case is that Vincent Tabak confessed to the crime. Now, when people confess there is always the possibility of duress, but where a suspect confesses under duress they usually retract the confession afterwards. Moreover, Tabak confessed to a prison chaplain, not during a police interview, which also greatly reduces the possibility of duress.
Tabak pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the grounds that he did not intend to kill Joanna. This tactic is usually used by those who accept that they did it, but want to get out of a murder conviction.
I reckon the conviction of Tabak is fairly safe.
-
I wonder though---if he had thought "the game's up" when he was arrested , I would have expected him to have confessed to the police: Peter Sutcliffe confessed to being the Yorkshire Ripper, Nathan Matthews admitted that he had killed Becky Watts, and I'm sure many others have confessed inside the police station. Interviews in the police station are recorded too, and so, I would have thought that there was less likelihood of duress there. Not true at the time of the Guildford 4, etc, but interviews did not have to be recorded then.
I am suspicious of the so called "confession" to the chaplain (who wasn't actually a chaplain, in the strict sense of the word). It was not recorded, and we do not know how VT had been treated in prison prior to him speaking to Mr Brotherton. Don't even know whether or not he had a lawyer present at the time. I also find it suspicious that Brotherton began visiting Long Lartin in January 2011, just before VT got there. Could be nothing, but you know me, I have a suspicious mind!
-
simple and to the point Plutonium and I agree fully
-
Mrswah he got the legal team to challenge the 'porn' that has been posted so much about on here. Why then did he not use the same voice to say he didn't kill whether its manslaughter or murder. He has not done so even after the passing years yet he did manage to he killed her how and why. Followed by a basic sorry and understanding towards the family in court.
These are NOT the signs of an innocent man!
The duress that keeps getting mentions is being put forward as an excuse for a fake confession when it isn't the case, its never been proven witnessed or mentioned by Tabak or anyone else. The only time it gets mentioned is on here as a reason to say a guilty man is innocent!
-
Redacted ....
I have thoughts about the film that was shown of the searches of the supposed computer Internet searches that Dr Vincent Tabak was to have made on various dates..
Not only that ..... Dr Vincent Tabaks searches where supposed to be made on works computers as well as his own laptop..
I believe that there was only one laptop at the home of Dr Vincent Tabak..
I get this impression because the defence say on Timeline: 30
Defence Counsel: Continuing to look at our timeline-
timeline 24 was a ‘Divert voicemail’.
Timeline
27- telephone call.
Timeline
28- text message from Tanja and to Tanja at 4 pm. Timeline
29- there was a much longer telephone call at 4.23pm.
Timeline
30- Internet use at home- Tanja used the laptop – The Defendant was still at work.
So ...... Does that mean they basically had a home laptop that both used???
This again throws up questions??
Did it have just one sign in name?
So if there was only one laptop.. How are all the searches just Dr Vincent Tabak??
DID THE DEFENCE EVER SEE THESE LAPTOPS!!
What we talking here???
This information was never clarified!!!
I want to bring us back to The searches that the Polices IT expert did..
I,m positive that the porn never existed
And another reason I will say that there was NO PORN,on the laptop of Dr Vincent Tabak is because.......
After I brought attention to the 1300 page document needing to be amended and be a lot larger,if the porn searches where originally supposed to be there... Then I applied the same logic to the Polices IT expert...
There was never ever any mention of the films that were shown having any parts of the searches REDACTED!!
If the IT expert had to change the information she found on Dr Vincent Tabak laptop /work computers. Then there should have been quite a large quantity of REDACTED text...
It was made public knowledge once the trial was over that apparently Dr Vincent Tabak had watched various sexually violent films on the morning of the 17th Dec 2010 and he subsequently was constantly looking at porn sites over the period and up until his arrest...
The suggestion that Dr Vincent Tabak used prostitues was never established..
None of these woman ever gave evidence in court...
So as I said we have the films which the IT expert must have a problem with...
We need to remind ourselves when the porn was brought to the judges attention, and I am of the opinion it was around the 7th January 2011
After the judge ruled that the images of the porn were not allowed to be used as evidence,that in turn would mean all searches ,any purchasing of porn and anything related to the porn needed to be removed from her film....
So how was that done???
As I suggested...
(1): Redacting the images
(2): Deleting the references
If we go with ....
(1) ... Then I,m sure that the fact that the evidence being shown to the jury had great black lines through it were the searches for porn had been redacted!!
This Would have brought not only questions from the jury...
But... The media would have been referring to the amounts of redacted evidence that was shown to the jury...
Not only that ,when the trial was over the media would have said about the Redacted evidence being the "porn "that was seen as inadmissible ...
So....... No REDACTED searches in relation to the "porn"...
Now that brings us to (2)....
Deleting these searches....
So the searches didn't appear when the Jury where looking at the film... The only other possibility is to delete the searches....
I don't know about anyone else but I can not see that even being legal!!!
If you delete evidence then wouldn't that be classed as "Tampering" with evidence..???? (IMO)
And if there was ever a retrial for instance all of the Original evidence would need to be there,!!!
The Police IT expert would not be able to remove the searches because the defence would need to see the original searches an their experts would need to verify what was originally on Dr Vincent Tabak,s computer and Buro Happolds computers!!
Surely they would need to explain, why some searches were not there!!!
I'm going with my Original investigation....
There was "No" porn!!
There could not have been any!!
How else did the IT expert explain the missing searches!!
She didn't ....there was no need to, because they weren't there in the first place...
There was No possible way in which to separate the searches!!
So if the Police IT expert can't separate the searches or redact them.... They could not possibly have been there!!!
If the defences early searches on the morning of the 17th Dec 2010 are :
Defence Counsel: Turn to entries 6 and 7. Incoming text message 7.35 and reply 7.40.
Defence Counsel: Turn to entry 11.
‘Entry 11- seen past the flat at 9.05 where Tanya had already left for work in a lift-share’. Text message from Tabak: ‘Love you’.
Text answer from Tanja: Love you too. Pretty snow.
Defence Counsel: Let us look at your movements on Friday 17 December: Time line 11- left for work
Timeline 12- Cycled to Bristol T Stn
Timeline 13- Train to bath
Timeline 16- Arrive Bath 9.41
Timeline 17- Accessed Internet for weather- at work Timeline
18- Accessed weather report.
Timeline 19- Accessed weather report.
Timeline 20- Telephone call to Tanja.
Timeline 21- Another telephone call to Tanja.
From 7:35am till timeline 21 he had the only possible timeline of :
Timeline 8
Timeline 9
Timeline 10
So between 7:40 am and 9:05am
We have to remember other people timelines are within this document also..
But if they are implying that this was the time in the morning that Dr Vincent Tabak searched the Internet for porn, they need to remember he has to get himself showered and ready for work...
But if we insist he looked at the porn at this time of morning.......
How did the IT expert remove the entry for his porn searching ???
Redacted?? Deleted??
Again, if the Police IT expert is suggesting he looked at Buro Happolds Computer, I personally believe that to be highly unlikely..
Buro Happold would have to hand over their computers and I've already said they would have sensitive information on them..(IMO)
And I cannot see him being able to access any porn without his work colleagues seeing him...
Also he'd write in Dutch if that was the case of work... Which is were is all the Dutch!!!
But mostly... Buro Happold is like all employees I would imagine and not allow staff to access these types of sites!!!
So if we look at time lines 8 9 and 10 and do this to them...
Of course this is just an example on my part!!
Timelines 8 timeline 9 and Timeline 10 could be something else, but just for the devil and his detail I'm showing what a search could possibly look like and what the IT expert would need to do to remove them so the jury didn't see them....
As always we need to remember that it was suggested he looked at Porn in the morning!!
Defense Council:Turn to entries 6 and 7. Incoming text message 7:35 and reply 7:40.
Timeline 8: sex and submission
Timeline 9: escort sight
Timeline 10: sex and submission
Defence Counsel: Turn to entry 11.
‘Entry 11- seen past the flat at 9.05 where Tanya had already left for work in a lift-share’. Text message from Tabak: ‘Love you’.
Text answer from Tanja: Love you too. Pretty snow.
Defence Counsel: Let us look at your movements on Friday 17 December: Time line 11- left for work
Timeline 12- Cycled to Bristol T Stn
Timeline 13- Train to bath
Timeline 16- Arrive Bath 9.41
Timeline 17- Accessed Internet for weather- at work Timeline
18- Accessed weather report.
Timeline 19- Accessed weather report.
Timeline 20- Telephone call to Tanja.
Timeline 21- Another telephone call to Tanja.
How did these get removed from the film that the Polices IT expert showed the jury??
How did Timelines
Timeline :8
Timeline :9
Timeline: 10 where did she hide them??
I will say it Again......... There was No Porn.....
There couldn't have been any Porn
The Porn was just a stunt (IMO)
The Porn in my opinion was just like the wall evidence stunt when forensic expert used the mortuary pictures to gain sympathy from the jury... Knowing the Yeates family had kept away on the Friday that they were originally shown..
She wanted a reaction from the Jury...
And the Jury seeing the distress on The Yeates families faces.. I believe she got the response she wanted the jury to see..
So... We get a conviction..
And without any proof WHATSOEVER...
We give the media explicit pictures and tell them that they were on Dr Vincent Tabaks computer!!
We also tell this media that he paid for call girls ....
Again.... Where is the proof of this!!
Anything the media showed to the public about porn was to bolster the conviction and to bring into play that it was Sexually Motivated ,when it wasn't ...
I do not believe that there was Any Porn!!
It should have at least been Redacted on the films the IT expert showed and I don't believe it was....
The 1300 page document never had any reference to Porn..
The Films had no redacted text.....
So"...........NO PORN!!!
The above post is of course (IMO)
And the quotes are from Sally Ramage Papers!
-
Mrswah he got the legal team to challenge the 'porn' that has been posted so much about on here. Why then did he not use the same voice to say he didn't kill whether its manslaughter or murder. He has not done so even after the passing years yet he did manage to he killed her how and why. Followed by a basic sorry and understanding towards the family in court.
These are NOT the signs of an innocent man!
The duress that keeps getting mentions is being put forward as an excuse for a fake confession when it isn't the case, its never been proven witnessed or mentioned by Tabak or anyone else. The only time it gets mentioned is on here as a reason to say a guilty man is innocent!
How do we know that Dr Vincent Tabak himself got his legal team to argue about the Images of the Porn??
The legal team could have done this off their own backs!!
Unless you know otherwise Jixy.. There is nowhere that I am aware of that Dr Vincent Tabak tells his legal team to argue the Imaginary Porn!!
I will come back to your other points...
-
I think that maybe we need to get back to first principles on this. In almost all miscarriages of justice, the defendant protests their innocence to the last. They will not accept a plea bargain, for example, accepting a lesser plea in exchange for a less severe sentence.
The problem I have with this case is that Vincent Tabak confessed to the crime. Now, when people confess there is always the possibility of duress, but where a suspect confesses under duress they usually retract the confession afterwards. Moreover, Tabak confessed to a prison chaplain, not during a police interview, which also greatly reduces the possibility of duress.
Tabak pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the grounds that he did not intend to kill Joanna. This tactic is usually used by those who accept that they did it, but want to get out of a murder conviction.
I reckon the conviction of Tabak is fairly safe.
I'm planning on covering this part of the case Plutonium and welcome to the forum..
I,m away at the moment and my iPad is not the best tool for the job.. .
So I am looking forward to seeing when where and why Dr Vincent Tabak took a plea of guilty to manslaughter..
Have you read the post on the Chaplain I posted??
No confession there!!!
EDIT.....
Plutonium... I do not know how many of my posts you have read..
But...
If the Internet searches are not Dr Vincent Tabaks... Who's are they???
I say this because it was impossible for Dr Vincent Tabak to search two particular searches which were..
1:46am and 1:47 am on the early morning being the 18th December 2010
He wasn't even in his home at that point!!
He didn't search it on his mobile phone ...
In fact very little evidence from his mobile phone is used!!
I wonder why that is......
Is that because it's written in Dutch???
-
Jixy, as far as I know, VT did not get the defence team to challenge the porn at all.
Where is your evidence for this? I would be very interested to know where you got that info from.
BTW, Happy New Year!
-
Yes ... Happy New Year All 8(0(*
-
Mrswah he got the legal team to challenge the 'porn' that has been posted so much about on here. Why then did he not use the same voice to say he didn't kill whether its manslaughter or murder. He has not done so even after the passing years yet he did manage to he killed her how and why. Followed by a basic sorry and understanding towards the family in court.
These are NOT the signs of an innocent man!
The duress that keeps getting mentions is being put forward as an excuse for a fake confession when it isn't the case, its never been proven witnessed or mentioned by Tabak or anyone else. The only time it gets mentioned is on here as a reason to say a guilty man is innocent!
I have to say I have issues with it....especially his court appearance..
Why Would Dr Vincent Tabak, Just sit there and tell a story????? (IMO)
Because i believe that is it!!! It was Just a story, No truth to it....
A Story to explain how he managed to kill his next door neighbour that he had never meet.......(IMO)
Now doesn't that strike you as Odd!
What does that say????
The media will have us believe that he woke up one morning and decided , oh I know ..Tanja has eft for work, I,ll just watch some porn...
He apparently then comes across a lady in a pink T-Shirt in the boot of a car!!!!
This from: http://thejusticegap.com/2011/10/vincent-tabak-and-the-law-on-bad-character/
People believe this crap!!!
RICHARD MOORHEAD
November 1, 2011 7:44 am
I can understand the judge seeking to make his handling appeal proof.
One of the matters reported, which you don’t comment on, is the (claim?) that Jo’s body was found in a pose very similar to one of the images Tabak had viewed. Isn’t that evidence of intent?
Well on that alone, you have to think that common sense hasn't been applied...
How on god's green earth would Dr Vincent Tabak KNOW that Joanna Yeates would wear a pink T-shirt...
Did he go down the towards the little gate pass the window and see she had a pink T-shirt on and say to himself...
Here's my chance????
Oh Yes... lets re-inact this morning's viewing!!!!!
Well even if you decide you actually believe that he did that for a calculating man you have a problem...
He would have got his car first..
He would have put everything into position before he even rang the INTERCOM........
That hypothosis is Ridculous!!!!
I can understand the judge seeking to make his handling appeal proof.
I NEED to understand this!!! I remember something about the sentence or something, meaning he wouldn't be able to appeal !!! (i'll have to come back to this)
So where sat in court!!
To me he covers the bases... Not enough description, it's like he's following a script.........
When he starts he appears to be confident in what he's saying then it goes to the other extreme of not having a clue.....
When the Defence is talking to him on the witness stand, Dr Vincent Tabak has something to refer to.... because the defence says words to the effect... "
Defence Counsel: Without any help from the timeline, are you able to say what time it
was you decided to go to Asda?
Tabak: No.
I find this statement from the defence council ODD!! ( I will come back to this )...
So he needs to look at the script in his hand... That's the opinion I'm coming too...
What does this script say???
Defence Counsel: Look at our timeline chart again. No 76. Jo Yeates did not get back to
her flat until 8.37 or thereabouts. Timeline 39- you ultimately went to Asda at approx
10.13 pm.
Can you help by telling what time you believe you went to Asda?
Tabak: No not exactly.
Can you help!!!!!!
Hello..... does that not strike anyone as a really strange way of putting a question to an ADULT!!!!
We have seen that the Defence were not a great fan of Dr Vincent Tabak, so why talk to him in this manner???
Do they know something?????
Defence Counsel: Why?
Tabak: I was lonely; bored so decided to drive to the big Asda in Bedminster to buy myself
some treats.
Now saying that he's buying treats is either a Dutch thing or to me it sounds almost child like....
Defence Counsel William Clegg, QC, asked Dr Tabak about what happened in Joanna
Yeates flat.
Tabak: She invited me in.
Defence Counsel William Clegg: Did she open the door?
Tabak: Yes
This is wrong.... She Invited me in????
Now for a young woman who had never met her next door neighbour and as we already know was not looking forward to being in the Flat on her own... why would she invite a complete stranger into her home??
She had an intercom... she could have used that!!!
She had never meet Dr Vincent Tabak.... surely he would have explained how he gained entry to the Flat...
Forced entry... NOT Proven.. The Police say NO Forced entry!!
Joanna Yeates had sought company that evening as we know...
But that was from People she knew WELL...!
Not some random neighbour she hadn't seen or meet before, I do not believe that Joanna Yeates would have put herself in that position..
She had not drunk very much, so her faculties were there, WHY would she let a stranger in her Flat!!!!
Defence Counsel: Did you take off your coat?
Tabak: Yes.
Defence Counsel: What room did you go into?
Tabak: Kitchen- both of us.
Is he guiding a child through what happened or WHAT!!!
A more acceptable question would be, then what happened??
Already, we are explaining why possibly the fibres of his coat play a part......
Did Joanna Yeates ask him to hang his coat up??? erm..... NO!!
And I have to point out that Joanna Yeates was already relaxing as the prosecution had said..
Defence Counsel: What did you talk about?
Tabak: Being bored. About the cat- she was flirty- she said ‘the cat went into places she
shouldn’t go- a bit like me’; Los Angeles and the sunshine; etc.
THIS....... this is the ONLY Possible subject that Dr Vincent Tabak would have in common with Joanna Yeates, or that is what they want us to believe...
It leads to the assumtion that the cat may have left the flat, we have been made aware that Bernard did go around to Dr Vincent Tabak,s flat when he was away...
But More importantly where was the chit chat about the Careers... That would have been a better topic, the would have something in common.....
Tabak: Being bored. About the cat- she was flirty- she said ‘the cat went into places she
shouldn’t go- a bit like me’; Los Angeles and the sunshine; etc.
The bit about Los Angeles was obviously prepared before the arguement about the PORN!!! (IMO)
Dr Vincent Tabak at this point is setting himself up about the so called ESCORTS..... Funny thing is they never went to court!!!!
He had no need to mention that about going into places a bit like me...he shouldn't!! especially if he was trying to make himself look SAINT like....
So a bit of sunshine and Dr Vincent Tabak cannot resist a pretty girl???? IT WAS WINTER!!!!
Escorts more crap to Bolster the conviction!!! (IMO)
OH YES... The other Glaringly obvious error!!!!!!
she said ‘the cat went into places she
shouldn’t go-
OMG!!!!!!!! Remember the cat is called BERNARD...... Probably because he is MALE!!!!!!! Not FEMALE!!!!!!
So she wouldn't make that STATEMENT!!!!!!
He knows Jack shit about that CAT!!!!!
But the Jury don't pick up on the fact that the cat is Male... And are content in listening to this rubbish....
They have to make a connection that Dr Vincent Tabak would have a common topic to talk to Joanna Yeates and of course the Cat having been around to his flat before seems like the perfect example..
My Lord.... Kipper and stitched springs to mind!!!! (IMO)
Not known either Reardon or Yeates.
Cat came into Flat 2 whist he was in LA.
This is said before Timeline: 11 before Dr Vincent Tabak mentions talking about the Cat..
This is Stated....... WHY???????????
Why would the Jury need to know this??????
Only to bring the supposed conversation about the FLIRTY SHE CAT.. into play......
BUT BERNARD IS MALE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I believe the Defence is setting the stage (IMO)
And then we go on to say.................
Defence Counsel: How long did you converse for? Did you decide to do something?
Tabak: Yes, I did.
Defence Counsel: What did you decide to do?
Tabak: To make a pass at her.
Didn't reply to the first question??
But the third question I find most Interesting...............
Defence Counsel: What did you decide to do?
His Reply....
Tabak: To make a pass at her
NOW.... I don't know about anyone else ... But I find that reply WRONG!!!!!!!
It's an English saying..... The Dutch wouldn't say that.....
Making a pass is defineatley ENGLISH!!!!!
The dutch would say:
"Verleiden"..... which means to SEDUCE..... My brother in law did say this, But I will get him to clarify it..!!!!
So if Dr Vincent Tabak had said he tried to SEDUCE her, then it would be more believeable....
But of course he didn't because he didn't prepare any statement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He's from a different country, they have there own quirks and sayings...........
But the Jury are English... they understand what making a Pass is!!!!
They wouldn't have understood if Dr Vincent Tabak said he tried "TO SEDUCE HER"......
They would want to understand what lead him to believe that Joanna Yeates was in a position to have lead a Dutchman on so much that he felt like he wanted to "SEDUCE HER"...
But in English... making a pass is something and nothing... it can be done in various ways as we are all aware... It's a much gentler approach....
The Jury would have expected a full explanation to the word SEDUCE...
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/seduce
to make someone feel attracted to you and want to have sex with you, often someone younger or less experienced:
Now our English interpretation is as above!!!!
If Dr Vincent Tabak had used the words SEDUCED.... Which is the what the Dutch would say... Then why wouldn't Joanna Yeates have made her excuses and made him leave!!!!!!!!
Defence Counsel: Did you think she would respond?
Tabak: Yes.
Why would he think she would respond???? Erm..... Nope!!
He's used the wrong terminology and do you not think at this point Joanna Yeates would tell him where to get off!!!!
Not then do this........
Defence Counsel: Did she offer you a drink?
Tabak: Yes. I declined.
So we are to believe at this point that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't want to continue with being Flirty!!! And Joanna Yeates was not shocked by the Dutchmans response.......
But lets go with the Defence and the EXPLANATION........
Defence Counsel: Did she offer you a drink?
Tabak: Yes. I declined.
WHY would he decline a drink???
If he was so intent on making this a sexual contact he would have accepted the offer of a drink, it would have made it more of a relaxed enviroment, he would have felt that she was interested in him and he would have been happy to continue in her company..
Talking about CATS!!! in wrong places...
I believe why he says NO to the drink ..... Is to make us believe that he was still Planning on going to ASDA!!!
Now again........... If his only reason to go to ASDA was to pass the time because he was bored then, he had company... he didn't need to worry about one small drink.. It was early enough, his alchol level would have dropped by the time he went to pick Tanja up....
So Asda wouldn't have been needed as a trip... His time is taken up conversing with his next door neighbour....
He could have said No to the Alcohol..... But A coffee would be great.....
If he felt that he had a chance of engaging with Joanna Yeates you would think he'd of been finding away to make their time together be longer, so he could put his powers of persuasion into play!!!!
Defence Counsel: Doing as best you can describe to the court exactly what you did.
Tabak: I put my hand in the small of her back and went to kiss her.
Doing as best as you can???????????
Again is this an Adult he's Talking to?????
Clegg made the Jury very aware of his distain for his client... so why the gentle guiding through his movements???
Why didn't Joanna Yeates Grab his HAND!!!! Remove it....
They're being disrepectful to her......She is not going to allow this to happen and the next quote..
Defence Counsel: Did you kiss her?
Tabak: Noooo.
Noooo.....
The suggestion to him sounds like it's something he would not do... His response is like it's something terribly wrong (IMO).......
Defence Counsel: What did she do?
Tabak: She started to scream quite loudly.
OK........ She wouldn't....
They wouldn't have got as far as her offering him a drink if he had made a pass, never mind to the point where she starts screaming!!!
She wouldn't immediatley start screaming quite loudly....
She'd of either slapped him or made it plain that he had mis-interpreted her intentions!!!! (IMO)
I believe the screaming is needed.... I will explain, the jury needs to understand that when they have the statements from the party goers that the screams they heard where that of Joanna Yeates!!!
I believe this is rubbish......
The Prosecution and the Defence completeley ignored the fact that KINGDOM heard someone shout "Help Me".. on mid morning of the 18th Decemeber 2010
But his statement didn't fit with what they wanted the Jury to believe!!!!!!
I'm sure if they had CJ on the stand instead of Dr Vincent Tabak.. Then Kingdoms statement would have been used!!!!!!!!!!
Defence Counsel: What did you say?
Tabak: I’m sorry. Please stop. I kept my hand to her mouth.
He says:........ "sorry!!! Please stop...
Joanna Yeates has enough common sense to just take the situation into her control and talk him down, maybe say something along the lines of..
"It's ok.. A misunderstanding... I think you should leave"..... That's why I think his hand still is across her mouth!!!
Are we all to believe Joanna Yeates JUST stood there!!! Didn't disuade Dr Vincent Tabak that his attentions were unwelcomed?????
After the pass.. I don't believe she would have screamed ... I believe she would have said something to Dr Vincent Tabak at least, then the apology would come then she would take control of the situation... That is my OP
WHY.........
Did she not move????
Did she not try get him to leave????
Did she not kick him in the Knackers?????
No.... apparently according to this script she stood there doing nothing!!!!!
Defence Counsel: When you took your hand away what happened?
Tabak: She continued to scream.
So... Is this the screams the other couple heard???? Nar... don't believe there where any screams.....
Where are her protestations !!!! Where does she run to the door???
Where does she actually either try to escape her flat or throw him out!!!!
Is all she does is scream....
Her heart would be pounding if she was under attack, she would be thinking on her feet, Not just stood there allowing something to happen to her without resistance..........
Defence Counsel: What did you do then?
Tabak: I put my hand around her neck. I panicked.
Defence Counsel: What did Joanna do?
Tabak: Nothing at all.
Well that explains the hands around the neck.... And thats the problem!!!!! ONE HAND!! when we know Two were used...
I panicked.... well get yourself out of there!!!!
And Joanna Yeates did nothing..... THIS I cannot believe!!!!!!!!!!!
Did NOTHING..... Just allowed it.....
Complete and utter RUBBISH (IMO)...... She's supposed to be fighting for her life... she would have kicked scratched ,... struggled, not just stand there....
Did Dr Vincent Tabak have any injuries due to his contact with Joanna Yeates...???? NO!!
Did Dr Vincent Tabak leave any DNA of his own in the Flat????? NO!!
Did Dr Vincent Tabak say Joanna Yeates reacted in any other way apart from to scream??? NO!!!
WHY NOT!!!!!!
He's supposed to be convincing a JURY that this is MANSLAUGHTER...
More detail is needed...
He's not supposed to be just covering the bases... And I believe that all that is being said!!!!!
A Jury would not be convinced of the story he is saying... They are not daft..
They would come to the conclusion that Joanna Yeates would have reacted several times by this point!!!
And would have spoken... Can you believe she hasn't spoken????
I can't.....
Defence Counsel: Why did you put your hand around her neck?
Tabak: I was just trying to stop her screaming- to calm her down.
What kind of explanation is this????? trying to stop her screaming...
Then his supposed first response of putting his hand across her mouth, would work again....
The Defence are telling us he DOES NOT KNOW how to converse!!!!!
Where is the ... Stop screaming and I'll let go... ?????
Joanna Yeates is doing nothing to protect her own life... AND that is Impossible!!!!!
It is not a normal approach.... Come on.. Do people believe this?????
If he was so intent on engaging with a random female, he could have simply wandered around Bristol until he came across one!!!
Defence Counsel: How long did keep your hand there?
Tabak: Only for a short time.
Now the next quote is interesting.....
Defence Counsel: I will tell you to start to remember what you did and when you took
your hand away from Joanna's neck. Now. When you took your hand away, what did she
do?
Tabak: She went limp and fell
EH??????
I will tell you to start to remember?????
What kind of statement is that!!!!!!!!
That in my opinion is a PROMPT!!!!!!! It's like saying keep to the SCRIPT, (IMO)
A reminder from the Defence as to what order thing happened in...
Defence Counsel: I will tell you to start to remember what you did and when you took
your hand away from Joanna's neck. Now. When you took your hand away, what did she
Again..... TELLING HIS CLIENT!!.. come on, next part.... Where is what happened when you took your hand away....
This man is an ADULT!!!!!!
Surely he is able to continue with what took place without PROMPTING from the Defence...
I have an idea about Dr Vincent Tabak's possible behaviour and responses , which i'm going to try to cover.... In a different post
But I will have to continue this on another post... running out of characters!!
I'll get to the confession... But what I'm explaining at the moment is the supposed basis of his CONFESSION!!
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
EDIT:... Just a reminder about the screams!! DI Jo Goff
Those screams were of particular interest because, it helped us to time when ..er.. when the actual incident happened within the flat 1.. which resulted in Joanna death
Joanna Yeates - Crimewatch the full story - Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRDtLjPfdw0
-
Continuing from this post: http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg373417#msg373417
Defence Counsel: What did you do?
Tabak: I put her on her bed in her bedroom.
Defence Counsel: Where did you go?
Tabak: I went back to my flat.
PUT HER ON THE BED.........
He is leading him in my opinion.... And there's no one to object because he's the DEFENCE......
Defence Counsel: Did she hit herself as she fell?
Tabak: I can’t remember- I was still in a state of panic.
Now this is one of about 80 times that Dr Vincent Tabak cannot remember....
why is this??
Her falling and hitting herself gaining injuries would add to the Manslaughter plea...
For a calculating man.. her injuring herself falling onto the floor would be perfect... it would mean that he hadn't struck her in anyway, her injuries were due to contact with a hard surface...
It would also explain away her nose injury!!!!!
This injury was never explained as far as I an aware... It looks like she has been hit in the face, or struck something hard, an edge of something....
They don't explain away the most NOTICABLE Injury to her face.... WHY???????
Where's the question relating to this Injury????
Of her 43 significant injuries this has to be one of the top ones....
Please explain that to me... explain why it is not mentioned when Dr Vincent Tabak is being questioned by his defence team????
Did he forget to answer properly... ??? was the Prompt not clear enough for him (IMO)
Remember what the Defence Council asked!!!
Defence Counsel: Did she hit herself as she fell?
There's a prompt if ever I saw one!!!! (IMO)
But he can't answer... he cannot remember what he is supposed to say (IMO)
Crap....... she needs to be on her bed at some point.... her earring was found inside her duvet...
So, Putting her on the bed may sort of explain why her earring was in the bedroom.. But it doesn't explain why it's INSIDE the Duvet!!!!
Again (IMO)... The Bases are being covered.. Greg Reardon said in his statement that he found one of the earrings in the Duvet and one on the floor if I remember correctly.....
Why is he not asking Dr Vincent Tabak how the earring managed to be in the bed??????
If she is a dead weigh at this point.. putting her on the bed would NOT explain why the earring ended up inside the BED!!!!
Defence Counsel: Where did you go?
Tabak: I went back to my flat.
Defence Counsel: How did you leave her door?
Tabak: Open.
CLARIFICATION................ Walking Dr Vincent Tabak through the steps
Defence Counsel: How long were you in your flat?
Tabak: Only a couple of minutes maybe.
Defence Counsel: Where did you go then?
Tabak: I went back to Joanna’s flat.
Defence Counsel: What did you do?
Tabak: I was hoping she was alive but clearly she wasn’t.
Defence Counsel: Accepting that she was dead, what did you do?
Tabak: After a couple of minutes I lifted the body and carried it over to my flat.
What made Dr Vincent Tabak Know for sure that Joanna Yeates was not alive?????
She could have been unconcious at that point.... I'm under the understanding that when you first stop the air to someone by strangulation they fall into unconciousness after about say for about 10/20 seconds...
He could have tried to bring her back round????
Why would he go home??????
Ah........ maybe he needed to go home.... for the prosecution... he needed to leave her unattended so Death would follow!!! (IMO)
There's no mirror to check if she's breathing...
Does Dr Vincent Tabak have Medical experience in knowing what Dead people look like??????
If you thought that they were unconcious you try to revive them!!!! Not run away... This is supposed to be an accident!!!
Defence Counsel: Accepting that she was dead, what did you do?
Tabak: After a couple of minutes I lifted the body and carried it over to my flat.
Defence Counsel: Your hand being on what part of her body?
Tabak: One arm was underneath her knees.
Erm.... I beg your pardon..... Accepting that she was dead?????
Crazy... Crazy question!!
At what point does he accept that she is dead....????
A couple of minutes apparently....... Are we not now trying to revive her as i said!!!
Why is not not trying everything in his power to revive her... even if he's unsure????
I say this because some years ago.. I found an old man collapsed on the Canal Tow path.. And immedatley stated CPR on him... I'm not trained but you do the best you can.. someone rang an ambulance and I continued till the ambulance arrived...
You would think that Dr Vincent Tabak would have tried longer than 2 minutes????????
You see.... if he had done this there would be more injuries....... And she didn't have the ones she would have needed for a person trying to save her life....
She would have had brusing from the chest compressions or even a broken rib!!!!
So.... we are lead to believe Dr Vincent Tabak too one look at her and thought... oh yes, she must be dead.....
Get a grip!!!!!!!! Don't believe it.........
Lets go to the next bit of the defences question.....
Tabak: After a couple of minutes I lifted the body and carried it over to my flat.
Defence Counsel: Your hand being on what part of her body?
Tabak: One arm was underneath her knees.
Why Again is the Defence directing him??????????
Your hand being on what part of her body???????
Again (IMO) Another prompt!!!!!
A more reasonable question would be :........... How did you manage to remove Joanna Yeates from her Flat??
Then Dr Vincent Tabak should have explained how he managed to pick a dead weight up from the bed!!!
Try envision this........ One arm under neath her knees!!!!
Well... where the hell is the rest of him?????
So he did what kind of lift???
Remember she is on a bed.......
How difficult would it be to lift a dead weight from a bed????
Where her legs dangling over the edge of the bed...?????
What position did he leave her in???
Was she flat on her back????
Was she in the feotal position???
Where any of her arms dangling????
There is NO explanation as to the position of Joanna yeates on this bed... It has been left upto the Juries own minds to envisage how she lay on the bed,....
Talk about Dr Vincent Tabak being vague...
The Defence is extemley Vague (IMO)
So she's lying on her bed and he only uses one ARM... Under her knees!!!
I've said this before and i'm going to say this again..... A script (IMO) A script that explains how the supposed DNA ended behind the knee od her Jeans!!!!! (IMO)
What happened to the rest of Dr Vincent Tabaks body coming into contact with Joanna Yeates????
They are expecting us to believe he carried her with one arm behind her knees and the other we have to imagine..
Possibly around her waist???
Around her shoulders???
Around her neck.????
Are you trying to envisage this because I am.... I cannot conceive how Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have lifted Joanna Yeates from the BED!!!!
At this point a dead weigh is a dead weight and it is extremley difficult to move.....
Firemen Practice lifting unconscious people from buildings... they have to exercise to be able to do this task.... Because it is NOT easy!!!!!
So a Lanky Dutchman turns into a Man of incredible strength and miraculously lifts a dead weight that normally would take someone who has practiced this or would need TWO people to do!!!!!!!!
Defence Counsel: Were you able to carry her to your flat?
Tabak: No she was too heavy. I tried again.
Defence Counsel: Where did you take her body?
Tabak: To my flat.
Oh Course she was TOO HEAVY!!!!! Nobody questioning why he would even consider moving her??????
Defence Counsel: Did you leave Joanna’s door shut or open?
Tabak: Open.
Defence Counsel: What did you do next?
Tabak: I decided to put her body in my bicycle cover.
Defence Counsel: Was it your bicycle cover or Tanja’s?
Tabak: No- it was mine.
Defence Counsel: How easy was it to put the body in the bicycle cover?
Tabak: Very difficult but eventually I did it.
Defence Counsel: Why did you put her body in the bicycle cover?
Tabak: I didn’t want anyone to find out and I put the body in my car.
Defence Counsel: Was Joanna’s door still open?
Tabak: Yes.
Again... The Door needs to be open... The Defence do NOT need to CLARIFY this (IMO)... it's a prosecution statement!!!
So...... he has had all hell break lose in hiis life at this point.... He's accidentley killed his neighbour and all he apparently starts to worry about is whether there will be any evidence in his car of Joanna Yeates!!!!
Apparently not in the least worried he may have left a great deal of DNA in her Flat!!!!
Not bothered that her DNA is Now gonna be in his FLAT....
NO...... lets make sure my car is clean...... Someone is off their TROLLY!!! (IMO)
Why has the Defence not even listened to themselves??????
It makes No sense!!!!!!
Defence Counsel: After you put the body in the boot of your car, what did you do next?
Tabak: I went back to Joanna’s flat and switched off the TV and the oven; I took away the
sock and the pizza.
Defence Counsel: Why did you take the pizza and sock?
Tabak: I was not thinking straight.
Defence Counsel: Where did you take the pizza and sock?
Tabak: In my car.
Defence Counsel: You decided to take the body away. How were you going to do that?
Tabak: In the car.
OK... lets break this one up...........
Defence Counsel: After you put the body in the boot of your car, what did you do next?
Tabak: I went back to Joanna’s flat and switched off the TV and the oven; I took away the
sock and the pizza.
WHY WOULD HE........... what possible reason would Dr Vincent Tabak have for Taking the PIZZA!!!!!!
Absolutley NO REASON!!!!!
But it's not there ... it needs to be explained away.......
Switched the oven off.... such a thoughtful person!!!! And the TV........ No Finger prints then???????
The taking of the Pizza is nonesense......
Think about it.....
Is it still in the box??????? if not he'd of needed to take both!!!!
Why would he take the packaging as well???????
If the Pizza is on the Table he is NOT likely to have come into contact with it... If the box is seperate why take the box????
If the Pizza is still in the box why touch it at all?????
He is not aware that she bought the Pizza that evening.......
If Joanna Yeates has put the oven on to cook the Pizza then she woulld have it ready to go in the oven.. having removed the packaging herself and thrown it in her own bin!!!!!
But we have this from the prosecution...
On 6 Jan 2011, Tabak researched the words
Pizza box
So I'll repeat.......
(1): Why take an empty Pizza Box??
Especially as the likelyhood is that if Joanna Yeates had put the Pizza in the Oven, then she was more than likely to have disposed of the box herself.....
(2): Full Pizza Box........???????
No need to touch it!!!!!!! And then apparently Put it into his car and later dispose of this himself!!!!
He did NOT KNOW at anytime the significance of the PIZZA... he Did Not Know she had bought it that evening...
WHY would he?????
He would have only heard about the Pizza once he saw it on the News like the rest of us.....
If he was aware of the Pizza he was aware of the Cider!!!! And he didn't remove that Did He????
The Sock!!!!!! He didn't apparently start looking for the sock in his searches until it was revealed in the media!!!!
WHY NOT!!!
He's committed a Crime... You think he'd be looking for that sooner....
Again I'll say... all of Dr Vincent Tabak's replies just cover the bases... (IMO)
This next ones a cracker......
Defence Counsel: At our timeline 100, you 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.
Defence Counsel: As we can see you sent many messages You never make typing errors.
Why did you type the word “crisis”?
Tabak: That’s how I felt. I was in complete shock. Didn’t know what to do.
Lets just look at that.......
Defence Counsel: As we can see you sent many messages You never make typing errors.
Why did you type the word “crisis”?
Oopsie..... Is this the Prosecution talking!!!!!
You Never Make Typing Errors!!!!!!!!!!!! lets just see that for what it is saying.
I am telling the JURY he meant CRISIS!!!!! (IMO) and not Crisps after what has just apparently happened ...
Prosecution... Prosecution... Prosecution.....argggg ... he's not the prosecution!!!!!
If it's to make them think about his MENTAL state... where the Psychiatrist report at COURT!!!!
I'll come back to that one as well!!!!
So his whole explanation is minimal...... To the point of being virtually pointless!!!
But like I said I believe... It's a Script (IMO)
Anyone who had committed a crime and wanted to make a Jury believe it was Manslaughter would have been making a greater explanation about what lead to this event!!!!
I'll bring you back to one of my other bug bares...... The FACT That Statistically Murders tend not to move a body from the scene...
They may lead them to the scene.. But not move them because it's Physically Imposssible to move a dead weight that many times... And in this day and age we know about Trace evidence and DNA!!!!
Dismemberment happens because a dead body is difficult to move or Another person assists...
Thats why CJ was on Bail till March... they thought the pair had colluded!!!
The News today was interesting... This article in particular...
http://stage.news.sky.com/story/new-appeal-in-ripper-murder-of-amala-ruth-de-vere-whelan-after-44-years-10718613
A new appeal has been launched by police investigating the rape and murder of a woman more than 44 years ago.
Amala Ruth De Vere Whelan, 22, was strangled to death in her London home with a stocking on 12 November 1972, but her body was not discovered for four days.
Detectives found the word 'ripper' written onto the living room with detergent from a washing up liquid bottle.
Police believe Amala may have known her attacker as there was no sign of forced entry to her flat in Randolph Avenue, Maida Vale.
NO FORCED ENTRY!!!!!
MURDERED IN HER FLAT!!!!!
No need to move the Body!!!!!!!!!!! (IMO)
So why would Dr Vincent Tabak feel the need to move the body?????????????????
He should of just shut the door and walked away..... cleaned up etc....
The moving of her body to......
(1): Her bedroom
(2): Out of her bedroom to outside
(3): Down the side of the Building
(4): Across the back of the building
(5): Into his flat
(6): Into A Bicycle bag/cover
(7):Into the boot of his car
(8): Out of the boot of his car
(9): Trys to put her over a wall.....
Too MANY TIMES Moving A BODY...... (IMO)!!!!!!!!
Utter Nonesense........ I do not believe this!!
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
I said I'd come back to this:........
Defence Counsel: Without any help from the timeline, are you able to say what time it
was you decided to go to Asda?
Tabak: No.
This is an annoyance...... i'll tell you for why there is NO TIMESTAMP AT ASDA'S...
Joanna’s flat except that it was between the time he went to Asda and the time he texted
his girlfriend, say, between 9.00 pm and 11.00 pm.
Is he saying that Joanna Yeates was Killed between 9:00pm and 11:00pm
OR...............
He texted Tanja between these times????????
Or do I look at this statement again!!!!
This does mean that one really hasn’t got a real clue as to when Tabak went into
Joanna’s flat except that it was between the time he went to Asda and the time he texted
his girlfriend, say, between 9.00 pm and 11.00 pm.
At first I've read this as him implying Joanna Yeates Died between 9:00pm And 11:00pm...
But I think I'm wrong on that impression I had!!!
Lets look at the Order.....
So it's between the time he went to Asda and the time he texted his girlfriend???????
Defence Counsel: Without any help from the timeline, are you able to say what time it
was you decided to go to Asda?
Tabak: No.
Yes!!! he needed to look at the timeline!!!!!
Defence Counsel: Look at our timeline chart again. No 76. Jo Yeates did not get back to
her flat until 8.37 or thereabouts. Timeline 39- you ultimately went to Asda at approx
10.13 pm.
Can you help by telling what time you believe you went to Asda?
Tabak: No not exactly.
Why is the defence telling him what TIME he went to ASDA??????
We shouldn't have to hazzard a guess at this piece of information..... We have the CCTV images from Asda, which should have the TimeStamp On!!!!!!!
No Guessing.... No Guessing whatsoever!!!!! (IMO) The Time and Date would be clear as Day.....
except that it was between the time he went to Asda and the time he texted
his girlfriend, say, between 9.00 pm and 11.00 pm.
Did he go to Asda around 9:00pm???????????? Texts tanja
Defence Counsel: Look at our timeline chart again. No 76. Jo Yeates did not get back to
her flat until 8.37 or thereabouts. Timeline 39- you ultimately went to Asda at approx
10.13 pm.
Can you help by telling what time you believe you went to Asda?
Tabak: No not exactly.
Defence Counsel: Can you look at item where you sent message to Tanja ‘missing you’
Can you remember if you sent it before you decided to go to Asda.
Recapping- you come off the Internet at 7.37pm (our entry 47) & remain in your flat until
9.29pm (our entry 88).
The first quote is starting to make sense!!!!
He was at HOME till 9:29pm... he hadn't left his flat... hadn't gone next door...And his trip to Asda is at What time?????
We get a time of approx 10:13pm.... is that him already at Asda?????
Defence Counsel: At our timeline 100, you 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
Is this The earlier text... he sent two??? At different Times!!!
Just half-an-hour after he allegedly strangled Jo, the burly Dutchman is said to have texted live-in lover Tanja Morson: “Missing you loads. It’s boring here without you. V xx.’’
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/215206/KILLER-DID-XMAS-SHOP
Why at that Point doesn't he mention he may go to ASDA??????
Why haven't we got a slide show of his texts on his Mobile phone.... That would be clear...(IMO)
We have the defence saying :
Defence Counsel: Can you look at item where you sent message to Tanja ‘missing you’
So if he's in his flat till 9:29pm sends Tanja the "missing you text"... Goes to Asda....
When is he supposed to have killed Joanna Yeates??????????
Again... I'll come back to this quote..
except that it was between the time he went to Asda and the time he texted
his girlfriend, say, between 9.00 pm and 11.00 pm.
So......... between texting Tanja and going to Asda he then kills Joanna Yeates....
How??????
Yes.... I bet you did the same as me...... Read the statement the wrong way round,... because we are conditioned to believe he Texted first then went to Asda!!!!!
In one sense he did... But Not The Text I believe that the Defence is referring too.....
He texts his girlfriend again, As we know when he is in ASDA!!!!!
The Now Famous Crisis Text!!!
Defence Counsel: At our timeline 100, you sent a text message to Tanja ‘How are you? I
am at Asda. Buying some crisis.’
Remember.....
except that it was between the time he went to Asda and the time he texted
his girlfriend, say, between 9.00 pm and 11.00 pm.
So the defence are admitting that Dr Vincent Tabak actually went to Asda first!!!!!
Then he Texted Tanja!!!!!!!!!!
Which will be the second text.... the crisis text At Asda....
Then that follows that must be the Text the DEFENCE is referring too.......
So I'll say again....... How can he Kill Joanna Yeates between the Time he went To Asda and the time he Texted TANJA!!!!!!!
When he was in Bedminster?????????????????????
None of this Trail Makes Any sense to me whatsoever!!!!
Any thoughts people???
See................
Tabak went into
Joanna’s flat except that it was between the time he went to Asda and the time he texted
his girlfriend, say, between 9.00 pm and 11.00 pm.
He went into the Flat between Going to ASDA and Texting Tanja... And NOT the other way round!!!!!!!!
So is that:
(1): Asda
(2): Kill Joannaa Yeates
(3):Text Tanja ????
He obviously goes to ASDA FIRST!!!!!!!
Something else that has just sprung to mind........
Is the evidence that THIS Defence has all there own work?????
Or does some of the Information come from his Original Defence Lawyer being Cook??????
Would explain alot about the Defence (IMO)
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
I did originally write quite a long detailed reply to this but I will sum it up in one word....DISTURBING!
-
What is Disturbing Jixy??????
-
Maybe.... The possibility that Dr Vincent Tabak's defence is made up from information from Possibly 2 defence Lawyers needs a look at!!!!!!!!
-
From Jixy.........
The duress that keeps getting mentions is being put forward as an excuse for a fake confession when it isn't the case, its never been proven witnessed or mentioned by Tabak or anyone else. The only time it gets mentioned is on here as a reason to say a guilty man is innocent!
Indeed Jixy I will agree with you..... I will Agree that nothing was mentioned And NOTHING WAS WITNESSED!!!!
I'll take you back to the chaplains Post!!!!!!
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg369101;topicseen#msg369101
NO CONFESSION!!!!!!
He Never says to anyone at Anytime that he KILLED Joanna Yeates.....
He May plead "Guilty"....
But at No time whatsoever does he utter the words that he KILLED Joanna Yeates!!!!
Defence Counsel: What did you think would happen?
Tabak: I was sure I would be arrested. Tanya kept me going. Can I say that I am really
sorry for being responsible for her death.
Never!!!!!
So Jixy.........
The duress that keeps getting mentions is being put forward as an excuse for a fake confession
I believe that you agree..... Dr Vincent Tabak was under Duress!!!!!!
I've obviously stated things that make even you realise that Dr Vincent Tabak was Under Duress
In your own words: The duress that keeps getting put forward...
Duress is a Legal reason seen that someone May make a False Confession...
And as you know I believe he did make a FALSE Confession...
And by the time the trial started it was too late to RETRACT it!!!!!
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
please....make this stop! 8()(((@#
-
You don't have to read it Jixy!!!
As you first stated when you joined the forum:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7746.0
There are plenty of more cases you can look at....... If this annoys you so much, use your posts on Cases that really matter to you...
You have made your mind up about this case.. so don't stress about it....
Help another case that you have an interest in benefit from your passion...
-
Please dont reply like you know me. I will post my thoughts later
-
Please dont reply like you know me. I will post my thoughts later
Haven't got a SCOOBY as to who you are...... And I don't need to know!!!!
And in return please don't ask me to STOP!!!
A Fair Trail....
A Fair crack at the whip is all that is required.... And I do not believe that anything to do with Dr Vincent Tabak's
Arrest or Trial was FAIR (IMO).....
EDIT....... 3 prisons in 48 hours, you don't really want me to start again!!!!!!
-
8)--))
-
Another quick look at this statement:
Defence Counsel: Did you take off your coat?
Tabak: Yes.
Defence Counsel: What room did you go into?
Tabak: Kitchen- both of us.
Did you take your coat off????
Yes being the reply!!!!
WRONG..... Again I'll say Wrong!!!
I'll let you know why I believe this statement to be wrong.....
Most men that I know don't ordinarily just take there coat off when entering someone elses house..
Let alone a strangers house!!!
But Also what does that make me think!!!!
It was FREEZING COLD outside..... Why would he remove his coat straight away?????
Was her heating on full Blast!!!!!
Don't ever remember Dr Vincent Tabak saying he turned the Heating off!!!
Or Greg Saying he left it on!!!! Or that it was on when he returned home!!!!!
So........... How long would she need to be in her flat for..... ??????
How long would it take for the central heating to kick in!!???????
How long would the heating have to be at a temperature for the house to reach such a degree it was barmy enough for Dr Vincent Tabak to feel comfortable enough to remove his coat without even being invited yo do so?????????
Another crazy statement that makes NO sense........
-
Have you ever read the full case files from a murder trial?
-
Have you ever read the full case files from a murder trial?
No......
But I would love to read the full case files of this Murder trial.....
Especially those 1300 pages ?{)(**
EDIT........... just think of all the cross referencing I could do!!!!!
The truth that lies between the pages.... The Truth that it wasn't possible for Dr Vincent Tabak to commit this crime
He HAD no TIME...
And I don't believe it was him....
I don't even think it happened in her flat!!!
-
Oooo... Jixy.. you have me thinking now....
All those Timelines....
All the IT experts films...
All of those Translated texts!!!
All of the DNA Evidence and the time it took to turn around!!!
All of the prosecutions search evidence!!!
The whereabouts of all involved...
The witness statements that where read out in court
The statement of people that were not called but made statements all the same
The Information originally Given to Cook!!!
The extra information that Clegg gleaned
And of course.... be able to see all of the statements that Dr Vincent Tabak signed!!!!!
And not forgetting the 8 fire Brigade Appliances that attended the scene.........
Think that would keep me going for a while!!!!!
-
I, too, would love to read the full case files. I did think about getting hold of the trial transcripts, but concluded that it's probably not possible: they tend to only keep them for 5 years, apparently, also they don't give them out to just anyone (and let's face it, I am "just anyone"), and they are extremely expensive.
I have always thought that the story VT told in court (with the dubious help of his "defence" lawyer) was a lot of rubbish, and that he had been told what to say (which is why he didn't remember half of it). It was a made up story. It is very, very unlikely that a mild-mannered bloke with a good life and no previous form would suddenly decide to go and kill his next door neighbour. Possible, yes---anything is possible, but very, very unlikely.
He told Mr Brotherton that he was going to plead guilty, not that he had killed Joanna. In other words, he didn't say he'd done it, he said that he would say he'd done it.
Since I don't know VT, I cannot be sure he isn't guilty, but I strongly suspect that he isn't. Most of the world believes he is. Why? Because they automatically believe the police, they automatically believe what they read in the papers, hear on the news, and watch in documentaries. In addition (and quite rightly), they have an abhorrence of a young girl with everything to live for being brutally killed just before Christmas , and they are overcome with sympathy for her parents (so am I, as a matter of fact, since I have daughters of my own).
Then, there is the DNA. Most people think DNA evidence is foolproof, even if it has been enhanced, is inconclusive, and not compelling enough evidence to convict someone. There are plenty of articles on the internet that cast doubts on enhanced DNA, but most of us don't read them. Just mention that DNA has been found, and people assume the defendant is guilty. Mention computer searches, and people believe in them. As for all the porn stuff, prostitutes, strangulation sex, women in pink tops being tied up in car boots, etc, this provided everyone with a motive. Without it, there would be no motive, and well-bred, hard working, placid young men with good lives do not kill their neighbours for no reason. At least, they don't often !
-
Case files and information in the media is vastly different. Nine, you seem to expect every little detail to be in the media and when its not you think its underhand, conspiracy and a down right lie.
Sometimes you have every faith in the details you read, then its dismissed as only being the media.
The questioning you mention at trial.... have you ever been to a trial?
He pleaded guilty to Manslaughter!!!! Cos he is guilty, you can blame the DNA, the duress you suspect happened because people didn't behave in the way YOU expected. You don't know either person, nor have you been attacked suffered 43 injuries and then lost your life!
Also remember that the Defence have to move forward with the fact he has admitted a crime. You don't like the gentle approach and then you don't like the hard handed way either. Like when he was in prison. He was moved for his protection and watched behind a Perspex door. That annoyed you and made you think duress when in fact it was a safe guarding matter and dealt with as such!
You detail what Joanna would have done, should have and could have done. How would you know? Guess work and speculation. That is dangerous.
AS I have already pointed out. He challenged the porn stuff that also annoys you so much yet he said yes I did it to manslaughter. Provided information, details etc to prove his point
You say she wouldn't have invited him in etc. The only version that you have available is via the media and you have no way of knowing what details he added or left out cos he was GUITLY and trying to save his skin hence his searches and plea of manslaughter. He didn't want to go to Prison for life and part of me thinks he never really expected to either! His plan failed. So pinch of salt needed with the finer details
You never like my replies but your posts seem very animated and personal to you and I think you lose sight of important things in the belief that has he been wronged. He has never said that anywhere. He has had the chance but no, nothing has been said. None of the mistreatment you mention has ever been spoken about let alone proven, it just helps you in your theory he is innocent
There is no check list of someone being attacked nor is there one for a murderer. Nice calm 'placid' people do such things. Even psychopaths can have charm and that is well documented too
-
The court heard that the DNA found on Miss Yeates’s chest was one million times more likely to belong to the defendant than any other unknown individual.
Not to mention the evidence from his car. His searches his confession....
All that and then he is put under such duress he confesses to a crime he didn't commit.
-
The articles I use quite often are from video's... It is from the mouths of the Police and CJ....
I use quotes and links as people can see for themselves where i obtained my information..
The Police themselves have stated that the screams were the reason that they knew what time the crime was committed..
How can that be right????
Party goers on the opposite side of the road at a time when she would not have arrived home, could not have heard her!!!
Yet screams another neighbour heard on a different day where discounted...
Since when are the screams of anyone a scientific method of discovering the time of death???? Yet as i posted DI Goff stated that was the method used to identify when Joanna Yeates died!!!
If you read my posts ... which have links and quotes.. you will find that the Police had NO idea as to when Joanna Yeates had died!!!!
If they were absolutley certain that the time of death was on Friday 17th December 2010, then WHY did they charge Dr Vincent Tabak with the crime between the dates of 16th December 2010 and the 26th December 2010????
And why keep CJ on Bail until March 2011!!!!
Hard evidence....... Hard Evidence to prove that this is what happened
Searches that have a far greater quantity of Dutch in them... Give me evidence that I can believe in...
Lets just think about the searches and the country...... At the time thousands of people across the land were doing the same thing as Dr Vincent Tabak, if you are to believe those searches..
Thousands of people were looking up at the connection to Melanie Hall and Glenis Caruthers, People were checking Pizza , missing sock and far more bizarre searches than what apparently was done by Dr Vincent Tabak...
I question what I read... And I use information from Sally Ramage who herself a Lawyer was at the trial and had written a paper..
I'm not just hazzarding a guess!!!!!
If the searches that where supposed to be have made by Dr Vincent Tabak could not have been made by Dr Vincent Tabak as he wasn't at home at the time..
That revelation should throw up BIG questions!!!!!!
How is it possible for him to search at 1:46am and 1:47 am for weather on the 18th December 2010 when he was out of the house picking Tanja up from her christmas party!!!! And stopping to buy a burger!!!
How is that possible??????????????
On 18 Dec 2010, Tabak searched at
1.26 am- ‘BBC news’ and ‘weather forecast’
1.46 am- ‘weather forecast’
1.47 am- ‘BBC Bristol news’
This is the Prosecutions own Timeline........
Then the Defence:
Defence Counsel: You were on the Internet later. Why did you do that? Constant contact
with Tanja by phone. At I.38 am, 18 December, you were leaving again in the hatchback.
Is this to collect Tanja from the Coach?
Tabak: Yes.
So the 1:26am search was possible.. But not the other two!!!!!!!!!!
There are things in this case the the Defence clearly did not pick up on (IMO)
Does the fact that it was impossible for him to do these searches NOT throw in to question the whole of the searches as being that of Dr Vincent Tabak!!!!!
You cannot ignore that fact!!! You can choose to but.... it will not stop it being a fact...
Dr Vincent Tabak was not at home for 2 of those searches!!!!!!!! So how can they be his???????
When the evidence that has been made available doesn't add up QUESTIONS will be asked...
Again this site is called Miscarriages of Justice....
It does Not state that everyone has a certain criteria to meet to be able to post about something they may believe to be a Miscarriage of Justice!!
The clue is in the TITLE!!!!
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
Edit:...... If the time that Dr Vincent Tabak left Canygne Road was at 1:38am on Saturday the 18th December 2010.. I would be really interested to see the timeline of his return.. Because it must have been a CCTV camera that caught his departure,.... And therefore it would capture his return..
Then the questions would not be posed.... Fair and Open... put all the evidence clearly infront of a Jury and do not Cherry Pick....
And this approach I would apply both to the Prosecution and the defence alike...
Lets just see procedings conducted in a totally Fair and Open manner!!!!!
Double EDIT:....
Another thing he would have to do when he got home before rushing to the "computer"... Is TAKE that infamous coat off!!
Hang it up... maybe take his shoes off... He is not going to rush to use his Computer again for weather reports!!
More time NOT available to have to do those searches... And would he be so desperate to check the weather yet again after he's just picked his girlfriend up after being so bored being on his own without her....
I Think NOT... He cannot have done those two searches (IMO)
-
The court heard that the DNA found on Miss Yeates’s chest was one million times more likely to belong to the defendant than any other unknown individual.
Not to mention the evidence from his car. His searches his confession....
All that and then he is put under such duress he confesses to a crime he didn't commit.
The only thing I know... Is statements that you make are never backed up with any kind of link that would be a way of verifying what you claim....
-
What statements do I make that need backing up?
-
I quoted Sally you ignored that too. Anyway none of the above can dismiss my post. At work now so will not continue the debate.. ps no one asked you to meet any criteria. It was a straight forward question. If you had done so you may have a better understanding but it's easier for you to be rude and patronising!!!
-
I quoted Sally you ignored that too. Anyway none of the above can dismiss my post. At work now so will not continue the debate
Link to what you used please... I cannot hazzard a guess as to where and which post any particular information you post has come from.
Oh yes.... And put the information you refer to in a quote... helps to see that is what the person said...
-
When I found this site I was extremely excited..... I believe that the likely hood of information that people post on the relevance of a case will be here for all to see...
I would think it would be extremely difficult to explain why whole threads are removed because someone may disagree with what forum posters post..
For the case I am obviously interested in, I am fully aware that whole forums were removed from the Internet and know one knows by whom and for what reason...
And this being about Miscarriages of Justice it would be less likely for that to happen..
The country may think I am incorrect with what I have posted .. But unless people see other information other than what they read in the papers at the time , how are they able to have an informed opinion...
We know that the media expand on the truth... They sensationalise Headlines.... CJ is proof of that!!!
So in turn.. I believe they did the same with Dr Vincent Tabak...
The Porn revelation was never proven.. It was given to the media to sensationalise the conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak....
And of course the media ran with it!!!!
You can say anything you like about a person who is in prison... It doesn't mean that it is true.. At the point of their incarcaration they have no voice in which to counter act any claims that are made about themselves whether true or fabricated.....
And as long as I see what I believe to be an unfair trial and treatment of Dr Vincent Tabak, I will continue to look at the information that I can obtain...
I'm sure Stefan Kizco wished the Internet was around when he was convicted!!!
I'm positive his mother would have appreciated the help that people may have taken an interest in her son!!!
Maybe he wouldn't have spent 18 years in Prison for a Crime Everyone knows was IMPOSSIBLE for him to commit, The Police Knew it wasn't him.......
They knew it was IMPOSSIBLE to be him... But that didn't stop them from gaining a false confession and putting him away to serve 18 years of his life in Prison for a crime HE DID NOT Commit!!!!
-
Phew!!!
I have probably said most of what I think, so I am not going to repeat myself. Waste of everybody's time.
Jixy, have you ever read all the case notes from a trial? I can quite believe that the general public don't hear everything, which is why I cannot be absolutely sure that VT (or anyone else, for that matter) is innocent.
Jixy, why do you think all that fire equipment was needed to recover the body of one person? You have never answered that question. I put up the FOI document some time ago, and only one poster has ever suggested an explanation.
Why do you think there was no forensic evidence in either Joanna's flat, or in VT's?? If a murder had taken place in either flat, it would be crawling with DNA and fingerprints. The prosecution would then have had good evidence that VT murdered Joanna, and would not have had to rely on enhanced DNA and a minute drop of blood.
I expect you will tell me to mind my own business (and that is fair enough), but I'm interested to know why you are so interested in this thread, Jixy. You don't believe VT is a victim of a miscarriage of justice, and you have, in the past, suggested that I (and Nine) might concentrate on cases where there really is some doubt. However, you have never said which ones (you never know, I might be interested in what you say). You have not begun a thread on any particular person. Most of your posts have been to this thread, yet you believe VT is guilty.
Why are you so interested in a couple of women's doubts about Vincent Tabak's guilt, when you are sure he is guilty?
-
Nne at 7.46 you asked me to post quotes from what I am writing. Ok you replied but I still don't have any actual answer!
what would you like to me to quote? not sure how we can get confused as its normally just 2 people talking.
Mrswah yes I have read paperwork from a Crown Court murder case in fact I have read 2!
Why I post on here, well no one else replies do they? Maybe because they all agree he is guilty too! no one has jumped on any post however lengthy that has been posted in agreement with his innocence. I read as I do with all the posts on the forum.
Re Maddy etc I totally admire the people on here and their dedication to the subject but I know nothing about it but still hope to learn and post. I have in fact started my own posts but not directly on a miscarriage of justice. I would need permission to do that and I am not sure with some of the things on here, the lack of respect etc that is a good plan of action
As for Tabak, I think quite a large amount of what has been posted is verging on the ridiculous if I am totally honest. I await something that would change my mind which I have every right to do. It hasn't happened and I cant see it any time soon!
One thing I have noticed is that as I don't agree with Nine and his many posts, I never actually get a straight answer just more questions!
-
I will keep saying... if it was impossible for Dr Vincent Tabak to make TWO searches which were:
On 18 Dec 2010, Tabak searched at
1.26 am- ‘BBC news’ and ‘weather forecast’
1.46 am- ‘weather forecast’
1.47 am- ‘BBC Bristol news’
Because he left his home at: To Pick up Tanja and go for a burger also getting lost and having to ring for directions..
Defence Counsel: You were on the Internet later. Why did you do that? Constant contact
with Tanja by phone. At I.38 am, 18 December, you were leaving again in the hatchback.
Is this to collect Tanja from the Coach?
Tabak: Yes.
The Fact that he couldn't be avaiable to make these searches should bring into question, the whole of the searches..
Jixy.. You say that I do not reply to your questions... Maybe not always Directly ..But I have many times answered the questions that you have posed...
And on saying that you have never said anything about why a Dutchman would only use one word of Dutch between the 17th Dec 2010 and the 20th January 2011..
I know that this is Impossible......
Spending time with my Dutch Relatives over the christmas Period was Proof enough... i was going to try and keep a tally but.. I couldn't keep up...
My 5 year old nephew was even trying to teach his English cousins Dutch... And my Brother in laws phone was all in Dutch...
They conversed in Dutch so much it became the Norm and No one battered an eye lid.. It was quite fasinating...
But the point I have been trying to convey is the Dutch don't particularly use English Terms per say... And the Dutch will converse with other Dutch people in Dutch..
As he was going to Holland,, I'm sure there would be some Dutch Texts sent!!!
And if the porn was such a secret or even existed.. He certainly would have searched in Dutch as to keep peoples prying eyes away from his searches..
EDIT:..... I would like to apologise if people think I have offended them... It is not my intension... I know my style of writing is not to everyones taste.... And I may come across as being uncaring..
I'm quite passionate about this case, and was really pleased when I found that there where other people who had doubts about Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction..
If the evidence was really strong and witness's had appeared in court maybe I would have thought differently..
I cannot believe that Cj Or Tanja Morson did not make an appearance in the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak and I'm sure many people were suprised by the fact that they did not appear...
Both of them could have added to the Trial for obvious reasons....
Jixy if I have upset or offended you personally, then I am sorry for that... Sometimes I do get the impresssion that you may agree with something that I have said... But you have made yourself perfectly clear that you believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty...
I am appreciative for this site... It gives plenty of people a platform to bring to the attention of the public possible miscarriages of Justice... And proving such cases is hard no matter which case it maybe..
As people say... Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty.... And I'm either stupid or deluded to think differently to the majority of the country.. but thats fine...
A confession is ok.... only if it is backed with concrete facts... And The Prosecution do not play dirty tricks by not divuldging information a Defence team has not got the time resources or money to investigate..
I think there are a lot of inequalities in our justice system.. And there should be a counter balance..
You have a Police service And Prosecution Service with the money and resources in which to persue a conviction.. And on the other hand a Defendant that has to pray that with the little resourses at hand for them that a jury will believe what they are saying....
Maybe I should employ a different approach to what I'm trying to convey... But I wouldn't think it would make a difference to anyone who is of the opinion that what ever I say is completely wrong..
I may be completely wrong in my belief that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent... But I can't help all those niggles that keeps me questioning what happened...
And for a struggling Police force at the time.. The emergence of the Dutchman just seemed a little too convienant (IMO)
-
The question you posed jixy have I ever been on a trial.....
Well I have been on a Jury many years ago... And my experience of the other Jurors themselves is worrying..
The opinion of the vast majority of Jurors that I encountered believed the Defendant to be guilty without even listening to the evidence that hadn't yet been put before them... And even when the evidence pointed to them not being guilty they did not change their minds..
They decided without any foundation the Defendant MUST be GUILTY or they would not be in court on TRAIL.....
So I believe this is why the evidence needs to be air tight... This is why a defendant needs proper guidance and everything is fair before and during trial...
Because if the jurors I came across are anything to go by... The defendant is already on an uphill battle!!!!!
On one particular case the Judge was directing the Jury as to the Innocence of the Defendant... But those that had arrived at court and were in the Jury room would not see it any other way... (Guilty)
Because in their Minds... An Innocent person wouldn't even end up in court.. So with that in their minds which ever defendant it was had to be guilty by simply being in court!!!!!
-
Jixy, thank you for responding. I, too, was very interested in the Maddie case at one time, but have "lost track" of it somewhat. I read a lot of the posts, however-----and it has become obvious to me that I am out of touch! It seems, to me, that the longer she remains missing, the more "theories" emerge: I suppose that is inevitable. I hope that one day, her parents get answers, and I don't believe they had anything to do with her disappearance, other than making the mistake of leaving their children alone in the apartment. I feel very sorry for them.
Although I know you don't agree, the Tabak case seems, to me, very suspicious. I realise I only have the info in the media to go on, and that I might be quite wrong in what I believe, but , for the time being , I will stand by my views. Can you answer my questions regarding the fire and rescue equipment and the lack of forensic evidence in the flat?
-
I have never done Jury service, and I would very much like to!
I have never sat in on a murder trial either.
It is a good thing Jixy and I were not both on the jury in Vincent T's trial, as we might have ---um----disagreed!! In fact, I don't know what the judge would have done with someone like me, who wouldn't have been prepared to convict VT of either murder or manslaughter. Well, does anyone know what does happen in such circumstances? It must happen sometimes!
I hope that, on this thread, we treat each other with respect. I do feel a bit responsible, since it was me who started it!
Whether VT is innocent or not, nothing will ever happen unless he says he is innocent, I do realise that. And, I reckon there is a book to write, whether he is innocent or guilty. It is a weird case.
-
Agreed Mrswah.... We all should treat each other with respect, even if we do not agree with each other ?{)(**
Respect is important in any walk of life!!!
So I will make a concerted effort not to be disrespectful to other posters and If I have in the past I can only apologise.....
-
By Jixy
There is no check list of someone being attacked nor is there one for a murderer. Nice calm 'placid' people do such things. Even psychopaths can have charm and that is well documented too
I agree with this statement Jixy, And very famous serial killers who are completeley on the surface Charming and Pleasant and have a grasp of the law that outweighs many peoples knowledge...
Ted Bundy being a case in point...
But it worries me in some instances that we are going more in the direction of American trials where the best performance dictates the outcome of a Trial...
One thing The American System has which I find interesting is the Grand Jury and Video Evidence of those appearing in court that all can see..
Even if someone pleads guilty to a charge... I believe that all video evidence that has been recorded should be played in court...
Maybe we will all be of a better Understanding as to what brought them to there Confession and people would not then question doubts they may have...
The Confession to the Pretend Chaplain was not helpful to anyone really....
If it is not recorded as such it should not be allowed!!!!
All along I say Fair And Open.... Then nobody would have a reason to complain!!!
-
Another thing I would like to make clear.. I have never suggested Anyone else as the perpetrator of this crime..
And if by what I am saying is correct and casts doubt upon the conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak then that in turn means that someone is walking about who should not be....
Questions posed about 8 Fire appliances over 4 days to attend the recovery of one body causes questions..
Asking if Dr Vincent Tabak searched in Dutch poses questions....
Not Understanding that searches that appear impossible poses questions...
The Real Motive for this crime poses Questions...
And witness's that the public would have expected to appear in court and didn't poses questions...
So.... if everyone is happy that Dr Vincent Tabak is the man who commited the Crime... Then someone like myself really should not cause anyone any real concern....
But if the questions that have been posed and posts that have been made even gives a twinge of doubt then this needs addressing...
Because I'll say again... Lets hope they put the correct person away... Because if they didn't... someone who could be quite dangerous is sitting pretty... Knowing that whether the likes of myself or anyone else tries to show concerns we appear to be on a hiding to nothing!!!!!
Virtually the whole country apart from myself and a few other have cast doubts over the Arrest Trial and Conviction of this Dutchman!!!!!
But maybe someone somewhere else feels the same and fears being ridiculed by saying so.....
-
By jixy
what would you like to me to quote? not sure how we can get confused as its normally just 2 people talking.
I'd like to see what you refer to when you post... for instance when you said you read an Interesting Article about Dr Vincent Tabak ...
I too would like to see this article that you are referring too.... You could post a link to it or say if it was just a magazine you saw and its not possible to link to it...
If you refer to a particular piece of information, again it maybe just me, but I like to also look at what you have referred to...
And if you are saying what someone has said from the Article you have read, please put it in a quote.. Then it will be understood to be from that person..
This is unfortunatley why my posts are long..... I could condense them.. But I like to show where I have got my information from.. So anyone can go to the link and see what i'm saying.. Whether they agree with me or not..
Or whether I have misunderstood something...
I try to make it plain and clear where I have found the information and even if it has been a video interview I have transcribed what they have said....
I am not expecting people to transcribe ..But a link always helps in the understanding of the gathering of information that is posted about...
I hope that answers your question....
-
RICHARD MOORHEAD
November 1, 2011 7:44 am
I can understand the judge seeking to make his handling appeal proof.
This from: http://thejusticegap.com/2011/10/vincent-tabak-and-the-law-on-bad-character/
Could someone please explain this statement to me??????
How did the Judge make Dr Vincent Tabak's case APPEAL PROOF?????????
Is this why we have heard nothing from this Dutchman????
-
One of the hopes I have is that Dr Vincent Tabak's family takes a look at this site....
Out of everybody they should know him best.... I would like to see what their opinions are as to what happened to Dr Vincent Tabak!!!
I would like to converse with them and ask them many questions.....
It is rather odd that No one has heard a Dicky Bird from Dr Vincent Tabak... (Dicky Bird.. an English saying meaning keeping quite about something...)
The Tabak Family or the Morson Family... Why Didn't The Morsons appear in court????
And the Tabak family have not expressed an opinion or have tried to get him transferred to a Dutch Prison... whether you believe he is Innocent or Not...
I would have imagined that the Tabak family especially would have tried to get Dr Vincent Tabak Transferred over to Holland so at least his mother can see him as she is a very old lady who loves her son......
So is the Silence Deafening????
And the notoriety of this Prisoner should bring some Press... Every few Years we had The Moors Murders.. The Ripper and The Prisoner who changed his name to Manson, have some sort of coverage in our Tabloid press....
Where as with Myra Hindley she tried to persuade everyone that she has No Idea as to What Ian Bradey Did and was Not Involved.... But the tapes of Leslie Ann Down put paid to that... Which IS EVIDENCE!!!!
Peter Sutcliff raises is head every so often also...
And the Guy who changed his name to Manson has tried to draw peoples attention to the treatment he received when he thought that going into a phsyciartic ward would make his time incarcarated easier!!!!
But Dr Vincent Tabak... Is Tight lipped???? Why Is this???
Why has Dr Vincent Tabak never broken his Silence???? Most Notorious Killers love a bit of fame, they vie for the attention brought to them so that they can relive the crime that they commited .....
But Dr Vincent Tabak has Not done this..... In itself it is a little strange...
If Crimes and serious Crime are either about Bragging Rights or Claims of Innocence then Dr Vincent Tabak should be up there with the Best of them... But he isn't......
And why isn't he...?????
Another possibility that I have just thought of ....... Have they already transferred Dr Vincent Tabak over to Holland and we are not Aware of this possibility???????
All ideas are possible no matter how improbable they may appear to be....!!!
-
Nine, who is Richard Moorhead?
Yes, you are right re Myra Hindley. There was excellent evidence that she (and Ian Brady) was guilty, at least. That is what I call "beyond reasonable doubt". And, even after she had been in prison for umpteen years, there was one thing that she was very good at, and that was selling newspapers. She only had to break wind, and it was all over the front pages. If anyone was sorry that she died, it would have been the owners of the tabloids.
We all became used to that, and to the intermittent updates about Peter Sutcliffe, Rose West, and others. So, why the deafening silence over Vincent Tabak? Is he dead? Is he in Holland? Is it that the British tabloids couldn't care less because he's Dutch? Has he been released under an assumed name? Does nobody remember who he is? Or, has the media been forbidden to talk about him?
One of the many things that is weird about his case.
-
Nine, who is Richard Moorhead?
Yes, you are right re Myra Hindley. There was excellent evidence that she (and Ian Brady) was guilty, at least. That is what I call "beyond reasonable doubt". And, even after she had been in prison for umpteen years, there was one thing that she was very good at, and that was selling newspapers. She only had to break wind, and it was all over the front pages. If anyone was sorry that she died, it would have been the owners of the tabloids.
We all became used to that, and to the intermittent updates about Peter Sutcliffe, Rose West, and others. So, why the deafening silence over Vincent Tabak? Is he dead? Is he in Holland? Is it that the British tabloids couldn't care less because he's Dutch? Has he been released under an assumed name? Does nobody remember who he is? Or, has the media been forbidden to talk about him?
One of the many things that is weird about his case.
Richard Moorhead Like me I believe is No one of significance... But I came across a post he made on the link I provided to the post relating to him....
He like many people of the time were persuaded by the media frenzy of the Porn that was revealed after the trial....
But the comment he made has me thinking...
RICHARD MOORHEAD
November 1, 2011 7:44 am
I can understand the judge seeking to make his handling appeal proof.
This from: http://thejusticegap.com/2011/10/vincent-tabak-and-the-law-on-bad-character/
I do remember something along the lines that he referred to.. But with the passing of time and the removal of a lot of information relating to Dr Vincent Tabak.. I was hoping someone with a bit more Knowledge than myself could clarify this point!!!!!!
WHY IS IT APPEAL PROOF???????
Is that the reason Dr Vincent Tabak has never made any NOISE relating to his INNOCENCE?????
-
Oh, ok, I see who Richard Moorhead is now!
Sally Ramage mentions something about the child porn conviction meaning that he cannot appeal-----but I dont know whether that is true or not, or whether she means that being on the sex offenders register means that he cannot appeal the child porn conviction.
I don't believe his relatives have all written him off: families don't usually write off their own, even if they are in prison for murder, and the relatives accept the person's guilt (and we don't know whether or not they do. ).
-
Oh, ok, I see who Richard Moorhead is now!
Sally Ramage mentions something about the child porn conviction meaning that he cannot appeal-----but I don't know whether that is true or not, or whether she means that being on the sex offenders register means that he cannot appeal the child porn conviction.
I don't believe his relatives have all written him off: families don't usually write off their own, even if they are in prison for murder, and the relatives accept the person's guilt (and we don't know whether or not they do. ).
That is interesting Mrswah... I believe that THIS POINT needs Investigating!!!!
-
If For Whatever reason Dr Vincent Tabak's Conviction was put in such a way.. whether porn related or NOT!!!
That he is unable to have a VOICE... Then it needs ADDRESSING!!!!!
Because No matter whether as i have STATED countless Times, you believe in his INNOCENSE OR GUILT... Then he should be able to STATE whether he FEELS that THE Traill was Unfair OR Just....
I Do Not Understand why they want to SEW this DUTCHMANS Mouth CLOSED!!!!!
Why should it be of IMPORTANCE that a FORGIEN NATIONAL .. Is Jumping up and Down!!!!!
Give Him A REAL AND FAIR CHANCE TO STATE HIS CASE AND STOP PLAYING BLOODY POLITICS!!!!!!
Please I implore people not to just over look something that they may not agree with but apply common sense and logic to what clearly appears to be a Miscarriage of Justice (IMO)..
And When This Dutchman has had every opportunity afforded to him to appeal against the conviction he is serving...
Then.........
AND ONLY THEN...... I MAY BECOME SILENT....
But until that day appears I will continue to Voice my concerns about THIS CONVICTION...
No Matter if I do offend peoples sensibilities.....
I Tried today to OFFER An OLIVE BRANCH.... It wasn't acknowledged or accepted.........
And I'm fully aware that they are active on the site....... Because I Can SEE you ...
Date Registered: October 2016, 04:27:55 PMLocal Time:January 06, 2017, 09:15:08 PMLanguage:EnglishLast Active: Today at 09:14:04 PM
It is easy for anyone one to see.....
Just click on the person you want to see... click on thier name and all will be revealed.. whether they have decided to make themselves invisible or NOT!!!! you can see the last time they were active!!!
And knowing that the person I offered the Olive Branch too has a great interest in this thread I would have thought they may have at least accepted my APOLOGY!!!!!
They nearly but NOT Completeley Convinced me to change My style of Posting....
Because I thought I may have been too Full On!!!!!!
But... with the lack of an Aknowledgement at this time.....
I WILL CONTINUE TO POST IN MY STYLE!!!!!!
And if people don't like it...... As is often said.... Then Tough!!!!
I am Me... And you are You... you can't change me ....And I can't change you...... And honestly I was never expecting to do that !!!!!!!!
-
Date Registered: October 2016, 04:27:55 PMLocal Time:January 06, 2017, 10:08:29 PMLanguage:EnglishLast Active: Today at 10:01:49 PM
See been here all night...
And not a peep... A real shame... because maybe we could have had a proper discussion about Dr Vincent Tabak and the misconception about him...
But you hide... You don't accept my apology and that in it's self is fair enough....
But then please do NOT complain when I do posts you may NOT AGREE with!!!
I know you have been hanging around for quite some time ...... And if you choose not to reply.. then that is ok...
Posts: 115 (1.554 per day)Gender: FemaleAge:N/A
Date Registered: October 2016, 04:27:55 PMLocal Time:January 06, 2017, 08:19:30 PMLanguage:EnglishLast Active: Today at 08:19:25 PM
See around here for hours!!
Nearly Two hours to be precise!!!
But It is up to you whether you reply or NOT!!!
I Am EXTREMELY analytical... And delve into anything that Pricks my interest... I will Analyse to the eighth degree any point that I feel has value....
Whether that point proves that I may be INCORRECT...... And with that should say that I'm prepared to be DISPROVEN!!!
I can't stop.... just because that is the way I may be programmed!!!
And even just before the minute I am about to post this post .. I am checking whether or Not you may have replied to my posts as to Not Be RUDE!!!
And give you an opportunity to tell me I Talk rubbish... Because I am trying to be aware of other peoples convictions!!!!!
-
I will say....
That everything to do with this trial should be ......
Lekker Lekker..!!!
A Dutch saying...
Try accompany that with your hand at a jaunty angle waving by the side of your face!!!!
Believe me I have tried and I could never quite master The Angle the Hand should be placed at no matter how hard I tried!!!!!
And you have a Dutch expression...
Then try to convey that saying that expression to an English Jury who has never heard of it.... Then maybe it May be understood why an English Jury and an English System did not Understand a DUTCHMAN!!!!
-
I want to look at the Trial and what I have discovered...
A Dutch interpreter was brought into the dock to make sure the defendant understood medical terms.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/killer-weeps-over-images-of-joanna-yeates-body-2370602.html
This is news !!!!!
This throws up allsorts!!!
So we have... interpretor at inital apperance.
No Iterpretor at The Old Bailey
And an interpreter at part of the trial..
This gets more intrguing!!
So... interpreter at first apperance...
No interpreter at the old Bailey i'm aware of..
And interpreter used in part of his trial???
As I say.. ivestigations need to be made..
Who decided that an interpretor was needed????
Also... why didn't he have one before..... Who in their wisdom decided what parts of the English Language that Dr Vincent Tabak really understood!!!!
This brings more concerns...........
Now with Law interpretors have certain conditions to follow... In Police custody for instance and in court...
Interpreter for the defendant
If a defendant requires an interpreter to interpret the proceedings, it is the responsibility of the court to arrange for the attendance and payment of an independent interpreter. See Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 section 19(3)(b) (Archbold 6-39). Where there is more than one defendant, each should have a separate interpreter.
A plea is uninformed if the defendant has not fully understood the nature of the case to which he is pleading because of his inadequate understanding of the language and because of the inadequate explanation given by his legal representative See Cuscani v UK (2002 All ER (D) 139 (Sep).
It is important that CPS liaise with the court and the police to ensure that the court is aware of the need for an independent interpreter and any other relevant information, in order that an appropriate interpreter can be selected (see also Archbold 4-37).
It is important that an interpreter used at a police station or in the course of investigations by other investigating agencies is not engaged to interpret in the courtroom. If, however, it is not possible to find another interpreter (for example, where the language is rare) the Court and all parties must be notified of the intention to use the same interpreter for the court proceedings, (see Note for Guidance C13 A in PACE Code C) See also Regina (Bozturk) v Thames Magistrates' Court Times Law Reports 26 June 2001.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/interpreters/
I am Confused???????
At what point was it ever decided that Dr Vincent Tabak understood what the charges brought against him were???
If he needs an Interpreter in Court for Medical explanations, how was that first explained to him when he was being questioned by the Police????
Where are the transcribed Documents of the Interpreter??
This is weird.......... So when the trial was being recorded by the Stenographer did she write the interpreters Dutch she had spoken to Dr Vincent Tabak???
I say this because you would need an accurate record of the Dutch that the Translator said to make sure that it was correct, incase at some point it needed to be challenged..
Was the interpreter Independant???
Who supplied the Interpreter???? The Defence???? Should have been.....
I am wholly flumoxed at this point in time.. I really do need to understand this and it's possible implications regarding Dr Vincent Tabak!!!!
I am going to look into this....
I do remember on his first court appearance that he had an Interpreter by his side!!!
So.. Investigations needed...
-
The Interpreter............. EDIT...(or how to torture a Dutchman)
I have many questions regarding the Interpreter and the use:
When Dr Vincent Tabak first appears in court to be charged on the 24th January 2011 he had an Interpreter by his side as well as Police Officer..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349921/Joanna-Yeatess-6ft-4ins-neighbour-Vincent-Tabak-charged-murder.html
He is due to appear before Bristol Crown Court tomorrow when he is expected to apply for bail.
Well we Know that didn't happen.... My Underlying Question is WHY??
So If he has needed an Interpreter for his appearance to be charged by the same token there must have been an Interpreter at the Police station I would have Imagined!!
4.4. Interpreters for defendants: Police responsibilities
4.4.1.Where the police or other investigating agency charge a person with an offence
and detain or bail that person for a court hearing within two working days of
charge (eg the following day or over a weekend or a Bank Holiday), because of
shortage of time the police or other investigating agency will arrange the
interpreter for the court hearing. It is important that so far as possible the
interpreter arranged for court is not the one who interpreted at the police
station either for the police or the defendant’s solicitors at any stage prior
to the court appearance. If however it is not possible to find another
interpreter (for example where the language is rare) then the Court and all
parties must be notified of the intention to use the same interpreter for the
court proceedings and agree to that course of action.
So if the Police had to arrange an Interpreter for his court apperance, then surely he must have had one at the Police station?????
If he has an Interpreter at the Police Station then there should be an amount of Dutch that needs writting and Translating....
Does this Initial Interview with Police :
(A): Have a Dutch Interpreter
(B): Have Written translated text
(C): Did He Have an Interpreter
I came to the Impression he must have... Am I wrong????
If they follow Protocol for an Interpreter to be in attendance in court, then surley that would suggest that Dr Vincent Tabak had an Interpreter when he was in custody!!!
A source told The Sun: “It was decided to move him for his own good. There are a lot of local people in Bristol Prison and he could have been at risk because feelings locally are running high.”
The Dutchman yesterday appeared at Bristol Crown Court wearing the same bright red sweater and borrowed glasses he wore at his first court hearing on Monday.
Why hasn't he got his own glasses back by this point????? How has he been able to see what he is doing or make decissions... He obviously wears prescription glasses!!
http://swns.com/news/vincent-tabak-moved-prison-over-attack-fears-14290/
He was brought into the dock at Court One chained to a custody officer with his hands handcuffed behind his back.
So... where is the Interpreter????? They mentioned one being there when he appeared for his first time...
Paul Cook, defending the Dutch academic, confirmed his client did not wish to make an application for bail. He was remanded in custody and will appear in a preliminary hearing on Monday January 31.
Ok......... If he is in court for a Bail hearing without an Interpreter , does he really understand what Bail is????
Where is the Interpreter????????
This doesn't appear to be fair......
A Forgien National without an Interpreter appearing in court not being able to see properly...
Sensory Deprivation.....
If they have been Interviewing him without an Interpreter at the Police station and all the time he's wearing glasses that he has borrowed that where obviously not made for him to see through... How can that be fair and right?????
He must have been completeley disoriented!!!
Wow....
Lets take a look at this........... "SENSORY DEPRIVATION"!!!!!
Now it sounds like an Interrogation Technique to me........
The way in which the physical Enviroment- can effect the physiological state of suspects whilst they are in custody,have been discussed in detail by Hinkle(1961) and Shallice (1974),Social Isolation,sensory deprevation.fatigue,hunger,the lack of sleep, physical and emotional Pain,and threats are all factors that can powerfully influence the decision making of suspects and the reliability of their statements. According to Hindle (1961), these factors commonly result in impaired judgement, mental confusion and disorientation,and increasing suggestability.
Oh WOW...... So maybe this torturous approach lead to Dr Vincent Tabak not APPLYING FOR BAIL!!!!!!!!!!!
And why they gained a FALSE CONFESSION!!!!!!!!! (IMO)
However....... the personality of a man and his attitude towards the experience that he is undergoing will affect his ability to withstand it
My Lord...........
Think we'll hang fire with the Interpreter for a Mo.....
I'm sat here in complete shock..... I'm just trying to get my head around what they actually did to this DUTCHMAN!!!!
Lets look at the first quote...
If he has had his means of sight taken away from him and has been deprived as we are ALL Well aware of the contact with Family or his girlfriend for nearly 25 Days..
Been moved prisons 3 times ... Put in a Prison with a glass door...
And I'm listening to NO CRAP about it being for his own supposed protection!!!!!!
These are Torture Techniques!!!!!!!!!
Sensory Deprivation
Sensory deprivation is perhaps the most popular type of torture. Otherwise known as perceptual isolation, sensory deprivation involves removing stimuli – light, sound, smell – from one or more of the senses. On an everyday basis, sensory deprivation remains the punishment for disobedient prisoners around the world. Almost every prison in the world has a solitary confinement cell that has some level of sensory deprivation, and some inmates are subjected to such conditions for months and even years at a time.
VISION!!!!!!
http://www.hightech-edge.com/effects-sensory-deprivation-cia-torture/10430/
Oh My.........
So the Isolation in Long Larton in a Glass fronted Cell with the inability to see properly... And not having anyone he knows see him for nearly 25 days classes as TORTURE in my Book!!!! (IMO)
This is Outrageous....
Couple that with an IMAGINARY CHAPLAIN... telling you he's going to the Authorities to tell them that you have confessed to a murder you have NOT committed...
Leave him in clothes that smell and god know where they came from as he didn't have anyone to bring him his own clothing as they did not see him...
And he was a smart and tidy young man....
Add too the fact the second quote states depends on their personality...
Well we all know about the PLACID DUTCHMAN!!!!!
In the Policemans own words:
A very Placid individual to deal with
And you have a SITTING DUCK!!!!!!!!!!!
They are down right disgraceful...(IMO)
They May dress it up in what ever guise they want but I am NOT Falling for it!!!!
They deprived a Placid man of one of his senses, they isolated him, the put him in a cell where he would have NO Privacy what so ever and to Top It all they have someone lie about what he was supposed to have said!!!!
I'm definetley going to have to come back to this Interpreter business... I'm sticking with this at the moment!!!
How long did this Treatment of Dr Vincent Tabak go on for??????
Torture techniques are used on people who are supposed to be in places and country who use this as a standard technique... Not in what I thought was CIVILIZED UK!!!!
I actually feel sick.....
How have we as a Nation come to treat a Forgein National that have No way of fighting a system they don't understand and use how ever subtle you may think this is .... It's still a Torturous Technique ... It is still an interrogation Technique that has been used around the world for people they think deserve this type of treatment..(IMO)
Personally I think Torture in any form is abhorent!!!!
Does this throw up the question as to the Safety of this Conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak!!!!!!!!
In My Opinion .... YES!!!!!
NEVER MIND GETTING SHOUTY....... I FEEL LIKE GETTING SWEARY!!!!!!!!
So you have a Dutch National in custody, who may or may not have an Interpreter, who has had one of his senses removed, who has not been given contact with his girlfriend or family for roughly 25 days, is in clothes that are probably not his....
We don't even know what sleep was available to him?????
Probably not too much when you are in a GLASS FRONTED CELL!!!!!!!!!!! (And don't tell me it was because he was SUICIDAL!!!........ Because I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU!!!!!!)
Just another Technique to wear this prisoner down!!!!!!!
I don't know about anyone else but i'm sat her in total shock, when I realise what they actually did to this POOR MAN!!!!!
So you still think the Porns real?????
The Child Porn????????
The Confession safe????
The Searches that he could not have done???
The Supposed DNA???
I think it's all a BIG FAT LIE!!!!!!! (IMO)
HE WAS AN EASY PLACID MAN TO MANIPULATE.... That was all.....
If This is Not DURESS then GOD HELP US!!!!!!!!!!!
If this technique was used right up until he appears in court.. then its No suprise he pleaded GUILTY to Manslaughter and sat in a DOCK SOBBING!!!!!!!
They could at will give and remove his glasses at anytime..... who is to know!!!!!!!
Set of Disgraceful people!!!!! (IMO)
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GtB65IADRjIC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=sensory+deprivation+in+police+custody&source=bl&ots=83h7R1HdvK&sig=Cw_6Stfmkv7dJvHcbk3NvoPfp18&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwivkKf4gLLRAhXCORQKHQYnAPEQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=sensory%20deprivation%20in%20police%20custody&f=false
https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/media/22379/1596-Use%20of%20interpreters%20policy%20document.pdf
THEY TORTURED A PLACID DUTCHMAN(IMO)!!!!!!!
Is this way they treated Dr Vincent Tabak classed as White Torture ???? Or a more subtler form of White Torture???????
White torture is a type of psychological torture, that includes extreme sensory deprivation and isolation. Carrying out this type of torture makes the detainee lose personal identity through long periods of isolation.
Once Prisoners are worn down, with these methods No matter how subtle they appear to be , the Prisoner loses their Identity and control... And will confess to ANYTHING(IMO)
Losing SIGHT
Losing CONTACT WITH FAMILY AND GIRLFRIEND (for nearly 25 days!!)
Losing PRIVACY
What else did Dr Vincent Tabak LOSE!!!!!
This man wears GLASSES in his every day life No matter what he is doing!!!!
I always wondered why his eyes looked weird on the photo that is used when he's been arrested... It doesn't really even look like him (IMO)
Picture 5 is of him once arrested!!!!!
Does this mean his Human Rights Were Violated!!!!!!
Oh Yes And to top it all...... where was the Phsycological Evaluation of this man!!!!!!!!
Never had a Dr In court to say about his Mental STATE!!!!
I wonder WHY!!!!!
-
What is she wearing................
Everytime you re-read something, you find a new revelation:!!!!
The post I did before of Joanna Yeates being Fully clothed when found with Nothing missing... below
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg369628;topicseen#msg369628
There has quite often been speculation as to whether Joanna Yeates had a coat on (read above post)...
Whether she was Abducted, whether she arrived home and was there far longer than the Prosecution will have us believe (IMO)...
But The one thing I have always tried to determine is the "PINK T-SHIRT"..
We have the CCTV of her in the Ram Pub.... But when she emeges from the Toilet it's in Black And White so you cannot determine the colour...
But I did Notice the little pleates in the front of it...(or puckering)... So that in itself makes the top distinctive...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8825277/Court-shown-Joanna-Yeates-bar-CCTV.html
So the T- shirt whether agreeing it is Pink is plain and to me looks a little more like a top than T-shirt...
But lets not split hairs at this point.... Lets call it a T-shirt for arguments sake...
It a plain Pink T-shirt that, made Dr Vincent tabak re-inact the scene he had viewed on the morning of the 17th December 2010
Remember the girl in the car boot!!!!!
So on saying that ..... why am I questioning it???
Good point!!!
Because when ever you read an Article or text that's written we all skim at some point because we know what is coming so some not all people will not take all the detail in, and the likelyhood of going back to something years later, its fairly safe to say is not likely...
So... I have all my tabs open as usual and I'm looking at link that I have been made available when i come across this...
Now I know I have READ this Article plenty times... But I've obviously skimmed across it, or else I would have picked up on this little nugget before....
There were apparent blood stains on her flower patterned pink top but no signs of injuries to her genitalia, Dr Delaney said.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/killer-weeps-over-images-of-joanna-yeates-body-2370602.html
Hellooooooo......... Did you see it ...coz I've missed this plenty of times!!!!!
flower patterned pink top
Just incase you missed that !!!!!!!!
FLOWER....... FLOWER..... (PATTERENED)
So .. No plain PINK Top then??????????????????????
What the What what!!!!......
Why has this info slipped by???????
Because we are all drawn to the fact that the top she wore was PINK!!!!!!!!!!!
We know what it looks like because of the CCTV in The Ram and that other picture of her Holding Bernard in a pink top....
Girl in a boot in a pink top.....
We are programmed to THINK PINK!!!!!!!!! How many times was it mentioned before he went on Trial in October 2011....
That Joanna Yeates wore a PINK T-SHIRT..... numerous times I believe... So when it's reported what happened at trial.... we skim... because we have seen that information before plenty of times....
Another thing that gets my goat is the description of the missing sock......
How can they state that this sock is SIZE 5 ???????
I don't think there is anywhere you can buy socks in SIZE 5
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8241098/Joanna-Yeates-may-have-been-strangled-with-own-sock.html
Mr Jones said he was “keeping an open mind” on the possibility that the size 5 sock had been used as the murder weapon, and on the suggestion that the killer kept it as a souvenir.
Sock come in a range of sizes:
SIZE CHART
SOCK SIZE UK & IRE SHOE SIZE EU SHOE SIZE
S 2–5 34–38
M 5–8 38–42
L 8–11 42–46
XL 11–14.5 46–50
http://www.bridgedale.com/sock-sizing
Women’s sizing chart
Size Size Code Sizing Letter UK Europe USA CM
Small 5 w S 3 - 4½ 35 - 37 4 - 6½ 21.0 - 23.0
Medium 6 w M 5 - 6½ 38 - 40 6½ - 8 23.0 - 25.0
Large 7 w L 7 - 8½ 41 - 43 8½ - 10 25.0 - 27.0
So how can you claim that the Missing Sock was a SIZE 5????????
So... Does this now bring into question whether she could have actually left her flat??
CJ said he'd heard people at the little Gate...
We have the Healeys Cider And the Tattinger Reims champagne cork....
We have a Policeman who Initially says "FULLY CLOTHED" more than once....
And if we are using neighbours and scream to determine time of death, we have Kingdom saying he heard someone shout :Help Me"... Mid Morning on the 18th December 2011
And we now have apparently what appears to be a completeley different Top on to what we can see her wearing when exiting the Toilet at The Bristol Ram!!!!!!
Oh my Lordy Lord.... Speechless!!!!!!!
Footage of the landscape architect drinking with friends in the Ram pub in Bristol has been released after it was shown to the jury at Vincent Tabak's murder trial.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8825277/Court-shown-Joanna-Yeates-bar-CCTV.html
So NOBODY knew what this Tshirt really looked like till after the Trial.....
Again..... Its a PLAIN TSHIRT whether it is PINK or NOT!!!!!!!! (Flower Patterned)
And we didn't know until after they banged the Dutchman up!!!!!!!!
So the Yeates family wouldn't have been able to confirm or deny whether the clothes she was found in where the clothes she wore on the Friday 17th December 2010... (they would have been too distraught).....
Because I do not believe they saw The Bristol Ram footage Till court...
And when she was discovered I do not believe that they would have been paying attention to the clothes she was wearing...(distraught)
So..... How did they identify that the clothes that Joanna Yeates was found in were the same clothes she was seen wearing in The Bristol Ram PUB!!!!!!!!!!!
The T-shirt is puckered as she exits and NOT FLOWERED PATTERNED And the Back of the T-Shirt is also PLAIN!!!!!
The Article that the Flower Patterned Pink T-Shirt is mentioned in... I believe is the day that the Yeates family stayed away from court... The Friday!!!
-
Now with my above post it brings another possibilty to mind why her top was rucked up....
Was it to hide the fact that there was a FLOWER PATTERN on there!!!!!!!
Now there's a thought..........
-
Nine. I haven't been following this thread too closely recently but can I ask you something. What is it that convinces you that Vincent Tabak might be innocent?
-
Nine. I haven't been following this thread too closely recently but can I ask you something. What is it that convinces you that Vincent Tabak might be innocent?
Hi john
I think you need conviction in anything you believe in..... I would say that after the trial at first like the crowd I went with what was said... But was still in two minds even at that time........
And There were things that always niggled me..
And the one of the first things that really bothered me was his Defence...
Now I do not believe your personal opinions should come into it when your argueing for a Defendant unless they are supporting your client...
I couldn't get my head around the fact that his Lawyer was busy letting the Jury know how dispicable his client was!!!
I'm thinking, hey... your supposed to be helping this guy here, not burying him!!
I've given examples of his Defence team before,,... Yesterday I found another quote...
I’m not going to ask you to like Vincent Tabak – there’s frankly nothing to like.
WILLIAM CLEGG QC, TABAK DEFENCE.
https://www.channel4.com/news/tabak-determined-to-kill-prosecution-claim
As you can see ... Dr Vincent Tabak had already pleaded guilty to Manslaughter... All The Defences job was at that point was to explain to a Jury that it was Manslaughter and Not Murder!!!
And these statements which they are many... are not the actions of what I believe A Defence Lawyer should be!!!!
It just kept niggle at me as I said, and then I started to really think about it...
The other thing that I couldn't understand, was why a guy would wake up one morning, go to work come home , and in no time at all go next door to a neighbour he had never met and kill her....
It seem fantastical to me... Then bob off to he shops....
There are Alarm Bells ringing with this (IMO)
I couldn't understand ,that if this was the case why he would move her..... He really would have no need to move her..
If you are as calculating as people say you are, then the Calculations should add up!!
He doesn't need Asda as an Alibi... His Computer would do that... !!!!
He could have used the time to clean up... No one would have suspected him...
But then to bring a body into your own flat where body fluids would leak and into your own car ... seems far riskier than, leaving her in situe...
And over the years it would always be there.... I start thinking about it..
trying to understand why a man who was Calculating, Lying,Manipulative, would not be able to give a comprehensive account of what took place, and instead sat there crying....
I kept thinking , why is he not explaning this better, why isn't he really trying to convince a Jury that it is Manslaughter.....
Also the story that he tried to implicate CJ.. didn't really ring true... I'm sure he could have come up with a far more convincing and incriminating story if his intension was to incriminate the Landlord..
At that point NO ONE knew when or if Joanna Yeates had died in her Flat or left it....... There was no real evidence either way as to whether she had left her flat or someone brought her things back!!!! (And I believe that true today..)
So how could he really be trying to incriminate the Landlord at that time 31st December 2010..
No one knew anything... At this juncture they had arrested the landlord and his face was splashed ALL over the media...
And to say his car moved is no biggy.....
The fact that CJ And Tanja Morson were not called to give evidence seemed completely wrong....
If CJ was the man he was accusing or insinuating was the killer , then you would expect that man to Defend himself, you would expect that man to go to court and say the accusations of his tennant were wholly untrue and that he was a fantasist....
You would give your account of that tennants, general behaviour.... After all you are the Landlord, you are the head I believe of the Neighbourhood watch scheme and you have apparently witnessed someone at the little gate... Also if the Prosecution were saying this is the man he tried to incriminate... "here he is"... that would have gone along way into proving that was true...
Even give a character reference of your beautiful young tennant who's life has been robbed from her......
Talk about helping her boyfriend to get to Sheffield, there were so many things that CJ could have said, Yet he wasn't called and I believe the Nation assumed he would be called....
Tanja Morson.... Now out of everyone she should have been called, she could have said anything about him whether good or bad , she'd be under oath so, she would have no reason to lie,..
Tanja Morson could have cohobarrated that the Bicycle cover existed... She could have said about whether or not his actions , behaviour was different..... The were a miriad of questions both the Defence and Prosecution alike could have posed to her...
His own family... If the defence were trying to show that this was not his character why wasn't his brother or sister called to give evidence to what they know their brother to be....
And confessions in general I am not totally sold on.... They need really hard evidence to back them up !!!
With the supposed Chaplain confession, I couldn't understand that!!! I couldn't understand why a man of the cloth would divulge a confession whether a person believes in god or not... It's not really what they do......
My husband cannot understand why people would confess to a crime they havent committed , because he says he never would do that...
But it's been proven time and again that people do confess....
I tried to apply common sense to this John...
I felt uncomfortable with the media after the trial... If it wasn't proven in court, you can say absolutley anything about anyone and the fact that they are not going to take you to court for slander as they also may not know this is what has been said..
You are on a pretty safe bet as to say completely anything!!!! The Porn bothered me because of the girl in the pink T-shirt in the boot of the car.....
It just appeared ludicrous to me... I thought what are the chances of that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If it's supposed to be a spontaneous attack... why would he have a picture of a girl in a Pink T-shirt in the boot of a car,so as to replicate this later...
He couldn't have stalked Joanna Yeates as he was away the majority of the time from when her and Greg moved in.. he'd only been home a few days before the murder, so it has to be a spontaneous attack..... that they are implying.
So you wouldn't be replicating anything... not to the point of her wearing the same clothes... Now thats Fanatastical...
I could never understand why If he was the MAN for this crime, why they would remove information about this case from the internet!!!!
There's a wealth of information about various crimes but the information doesn't get removed... You don't get whole forums removed... Of course in such forums people say outrageous things , but that is forum all over the internet that could be applied too.. But they don't get removed...
Posts get removed... Not whole forums!!!!!!
I tried to understand why the silence.... I thought he'd have been transferred by now...
But as I said for years this just kept pecking at my head!!!
And I thought i'll try and find out as much as I can about this and then make a decision as to what I think and believe...
The list below where questions I couldn't get out of my head...
(1):Things like how hard is it to move a dead weight on your own???? Bothered me
(2):Lack of body fluids
(3):No DNA in either flat of Dr Vincent Tabak and Joanna Yeates??
(4):The sudden arrest after struggling with no idea..??
(5):The crying girl not being played in court??
(6):His phone call not being played in court??
(7):Cj not being in court ??
(8):Tanja not being in court??
(9):I could never understand why her handbag was not mentioned!! ( I don't mean the rucksack)..
(10:Fire engines galore at the scene, but where were the fire brigade in court??
(11):The lack of snow on the ground when she walks past waitrose then goes in??
(12): The Pizza... why take it??? made no sense??
(13): Confession to the chaplain that the chaplain divulged and shouldn't if he was a real chaplain!!
(14) :partical DNA
(15): peoples original information changing when they were in court
(16): Her mother being convinced she had been abducted!!
(17):No other woman saying he had tried it on with them..
(18):He was socially awkward.. why suddenly be able to engage with a stranger.
(19):Why the cider wasn't removed
(20):How her phone still worked after all those days, if she died on the friday..
(21):The defence not liking their client and telling the Jury so..
(22):Timestamps missing from Video's
(23):The editing of video's
(24): A Real Motive
Now I Can definatley say about the editing of video's and it's probably not what you may think I'm reffering too.....
I was on a forum in the beinging following the trial and The Avon and Somerset Police put up a Video of Joanna Yeates being in waitrose...It had been shown to the jury, it was the first time anyone had seen this video.So everyone was anyalising this video and started to make comments on how it appeared that she was being watched by a man who was in waitrose... Now this man at the Time could have been Dr Vincent Tabak, we were not to know anything about his movements so it really shouldn't have been a problem....
But within in a short time, less than an hour if I remember correctly,, this video was slicked... They removed it from the internet and edited it before they put it back on again....They cut the people off in the video so you could not see them properly anymore... It made it difficult to see their movement and therefore you could no longer say that the man in the black coat was watching her..... You could only see this man from his waist downwards....
Now it may seem like something and nothing, but if your not trying to hide something, why interfer with a video that has just been shown in court!!!!!
It shouldn't and wouldn't make any difference to the procedings... (And as I say people were under the impression it could have been Dr Vincent Tabak following her)..
I believe you can now see the video in its entireity now... but i just couldn't understand the reason for what they did... And then for the forum to be removed , it all seemed very strange.....
Too many niggly thing that didn't add up..... No real motive No real proof of anything, the only thing that he really had against him was his admission or confession which ever way you want to look at it, that he had committed this crime...
And I have seen many times that people do admit to things that they have never done!!!!!
And with so many questions and No real answers I started to try to look into what really happened , because I began to believe that what was said was not true.....
I do believe the phone working perplexing.... From Friday morning 17th December 2010 till the 19th December At 9:00pm, with no charging and plenty of use this phone still had battery life...
It just suprises me... we don't know what phone she had but still it seems odd that it would still work as she was recieving texts etc.. even if she wasn't replying!!!!!!
EDIT:....
I also say if you read my posts John which i know are long, I can't see how he had the time.
I can't understand why searches he was supposed to have done he wasn't home for...
And the clothes she appears to have been found in seem to differ from what she was wearing on Friday the 17th December 2010 which you can see on video's....
There are still the odd drawing of Joanna Yeates on the Internet and I would never put them on here or anywhere, but they show her in blue Jeans, I'm sure the Jeans she has on in Tesco are Black...
The T-shirt is pulled right up, so if there is a flower pattern on the front you wouldn't be able to see it....
The fact we don't see her paying for this PIZZA but see her leaving with it from Tesco's.....
And If there are more questions than what I started with, that add up even less, then it convinces me that a man who couldn't make a search because he wasn't at home, who wasn't given access to friends or family, was a man that could easily have made a confession that wasn't true.....
The lack of Dutch.....
And of course all of the other information that I have posted about!!!!!
-
I am not sure he even made a confession. He did not say he had killed Joanna, he said that he was going to plead guilty (ie he said that he would say he killed Joanna. ) I think there is a difference.
What really makes me doubt his guilt, is that they found no forensic evidence in either Joanna's flat or his. I doubt if he had the time or the know how to clean up that thoroughly before collecting Tanja, and I doubt whether he could have done much once she was back home.
The prosecution had to rely on enhanced DNA, which is known to sometimes be unreliable. The flat and VT's clothes---and the front door that was made such a fuss about---should have been crawling with good forensic evidence. If VT did not kill Joanna in her flat, this makes a mockery of his story.
At the time Jo's body was found, it was said that she had no injuries apart from strangulation marks, and that there was no evidence of a sexual attack. At the trial, she suddenly has 43 injuries, and VT killed her for sexual reasons. Weird!!
The inquest was secret, the use of fire equipment to recover the body was barely reported, the media has been deafeningly silent since, the police had already made one cock up, they were under pressure to solve the crime , etc etc etc.
So, this is an outline of why I think he is innocent-----oh, and no previous form whatsoever, no book written about him , nobody talking-------------.
-
I agree mrswah... At No time whatsoever does Dr Vincent Tabak actually say that he killed Joannaa Yeates!!!!!!!
-
I'll say something else John....
Now some years ago, there was an advert on the televison, and it was a scene where I think this lady had come out of a shop or something along those line, I think she had a purse in her hands...
Anyway, there are some youths coming towards her.... This Advert goes into slow motion as one of the youths bangs into her what looks like delibratley and she drops her purse and he picks it up......
Now this leaves you with the impression that this young lad was intent on robbing this woman..
But then it shows the same incident again at full speed and completes what actually happened and yes.....
He does bump into her and knocks her purse out of her hand, But then he picks it up and GIVES it back to her...
So the whole incident is now seen in a different light...
What I'm really trying to say is.... If all the information is not made avaiable which could have been ie...
CJ and Tanja at court and the other things I have said then, you can put whatever spin you like on the Information you allow people to see...
It doesn't mean that it is TRUE!!!!!!
-
In his CV, Tabak says he is fluent in English and lists his hobbies as travelling in South and North America and Asia, photography and sailing.Tabak, a trilingual engineer, is an expert in the flow of people through buildings, including sports venues He worked for an english company so he could obviously speak and understand it or it would be impossible to do his job he was also fluent in German too .A Dutch interpreter was present but Tabak did not appear to have any difficulty understanding proceedings during the two-minute hearing.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-vincent-tabak-in-court-174288
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/321964/vincents-cool-calm-incredibly-intelligent/
-
In his CV, Tabak says he is fluent in English and lists his hobbies as travelling in South and North America and Asia, photography and sailing.Tabak, a trilingual engineer, is an expert in the flow of people through buildings, including sports venues He worked for an english company so he could obviously speak and understand it or it would be impossible to do his job he was also fluent in German too .A Dutch interpreter was present but Tabak did not appear to have any difficulty understanding proceedings during the two-minute hearing.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-vincent-tabak-in-court-174288
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/321964/vincents-cool-calm-incredibly-intelligent/
Being Fluent in a language does not mean that you completely understand everything to do with that language..
My brother inlaw is Dutch... he's Fluent in English, But he doesn't understand all of the english language and the quirks that go with it...
I'll give you an example.....
I think it was the American X Factor... And the American public could not understand Cheryl Cole who spoke ENGLISH...
And as we know the Vast Amount of American's themselves speak ENGLISH...
Her accent stopped U.S. audiences understanding her say TV bosses
Network have pulled the plug on Cheryl's £1.2m contract
Co-host Nicole Scherzinger will take her place on the judging panel
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1390959/Cheryl-Cole-SACKED-X-Factor-USA-Geordie-accent.html#ixzz4VGzUHKwW
So Fleuncey in a Language Doesn't mean a Total understanding of that Language... And when it comes to Law and the understanding of a Trial, you are not likely to Understand all the terminology that is used...
Most English speaking people in this country struggle with Legal Jargon... So why would a Forgein national suddenly be an expert!!!!!!!
-
Never said he was an expert but that he had an understanding & who are you to say he didn't , you weren't in court , you have never met the man or even spoke to him so all you are going on is your interpretation of what might be total hearsay , conjecture & pure self indulgence, you seem happy to rise points to fit your arguments without any actual fact or knowledge when it is reported in the article I have shared it states he fully understood & accepted the wording and meanings of the court proceedings ...so basically you are talking rubbish to make it fit your biased and inaccurate thoughts, ideas and arguments .
-
Never said he was an expert but that he had an understanding & who are you to say he didn't , you weren't in court , you have never met the man or even spoke to him so all you are going on is your interpretation of what might be total hearsay , conjecture & pure self indulgence, you seem happy to rise points to fit your arguments without any actual fact or knowledge when it is reported in the article I have shared it states he fully understood & accepted the wording and meanings of the court proceedings ...so basically you are talking rubbish to make it fit your biased and inaccurate thoughts, ideas and arguments .
Afternoon Paul... have you just taken over from where Jixy left off!!!!
Please read what I have said and whether some of the things i say you disagree with.... Don't just say I talk rubbish...I am just a forum user ,with an opinion that i TRUELY BELIEVE that Dr Vincent Tabak is INNOCENT!!!!
You may or may not agree with anything I have said, but I''m putting back which was taken away from the internet, I'm adding information that people were not even aware of at the time...
Show me how he had time to do an INTERNET SEARCH when he was NOT AT HOME.....
Remember the two that he did at: 1:46am and 1:47am
on the 18th December 2010 when he was out picking up Tanja and having a burger.... And could not have been home!!!!
Your correct I have never met this man and I was never in court, But that doesn't stop me from having an informed opinion on something ... And in the same vain you cannot say that what I say is incorrect...
You don't know him either.... Or do you???
You weren't in court?? Or were you????
You could have a connection to this trial and case that I am NOT AWARE OF!!!!!
So... give me some answers to what I have said instead of saying the Odd thing you don't agree with that I am saying is ........That I am Talking RUBBISH!!!!
Thank you... I would appreciate that...........
-
Oh Yes......
And please answer Mrswah's question about the 8 Fire Appliances that were used over 4 days to recover the body of Joanna Yeates...
They obviously didn't need them after she was at the Mortuary on the 25th December 2010.... So why were they still being used right up until the 29th December 2010...
What else was at the scene???????
-
Oh I'm big enough & ugly enough to fight my own corner not taking over from jixy or anyone , yes you are entitled to your opinions but when serious journalists , reports for national and regional press defeat your every point hands down most members of the public would be more willing to accept the words of professionals rather than those of an Amateur Sleuth (no offence intended) . The problem with internet searches are they are open to being manipulated to say what you or anyone wants them to say , if you search hard enough you'll find the Moon Landings never actually took place but were filmed in a Hollywood Film Studio surely you must see any argument based solely on internet findings is open to ridicule and most if not all your points are based on such as you weren't in court, you don't know any of the participants and apart from a few hours research you have basically no facts to support your case sso we have to believe your opinion, beliefs or your gut feelings hardly a solid base to build a case on .
-
What else was at the scene well it wasn't you ,Mrswah or me was it and as for why were there 8 fire appliances there maybe it might be more productive asking the Fire & Rescue services who will have the actual facts not just conjecture , thoughts or impulses asking such questions is like saying why do cows lie down when it rains ?
-
Oh I'm big enough & ugly enough to fight my own corner not taking over from jixy or anyone , yes you are entitled to your opinions but when serious journalists , reports for national and regional press defeat your every point hands down most members of the public would be more willing to accept the words of professionals rather than those of an Amateur Sleuth (no offence intended) . The problem with internet searches are they are open to being manipulated to say what you or anyone wants them to say , if you search hard enough you'll find the Moon Landings never actually took place but were filmed in a Hollywood Film Studio surely you must see any argument based solely on internet findings is open to ridicule and most if not all your points are based on such as you weren't in court, you don't know any of the participants and apart from a few hours research you have basically no facts to support your case sso we have to believe your opinion, beliefs or your gut feelings hardly a solid base to build a case on .
Totally agree on some levels... But Not all!
But it is the papers that Sally Ramage wrote that i have ultimateley used to gain times etc, as to the where abouts of Dr Vincent Tabak..
The Prosecutions own timelines... The Defences Timelines... Nothing to do with the media... It's from a Lawyers own Paper and the transcripts from the trial that she attended...
Its all the information that is held within the Papers that Sally Ramage has written about and has re publish year on year....
I can roughly get from the media certain pieces of info and I agree they could be inacurate... But when I have Transcribed the words from the mouth of different Police Officers that are on the Internet being interviewed on video, I cannot be making that up...
When i look at the leveson inquiry... I cannot be making that up...
when I look at video that CJ himself is videoed saying and is there for all to see... I cannot be making that up...
When I find from The Leveson Enquiry that DCI Phil jones didn't take charge of this investigation until the 27th December 2010 .. I wonder what info he already knew and in what detail before he started arresting CJ....
And as I have posted many times all of the other information which in my opinion does NOT ADD UP..... Then I'll keep questioning it.....
Can you actually imaging how difficult it was for me to STICK my neckout... knowing I'd be upsetting firstly the Yeates Family... But a Nation would think that i am a complete lunatic to even suggest that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent....
Never mind publically stating it not knowing what type of reaction I would gain....
I'm not doing it for fame... Or else my Name would be emblazend across every post.....
I would not be thinking every time I post that the poor Yeates family may read this and feel someone is just racking over the coals... Just to get some sort of sick attention...
I will say again and again..... Things just don't add up.... And when they don't add up.... SOMEONE IS LYING!!!!
-
It was in the papers that the Fans at Hillsborough were to blame Oooops but they weren't as since has been proved so the press lie and make things up , strange how you will use the press when it suits your argument but dismiss them when it proves you wrong is that because it's either your way or the highway .
The prosecution had to rely on enhanced DNA, which is known to sometimes be unreliable. BUT NOT ALWAYS
The flat and VT's clothes---and the front door that was made such a fuss about---should have been crawling with good forensic evidence. WHY HOW DO YOU KNOW IT WASN'T CLEANED DOWN, THAT HE NEVER TOOK PRECAUTIONS NOT TO LEAVE ANY ?
-
The Defence counsel, William Clegg, QC, had earlier pleaded with the judge, Justice Field, to accept the plea of ‘manslaughter’ but Justice Field was adamant that the charge of ‘murder’ must remain why because the evidence pointed to the fact it was murder and not manslaughter claiming the Defence Team was poor is irrelevant they were only doing their job and it is just hearsay they were poor .
Why would poor Mr Jefferies attend the trial when Tabak had already admitted manslaughter it's not like had to prove Tabak was guilty it was already confirmed by the man himself plus after his ordeal why would he want to relive it again & after all what could he possibly add anyway that hadn't already been said .
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/830193/jo-yeates-murder-trial-vincent-tabaks-online-cover-up/
-
It was in the papers that the Fans at Hillsborough were to blame Oooops but they weren't as since has been proved so the press lie and make things up , strange how you will use the press when it suits your argument but dismiss them when it proves you wrong is that because it's either your way or the highway .
The prosecution had to rely on enhanced DNA, which is known to sometimes be unreliable. BUT NOT ALWAYS
The flat and VT's clothes---and the front door that was made such a fuss about---should have been crawling with good forensic evidence. WHY HOW DO YOU KNOW IT WASN'T CLEANED DOWN, THAT HE NEVER TOOK PRECAUTIONS NOT TO LEAVE ANY ?
Because that would have taken more time to do... And the time that was available wasn't enough to complete all of these things....
The Flat when Greg arrived home would have been pristeen, as for him not to leave any evidence... not in mayhem when Greg arrived home from sheffield..
How would it be possible for him to cherry pick what he was supposed to have touched and not supposed to have touched.... if you've just killed someone would you really remember what you had touched... would you really know if you skin cells hadn't shed onto the carpet or any other surface...
Obvious things like the BLUE DOOR are just that....obvious... But what about the real areas he would have come into contact... the coat-stand... kitchen tops... bedroom... there are so many area's that Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA could have come into contact with... why didn't he really try and clean it all up...
And that bring me to another thought i hadn't really considered.....
Why if he has touched the coat stand and hung his coat upon it is it still in the crime scene photo's and not in Police evidence!!!
There are kitchen items galore missing from the crime scene photo's,,.... So WHY IS THE COAT STAND STILL THERE!!!!!!!!!!!
Theres a shard of console there that was never explained by the Prosecution or the Defence!!!
And that piece of info was never in the media!!!!
Edit......... And if as seems he grabbed her and pulled her boots off his DNA would be on them... why the missing sock??? why not just take both of them!!!!!!!
-
Paul..... One thing i can say to you is that i would really like someone to look at this case with fresh eyes..
The Media or A lawyer.. And maybe they might just come to the conclusion that i have.... How did and how could the Dutchman Do it!!!
Why hide 1300 pages of evidence from a defence... I don't get it...
-
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
-
Paul....
How can the Policeman say in one breadth that he got the results on the 20th of January 2011 of Dr Vincent tabak, and arrest him on the same morning,... I cannot see that as possible...
How do the know for certain Joanna Yeates died in that flat on the 17th December 2010 before 9:30pm????
How do they know this.... If even if you accept that he plead guilty to Manslaughter then why charge him between the 16th December 2010 and the 26th Decemeber 2010..
Your prepared to believe everything else he has said.... So if he's say he killed her then.... then the charge should be for that date at least...
If Inferences are true/not true ... like the inferrences to do with the Porn... Its just that an inference..
YOU too cannot decide what inferences are acurate either.. and as the porn was not brought as evidence and proven as such... it was just as you say an Inference!!!!!!!
-
the porn wasn't used so the trial could be fair it was used after and he was convicted for it huge difference & exactly none of us know what happened and without seeing the full set of trail papers, interviews and every scrap of official paperwork know one can say one way or the other what is relevant and what isn't .
END OF ......
-
What else was at the scene well it wasn't you ,Mrswah or me was it and as for why were there 8 fire appliances there maybe it might be more productive asking the Fire & Rescue services who will have the actual facts not just conjecture , thoughts or impulses asking such questions is like saying why do cows lie down when it rains ?
Yes........ Healeys Cider and a Tattinger Reims Champagne Cork!!!!
And Maybe something else I've missed!!!!!
-
the porn wasn't used so the trial could be fair it was used after and he was convicted for it huge difference & exactly none of us know what happened and without seeing the full set of trail papers, interviews and every scrap of official paperwork know one can say one way or the other what is relevant and what isn't .
END OF ......
Yes the porn wasn't used at the trial.... That was more to do with stopping him appealing against an unfair trial than whether it was relevant or NOT!!!
And I agree.... I would love to see those trial papers and everything else....
Paul... As I say I'm just a forum member... But I believe I have found holes... You can laugh and say I'm an ameture slueth or what ever.... you can possibly pull apart what I say... But unless you can produce those 1300 pages of evidence and show otherwise what I beileve to be lies....
Then you can't say either if all of the true evidence was revealed in this trial.....
But... I'll say I like Fair..... And this doesn't seem like a fair fight in my opinion... It never has!!!!
EDIT..... people all over this forum speculate and accuse people of comitting certain crimes...
I am not saying it was anyone else... And I'm allowed to ask questions of something that doesn't make sense.....
Ask them what they think to the cases they are covering .. Jixy was admiring the Mccann Threads.. well that thread is full of accusations...
But according to Jixy it hunky dorey for them to say what ever they come up with... from Media reports!!!!!!
But my information is Not just media reports as I have stated!!!!!
-
What else was at the scene well it wasn't you ,Mrswah or me was it and as for why were there 8 fire appliances there maybe it might be more productive asking the Fire & Rescue services who will have the actual facts not just conjecture , thoughts or impulses asking such questions is like saying why do cows lie down when it rains ?
Fire Appliances don't come in that number that I am aware of to such a scene.. But lets say they do... Maybe it should have been the Fire Chief explaining how they freed Joanna Yeates from the frozen Ground,,, And not Andrew Mott and his unweildly broom handle!!!!!! On the witness stand.......
-
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.
So where is the Direct Evidence that Dr Vincent Tabak Killed Joanna Yeates????
Where is the Direct evidence that he was even in that flat
Where is the Direct evidence that Joanna Yeates was in his Flat
Where is the exact timeline of events that Dr Vincent Tabak comitted this act they say he did!!
Where is the Direct evidence that she was killed in her flat..
There is NO DIRECT EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WHATSOEVER!!!!!
-
What else was at the scene well it wasn't you ,Mrswah or me was it and as for why were there 8 fire appliances there maybe it might be more productive asking the Fire & Rescue services who will have the actual facts not just conjecture , thoughts or impulses asking such questions is like saying why do cows lie down when it rains ?
From PaultheRed.... Answer on next post made an error
-
What else was at the scene well it wasn't you ,Mrswah or me was it and as for why were there 8 fire appliances there maybe it might be more productive asking the Fire & Rescue services who will have the actual facts not just conjecture , thoughts or impulses asking such questions is like saying why do cows lie down when it rains ?
from PaulTheRed
Is It The COATSTAND?????????????? Or is there something else???????
A Cat Tray for a Cat that goes OUT.......
An intercom phone that isn't mentioned...
I'll take another look .... maybe I've missed something!!!!!
-
Oh I'm big enough & ugly enough to fight my own corner not taking over from jixy or anyone , yes you are entitled to your opinions but when serious journalists , reports for national and regional press defeat your every point hands down most members of the public would be more willing to accept the words of professionals rather than those of an Amateur Sleuth (no offence intended) .
How are Journalists beating me hands down, when they are notaware of what I am writting....
Journalists at the time reported on events, they saw unfolding not investigating whether or not the information afforded to them was acurate...
The Only Journalist that did ask searching questions was when ITV NEWS questioned evidence left on Longwood Lane and Why they said she wasn't sexually assaulted but then, said it was a sexually motivated attack...
And ITV were the only ones to show the fire engines and the were subsequently banned from the next Police Conference...
So it depends on whether you mean JOURNALIST OR REPORTER... Two different things (IMO)
-
Splitting hairs 1 write the story on paper the other reports the news and fact .....STOP TRYING TO BE A BILLY BIG BALLS .....
Vincent Tabak is a violent sex obsessed murderer. That’s what the public think, what the jury decided and how the judge sentenced. He was convicted of the murder of Jo Yeates on October 28th 2011 at Bristol Crown Court having pleaded guilty to manslaughter.
The only issue in the trial was whether he intended to kill or cause really serious harm or whether he had inflicted minimum force for death in a panic. The evidence was that he went to her flat, engaged in conversation which he said was flirtatious and then he strangled her. He said he had misunderstood her advances and put his hand over her mouth when she screamed. Expert evidence was that sufficient force was used to strangle her to death and this would have taken time, from which intent to kill could be inferred. The jury rejected his defence and any suggestion that Jo Yeates led him on. They were shown footage of his movements after the event and some of the contents of his computer which showed he was completely in control of his actions and acting in his own self interest. He did not give the appearance of someone who would panic and the jury concluded he was a murderer.
After conviction, details were released of his use of prostitutes and the contents of his computer which showed he had viewed violent and sexual pornography including strangulation pornography. Questions have been asked as to why such evidence was excluded in the trial. In analysing the judge’s decision it has to be borne in mind that not all people who watch pornography are murderers. Evidence of the bad character of a defendant is admissible as part of the prosecution case where it is relevant to the issues and not too prejudicial to a fair trial.
‘Bad character’ evidence is evidence that the defendant has carried out reprehensible behaviour other than the offence charged. It is not limited to criminal convictions. Tabak had no criminal history. The judge concluded that the possession of strangulation pornography was reprehensible and later sentenced on the basis of sexually motivated murder but excluded that material from the consideration of the jury during the prosecution case.
-
Splitting hairs 1 write the story on paper the other reports the news and fact .....STOP TRYING TO BE A BILLY BIG BALLS .....
@)(++(*
I'll come back to the rest of your quote but..... Oh My....
I haven't got any Balls..... never have had any... unless they are hiding somewhere about my person that I am not aware of then I don't have any!!!!
-
YOUR POOR OPINION ON THE SUBJECT IS INVALID & POINTLESS AS THAT IS ALL IT IS YOUR OPINION , NO FACTS, NO SUBSTANCE , NO PROOF, NO NOTHING ONLY YOUR OPINION AND PERVERTED MIND ...You trip yourself up all the time like with your post about the pizza saying no one knew of course no one knew but the killer did!!! So by pointing that out shows even you don't agree with your own opinion at times ......
-
Splitting hairs 1 write the story on paper the other reports the news and fact .....STOP TRYING TO BE A BILLY BIG BALLS .....
They were shown footage of his movements after the event and some of the contents of his computer which showed he was completely in control of his actions and acting in his own self interest. He did not give the appearance of someone who would panic and the jury concluded he was a murderer.
So... tell me exactly the time and date on this footage that the Jury was shown!!!!!!
-
YOUR POOR OPINION ON THE SUBJECT IS INVALID & POINTLESS AS THAT IS ALL IT IS YOUR OPINION , NO FACTS, NO SUBSTANCE , NO PROOF, NO NOTHING ONLY YOUR OPINION AND PERVERTED MIND ...You trip yourself up all the time like with your post about the pizza saying no one knew of course no one knew but the killer did!!! So by pointing that out shows even you don't agree with your own opinion at times ......
WOW... Feathers and Ruffled springs to Mind.......
That's your opinion.... doesn't make it right though does it!!!!!
You can shout as much as you like, But evidence from the trial itself proving he couldn't make searches because it wasn't home is not something I magiced up out of fresh air....
Paul you have been very quiet on this subject and today you have come out all guns blazing at me...
Odd..... very Odd indeed....
Maybe something I have posted of relevance is getting hidden as we argue back and forth about whether or not I have BOLLOCKS!!!!
Well i don't....
-
For someone who claims to be so well educated you really do show all the intelligence of a gas fitter ....
-
For someone who claims to be so well educated you really do show all the intelligence of a gas fitter ....
I Am NOT DREW ASHMAN.....
?{)(**
I just Apply Common Sense And Logic..... something people of my generation have always used!!!!!
-
Not Drew? I bet he's sat not very far from you is he Amy!
-
Not Drew? I bet he's sat not very far from you is he Amy!
On My God... we have another one popping up out of nowhere...
MY NAME IS NOT DREW
MY NAME IS NOT AMY
Infact I thought you were AMY!!!!!!
EDIT... Well you disappeared sharpish after I posted that.... @)(++(*
Edit again.... Oh No... Your Back.....
-
Sorry to disappoint. For the record when I briefly logged out you hadn't posted. Me Amy? Try and deflect all you want it won't work. How's your Kleeneze round going, many customers?
-
Sorry to disappoint. For the record when I briefly logged out you hadn't posted. Me Amy? Try and deflect all you want it won't work. How's your Kleeneze round going, many customers?
WHAT...... What you on about...... I haven't got any customers...
Kayden... what has made you chirp up this evening???????
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Kleeneze&oq=Kleeneze&aqs=chrome..69i57.3674j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
I don't live in Bristol.... if `i did ... I'd be around measuring that Kitchen window height to see if it was possible for Dr Vincent Tabak to Actually see in and for Joanna Yeates to be able to see him....
I'd walk all the routes... I'd get my husband to drive me so I could time everything....
So whoever you think I may be your mistaken.......
-
Do I need to have a reason? A question for you nine or rather two questions to be honest. You often refer to Sally Ramage, where exactly does it say she was in court for the trial and also where does it say she is a lawyer?
-
Do I need to have a reason? A question for you nine or rather two questions to be honest. You often refer to Sally Ramage, where exactly does it say she was in court for the trial and also where does it say she is a lawyer?
There are references in the very early part of this thread regarding Sally Ramage... She all over the internet, but on saying that apparently according to some........ references on the internet aren't valid....
So No matter what I say to you ... you will always be of the opinion that I have something to do with Drew Ashman and I'm off my Trolley......
Well go with that if it makes you happy.. But I'll keep plodding on with what I see as unfair and maybe finding other avenues to get people to look at it...
You talk like everyone else hasn't got a brain cell.... If they believe I'm talking RUBBISH, they can inform their own opinion....
How do I know who you lot are... You all arrive as a group.... One speaks the other one chirps up.....
You could be something to do with this case for all I know...
And at the end of the day, I'm a forum user with an Opinion,...might not be the same as everyones elses, but It's an opinion all the same....
And if you don't like it you don't have to respond to it....
Simple as that really......
What Have I said from Page 41, that has you lot are getting excited with me today for ????....
I been chatting to myself for ages and nothing from you lot.....
Is there something lying between the posts???????
-
Felicity Gerry is a high profile criminal barrister and author specializing in serious fatal, sexual and violent offences. She is the co-author of The Sexual Offences Handbook and also a legal media commentator.....
-
Felicity Gerry is a high profile criminal barrister and author specializing in serious fatal, sexual and violent offences. She is the co-author of The Sexual Offences Handbook and also a legal media commentator.....
Round and round we go... where we stop no one knows!!!!
It wasn't A SEXUAL ASSAULT!!!!
Well maybe she will think that some things about this case is weird.. If she read the Transcipt and that 1300 page Document!!!!!
-
Yes you have posted refs and yes she is all over the net but quite honestly I have yet to find the answer...editor of the'Criminal lawyer' yes but not a criminal lawyer. Many published pieces attributed to her and to write them she wouldn't have necessarily been in court to do that. So please do show me. We all arrive as a group? Sorry I'm lost on that one. For the record I never said or insinuated you were from Bristol. Off your trolley? I'll leave that one to the experts.
-
Yes you have posted refs and yes she is all over the net but quite honestly I have yet to find the answer...editor of the'Criminal lawyer' yes but not a criminal lawyer. Many published pieces attributed to her and to write them she wouldn't have necessarily been in court to do that. So please do show me. We all arrive as a group? Sorry I'm lost on that one. For the record I never said or insinuated you were from Bristol. Off your trolley? I'll leave that one to the experts.
But All Excited today?????? YES!!!!!
-
Maybe I'll cut out all of this and just get my Brother inlaw to go And visit the Tabak family...
He doesn't live too far away from them..... Let them view whats here and then lets see what happens after that!!!!
They as a Family have been Extremely quite.... Maybe it's time for them to make some NOISE!!!!
-
Would they like a taxi calling for them?
-
Would they like a taxi calling for them?
Who's being Disrespectful Now!!!!!!
-
No more disrespectful than you have been throughout this thread. You obviously have scant regard or understanding of law in this country and for that matter the deceased. I pointed out early on in this thread the occupation of VT's girlfriend's father and do you honestly believe a stitch up wouldn't have gone un noticed? A stitch up of the proportions that you seem to believe would have made his career many times over. Plus he wouldn't have remained quiet. You also scorned what I put about what he had said in the media afterwards, "so say the media" or words to that effect I believe. Well so says the media to the extremely selective pieces you spout.
-
No more disrespectful than you have been throughout this thread. You obviously have scant regard or understanding of law in this country and for that matter the deceased. I pointed out early on in this thread the occupation of VT's girlfriend's father and do you honestly believe a stitch up wouldn't have gone un noticed? A stitch up of the proportions that you seem to believe would have made his career many times over. Plus he wouldn't have remained quiet. You also scorned what I put about what he had said in the media afterwards, "so say the media" or words to that effect I believe. Well so says the media to the extremely selective pieces you spout.
Kayden... We Are NOT POINT SCORING!!!!!!!!!
And Again... we have all become very eloquent today.... I have obviously upset you all......
The question is what have I said today from page 41 ....that hasn't had you all flapping before?????
I'm not disrespecting the Yeates Family, even if you may think so... I am at a loss for words as to how this horrendous crime has effected their lives forever...
And a young lady with much to live for losing her life..... Such a waste!!!!! Terrible terrible crime...
Maybe you Are connected to the Yeates family and that why you are so angry with me ... And on that I could completley understand!!!!!
EDIT:..... your right I don't know LAW!!!!!! I never said I knew it!!!!!
On that alone, you are saying every forum poster has no value because they obviously could not comment on any case as they.... DO NOT HAVE A LAW DEGREE!!!!!!!!
-
Point scoring isn't my style. Yet again deflect and don't answer questions. Firstly I am not devaluing every forum poster, far from it in fact. I'm no expert on the law and when I don't understand something or make a mistake in what I believe to be the correct way, I will ask and also when people point things out to me I will check what they are saying and not instantly rule it out as it doesn't fit my own argument. Eloquent? I post in exactly the same way I always do.
-
Point scoring isn't my style. Yet again deflect and don't answer questions. Firstly I am not devaluing every forum poster, far from it in fact. I'm no expert on the law and when I don't understand something or make a mistake in what I believe to be the correct way, I will ask and also when people point things out to me I will check what they are saying and not instantly rule it out as it doesn't fit my own argument. Eloquent? I post in exactly the same way I always do.
Must be PaulTheReds Turn `Or Jixy's.......
I've said what I've said.. I believe I have backed my arguments up and if not then... I'm not perfect...
Again it's an opinion... that is it....... An Opinion that I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent... That is all...
Tell me then the same old question....
How could he make a SEARCH when he couldn't have been at home????
That at least must have you asking that question whether anything else I say you disagree with!!!!!
Did I say something from page 41.... ??????
-
PaultheRed, Jixy why them? How about the other posters who have also commented and are of the same opinion Guilty. Answer a question with a question, nice. Connected to the Yeates family? Be glad that I'm not! The best thing that the mods admin or whoever is in charge could do with this thread is lock it or better still take it down. The memory of Miss Yeates doesnt need to be tarnished on this forum by letting a convicted sex offending con artist and his silly little girlfriend posting.
-
On that note I'm out of here but please keep up the pretence, are you due a visit to check all forms of communication, phones, iPods, laptops, computers etc? If not, think you're due one in the not so distant future.
-
PaultheRed, Jixy why them? How about the other posters who have also commented and are of the same opinion Guilty. Answer a question with a question, nice. Connected to the Yeates family? Be glad that I'm not! The best thing that the mods admin or whoever is in charge could do with this thread is lock it or better still take it down. The memory of Miss Yeates doesnt need to be tarnished on this forum by letting a convicted sex offending con artist and his silly little girlfriend posting.
And there we have it again.... Ever piece of Information ever connected to this crime... Every Opinion REMOVED!!!!
Why IS THAT...... It only brings more Questions.... Removing Information does not stop people from
Remembering!!!!
If the Dutchman did it... Then you all should be happy with your conviction that it WAS HIM!!!!!
Not try to quieten A middle aged woman who thinks a Dutchman is INNOCENT!!!!
-
On that note I'm out of here but please keep up the pretence, are you due a visit to check all forms of communication, phones, iPods, laptops, computers etc? If not, think you're due one in the not so distant future.
WOW....... What is that.....
-
And
-
Think the way forward is to point out the obvious!!!!
-
Good Heavens!
I go away for one afternoon, one evening, one night, one morning!! And, four or five pages of posts to wade through!
OK, I have not yet "waded" in detail, but I can answer a couple of points:
Neither Nine nor I have any connection whatsoever with Drew Ashman and Amy-----but I'm sure Kayden and Paul know that really: they are winding us up! Whether or not they have any connection with Drew Ashman and Amy, I haven't a clue, but I doubt it somehow.
Sally Ramage is a qualified lawyer (who, I believe, currently edits a legal journal rather than practises as a lawyer). She was in court for Vincent Tabak's trial. In fact, if you read her account of it, it's obvious that she was there, but I have been told that independently.
I believe Vincent Tabak was offered the services of an interpreter, but said he didn't need one. Of course, this does not necessarily mean that he didn't need one: he might have underestimated how complicated legal jargon is!
The fact that Tanja's father did not step in and provide assistance to Vincent does not necessarily mean that he believes him to be guilty (although it might: I couldn't possibly know!). I asked my husband (a retired lawyer) if he would have done so if our daughter's boyfriend (whom we know and like very much) was charged with murder. He said that he would not get involved, because it would be our daughter's business, not his. (The hubby's a nice bloke, by the way)!
With due respect to Paul, I cannot, for the life of me, see how VT could have cleaned up all the forensic evidence in both flats between committing a murder, dumping the body, and collecting his girlfriend.
-
In his CV, Tabak says he
-
I keep find odd things.... this Article has photo's from the Crime Scene....
Which has thrown up more Questions:....
What is the Drink doing at the side of her bed????
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048247/Vincent-Tabak-trial-1st-prosecution-witness-Jo-Yeates-murder-case-court.html
Does it suggest she was actually there on the Friday??? I don't know
-
I've got a real conundrum:.........
After Paul Pointed out about what else was in the flat... I decided to look at the pictures of the inside of the Crime scene:....
I'm more confused now than i have ever been... I'll start with a simple one and you might be able to explain it away..
Spot the difference.... No it's not a game ... this is extremely serious....
Did you see it???????
Why have the clocks got different times????
One says 1 min past Eleven and One say 1 Minute to Eleven...
Why???? Ok you may say the battery is working... but then explain my next post!!!!!
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/inside-the-flat-where-christmas-never-came-1084114
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048247/Vincent-Tabak-trial-1st-prosecution-witness-Jo-Yeates-murder-case-court.html
-
Here it is again.... different part of the house but Just as Interesting... Remember these are Crime scene photo's...
How can they be different????
Whats the difference???????????
Also something is in the corner on the top shelf in one photo and not in the other!!!!!
Article dated 13th Oct 2011
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/flat-preserved-time-capsule-joanna-s-death/story-13542524-detail/story.html#4
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/flat-preserved-time-capsule-joanna-s-death/story-13542524-detail/story.html#5
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2064116/Joanna-Yeates-mother-finally-clears-murdered-architects-belongings-flat.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048247/Vincent-Tabak-trial-1st-prosecution-witness-Jo-Yeates-murder-case-court.html
The Trainers in the First photo are in Opposite directions......!!!!!!!!!
The Trainers in the second photo are facing in the same direction!!!!!
Why haven't these newspapers noticed the difference???????
These are definetly from the Crime Scene.... You can tell because the carpets been removed....!!!
Nobody should have touched it,... these are from after the Jury went in....
Someone Please explain!!!!!!!!!
How can Crime Scene Photo's be so Different!!!!!!!!
Thought it was supposed to be a time capsule??
One looks like there's a blue shoe there.... might be wrong... but what I can see I'm not wrong!!!!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Intersting Article : http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/172046/Joanna-Yeates-cops-We-ll-only-DNA-test-Jo-s-boy-pals
Joanna Yeates cops: We'll only DNA test Jo's boy pals
DETECTIVES have ruled out mass DNA testing on the men in the city where Joanna Yeates was strangled.
Published 15th January 2011
Joanna Yeates: Police are convinced Jo knew her killer Joanna Yeates: Police are convinced Jo knew her killer
They fear the cost and time it would take could slow down their hunt for the killer.
They plan to test only people known to the 25-year-old landscape architect, including many of Jo’s 200 Facebook friends.
One of her pals who lives 100 miles away has already had a cheek swab.
Detectives believe they could have the killer’s DNA in a sample of saliva discovered on Jo’s body, which was found dumped at the roadside three miles from her home in Bristol on Christmas Day. But it does not match anyone on the national DNA database.
Kerry McCarthy, Labour MP for Bristol East, and Jo’s best pal Rebecca Scott, 25, who was the last person to speak to her, have called for everyone in the city to be tested.
Police are convinced Jo knew her killer who struck after she returned home from the pub after drinking with colleagues on December 17.
Police confirmed tests were not being carried out on her work colleagues unless they also knew her via Facebook or had swapped emails and texts outside the office.
Neighbours living near the basement flat Jo had rented with architect boyfriend Greg Reardon, 27, have not yet been asked for DNA samples either.
One said: “It’s mad. We would welcome the tests. We’ve nothing to hide.”
A police source said: “A DNA trawl is not seen as necessary at this stage.”
FORCE FACES REVIEW
THE Jo Yeates murder investigation could be overhauled amid fears clues have been missed.
The manhunt involving 80 officers has run up a £1million bill and a senior officer from within or outside Avon and Somerset Police could be called in to gauge progress.
A force spokesman said yesterday: “National guidance suggests a review should take place somewhere between 28 and 42 days.”
The force’s Chief Superintendent Jon Stratford said officers needed more time as Jo’s was “a most unusual case”.
jerry.lawton@dailystar.co.uk
So how did they Arrest Dr Vincent Tabak 5 days Later?????????
It also says neighbours have not been tested???????
Why wouldn't they want to test her male collegues????
Why is a DNA Trawl not necessary ?????
They plan to test only people know to Jo ??? so work collegues don't count...
This report is extremely strange....
Anyone any ideas????????
And the sample is apparently saliva????
EDIT:...... If they have checked a swab of a pal already who lives 100 miles away, by this time they obviously have turned around the DNA sample of Joanna Yeates...
So if we go back to the Holland sample Dr Vincent Tabak Gave.... then he should have come back by now as the Killer!!!
-
That report is odd----but then, newspaper reports are not always accurate.
Chris Jefferies has said that all the neighbours had given DNA samples early on. He is shown giving an interview saying that-----might have been on the Judge Rinder programme, cant remember off hand.
There is no firm evidence that Joanna went missing on the 17th. Even the court accepted that, as VT was charged with killing her between the 16th and 19th December. Nobody apart from the killer knew that Jo was missing until Greg raised the alarm late on the 19th/early on the 20th.
-
That report is odd----but then, newspaper reports are not always accurate.
Chris Jefferies has said that all the neighbours had given DNA samples early on. He is shown giving an interview saying that-----might have been on the Judge Rinder programme, cant remember off hand.
There is no firm evidence that Joanna went missing on the 17th. Even the court accepted that, as VT was charged with killing her between the 16th and 19th December. Nobody apart from the killer knew that Jo was missing until Greg raised the alarm late on the 19th/early on the 20th.
Yes I believe is was the 20th December 2010.. in the early hours that Greg raised the alarm....
-
Again.... two more photo's
The White basket next to the bedside cabinet and in the doorway of the bedroom there appears to be a BOOT!!!!
Think the Boot might be attached to someone stood there looking again!!!
The walls look like they've been washed down..... theres remainders of black on the skirting boards ...
Another thing i find weird about these Pictures... Is they are not really crime scene photo's... because if they were they would look like it did when she went missing... Not a staged simulation of what we are supposed to think the flat should look like....
Normally I would imagine them to cut relevant pieces of carpet out... and not remove all of the carpeting from the house..
-
This photo is strange too..... what is the phone shaped mark out in white behind the settee???
There No carpet there.... So what is it supposed to be??????
-
Another thing that I don't understand is why they would need breathing Appartus when examining Joanna Yeates Flat???
Did they spray something around the whole place....????
What chemicals did they need to use??????
https://www.scottsafety.com/en/anzp/DocumentandMedia1/FLITE%20Escape%20Datasheet%20ANZ.pdf
https://www.scottsafety.com/en/anzp/pages/ProductDetail.aspx?ProductDetail=Scott%20Safety%20Flite%20Airline%20Breathing%20Apparatus
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
They are obviously using chemicals: it says so. Presumably they are the sort of chemicals that are dangerous to breathe in.
However, I don't know much about forensic investigations, so dont know what they use.
The forensic team obviously did a thorough job, which is why I believe they would have found good evidence of VT having been in there, if he had been.
-
Also, it is possible that the forensic team wear sterile suits so as not to contaminate the evidence---but I don't know!
Is there anybody here who knows about forensics?
-
I just wondered what chemical they would need to need breathing equipment??
Anyone know???
-
The crime scene bothers me.....
-
I don't know what a crime scene should look like, to be honest. I have never seen one, and I suspect they are all very different.
Nathan Matthews was known to have a hoarding problem, so his home would have been much untidier than Jo and Greg's.
Very interesting account in the Mail: I have read the book written by Becky's father, which is also very interesting. I was comparing this case with that of Joanna Yeates, as both took place in Bristol.
There was much better evidence in the Becky Watts case (and just in case anyone is wondering, yes, I do believe Matthews and Hoare are guilty)!
I knew that police interviews of suspects were recorded, but I haven't seen one in the media before. I am surprised: thought they would have to be confidential.
-
Apparently Not Mrswah.....
Remember the lady who wanted to see Dr Vincent Tabak's statements and they eventually said she couldn't after weeks of wrangling... Because apparently the information could be used on an appeal!!!
So why release a taped statement of this girl?????
Always things DO NOT ADD UP... when it come to Dr Vincent Tabak...
Even if he was a hoarder... why didn't they remove his things???
They removed all of the kitchen appliances from Joanna Yeates flat!!!!
Not even a kettle!!!!!
One thing i've noticed in the corner... Is a box that looks like its for a drill or something????? WHY!!!
-
Was gonna put on bottom of other post... but made a new one instead!!
-
http://miscar
-
Post Removed by myself...
-
What shoes did she own... probably more than what were on the shelf....
-
Splitting hairs 1
-
Dutch engineer Vincent Tabak, 37, had claimed he would not get a fair trial because of his notoriety and tried to get the case thrown out of court.
But a judge rejected his claim and three hours later Tabak admitted four charges of possessing 145 indecent photographs of children
So as I have already posted he challenged these charges but he didn't challenge manslaughter? you always post about alleged porn, not quite sure how that works when he admitted the above?
-
Exclusion of Bad Character evidence
The court cannot exclude evidence of bad character of its own motion after the prosecution has served notice that it intends to adduce evidence of bad character.
The defence can apply to have the evidence excluded under section 101(3) where it is admissible under subsection (d) and subsection (g) (where the evidence is relevant to an issue in the case between the prosecution and the defendant or has become admissible because of the defendant's attack on another person).
In these two circumstances the court must not admit such evidence if it appears that its admission would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that it ought not to admit it. In applying the test the court is directed to take account, in particular, of the amount of time that has elapsed since the previous events and the current charge. This is a stricter test than under section 78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) which states that the court may refuse to admit the evidence, whereas section 101(3) states that the court must not admit the evidence if it would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings.
The court has no power to exclude evidence of bad character which is admissible at the behest of a co-defendant once it has passed the test in section 101(1)(e). In particular there is no power under section 101(3) or under section 78 PACE 1984 (R v Musone [2007] EWCA Crim 1237).
The power of the court to exclude evidence under section 78 PACE 1984 is preserved by section 112(3)(c) Criminal Justice Act 2003 which provides that:
"Nothing in this Chapter affects the exclusion of evidence on the grounds other than the fact that it is evidence of a person's bad character."
In practice section 78 PACE 1984 will have a very limited application:
It c
-
Dutch engineer Vincent Tabak,
-
Excuse me? I actually feel quite sick right now. we don't know what the images were? are you serious? 145 indecent pictures of children My god... im glad we don't know exactly what they were Even one picture is one too many
And how exactly do you know Tabak didn't say and think that? You keep stressing to us what an intelligent man he is so why wouldn't he hold those views?
145? I think I could be sick and anyone who doesn't feel the same has quite a big problem! CHILDREN! MEANT TO BE LOVED CARED FOR AND LOOKED AFTER NOT ABUSED FOR DISGUSTING FULFILLMENT OF PERVERTS!
-
Yet again Nine you are manipulating things to fit your opinions and warped mind that he is innocent , yet again failing to see he admitted the crime so making so many of your points invalid and not necessary but how you can possibly say that the 145 sick and deprived images he had of children are insignificant is absolutely disgusting and I can only presume you yourself get off on such images yourself or that you have no moral concept of what is right or wrong .
You keep pointing out what VT said , thought or intended to do unless you are him how do you know his thoughts , morals, intentions or acts you are not him so can't possibly know his thoughts and you weren't there so don't know how things happened you are making things up to fit your train of thoughts which if you believe those 145 images are innocent makes you as warped as VT and every other child sex offender in this country ....
-
Excuse
-
Yet again Nine you are manipulating things to fit your opinions and warped mind that he is innocent , yet again failing to see he admitted the crime so making so many of your points invalid and not necessary but how you can possibly say that the 145 sick and deprived images he had of children are insignificant is absolutely disgusting and I can only presume you yourself get off on such images yourself or that you have no moral concept of what is right or wrong .
You keep pointing out what VT said , thought or intended to do unless you are him how do you know his thoughts , morals, intentions or acts you are not him so can't possibly know his thoughts and you weren't there so don't know how things happened you are making things up to fit your train of thoughts which if you believe those 145 images are innocent makes you as warped as VT and every other child sex offender in this country ....
You pre-empted my post Paul..... Do you play bridge????
And you can be as rude as you like.... I'm not warped... I'm trying to understand why they brought these charges years later that is all....!!!!!!!
-
something about this situation isn't real and I KNOW that for sure! Maybe the truth should be out there. Yes that is a very good idea!
-
anyone found with indecent images of children should always be charged no matter what. there is no excuse and no time limit to it
Even when it encourages people to become quite obsessed with it and they can attach themselves to others who have been through abuse . Ive seen that before. People can pretend to be all kinds but with some there is no hiding
-
something about this situation isn't real and I KNOW that for sure! Maybe the truth should be out there. Yes that is a very good idea!
I agree the truth should be out there..... The truth that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't do it (IMO)
Question jixy do you have paint on your PC or any other program that will allow you to change a photgraph??
-
anyone found with indecent images of children should always be charged no matter what. there is no excuse and no time limit to it
Even when it encourages people to become quite obsessed with it and they can attach themselves to others who have been through abuse . Ive seen that before. People can pretend to be all kinds but with some there is no hiding
I can understand where you are coming from Jixy.... But it's impossible for that to happen...
What do they class as indecent images...
Would that be a picture of my son when he was 3.. standing naked after his bath twirling an umbrella clicking his tongue to say: chicken???
Or a picture of my daughter naked at the beach.. running through the waves when she was a toddler...
I don't know what could be perseived as indecent... if what i've said above.. then half the country should be charged, because I'm sure they have a "Paint" program to add to that evidence!!!!!!
So if that is possible... then they can pick and choose who they charge depending on the reason they feel they have.....
Like letting the world know Dr Vincent Tabak is a SEX obsessed Monster...!!!! which backs their original charge as they see it!!!
-
Well i feel worn down with all of this.....
-
For goodness sake!!!
It was Vincent Tabak's lawyer, Dean Armstrong QC, who tried to get the child porn charges thrown out. I suspect VT himself was well beyond arguing by this stage----but of course, I wasn't there, so I don't know.
I am not getting into an argument about abuse and indecent images of children, both of which are abhorrent. My point is whether or not an independent witness vouched for the images allegedly on VT's computer. This should have happened, as far as I am aware. If it didn't, then who knows what was on his computer???
-
GUESS THE TRUTH HURTS ....
if my post is offensive what about your post supporting Nine and his post claiming it is okay to have 145 indecent images of innocent children that VT had and show his sexual prowess and they show what a perverted mind VT had , The Judge , jury & press all believe he was guilty of Murder , VT himself admitted manslaughter so is in his own words guilty , the opinions raised don't in any way show his innocent or a miscarriage of justice , guess if you manipulate the press reports enough like you both have you could show Jimmy Saville as innocent or even The Yorkshire Ripper
-
Posters are reminded of the forum rules in relation to makiing personal remarks or attempts to identify anonymous contributors. I have allowed this thread to run without much disturbance but if this goading or sniping continues it could be locked or removed completely. Over to you...
-
I have posted a lot on this thread...
-
Well I must say... for a little thread tucked out of the way, I think it's quite amazing that we have had over 10,000 reads in over 3 months..
-
I agree that a lot about this case is very fishy indeed.
However, if Vincent Tabak does not say he is innocent, nobody can help him----------unless, one day, somebody pipes up and says they know something. Such things happen.
I am amazed that so few people have questioned this case, to be honest.
I am also amazed that VT told such a rubbish story in court, and it did not dawn on anybody that he might have done this because he had been told what to say.
It is, of course possible that he is guilty. It is also possible that he assisted somebody, and is covering for that person.
We will see.
-
I agree that a lot about this case is very fishy indeed.
However, if Vincent Tabak does not say he is innocent, nobody can help him----------unless, one day, somebody pipes up and says they know something. Such things happen.
Well lets hope that is the case!!!!!
-
UnFair Trial........
The following issues that lean toward an unfair trial and a mistrial are as follows:
So... below are a list that pertains to just that:......
-
"A trial judge always has an overriding duty in every case to ensure a fair trial, and if in any particular case he comes to the conclusion that, even though certain evidence is strictly admissible, yet its prejudicial effect once admitted is such as to make it virtually impossible for a dispassionate view of the cruicial facts of the case to be thereafter taken by the jury, then the trial judge, in my judgement, should exlude that evidence."
-
Indeed.
Sally Ramage did conclude that the trial was unfair/a mistrial, although she does not say she believes VT to be innocent.
-
Interesting......
-
whilst looking at the searches i noticed this!!!!!!!!!!
-
I'm going back to the searches for a minute........
-
Nine
Really interesting: just a couple of points.
Vincent and Tanja went to stay at Aberdeen Road because they wanted to get away from all the police activity at number 44. A friend of Tanja's, called Emily Williams, I believe, was the occupier of the flat in Aberdeen Road. She was in Chile at the time, and either offered or allowed Vincent and Tanja use of the flat. Don't remember when they collected their belongings from no 44, and moved to Aberdeen Road----will have to check. Probably after their holiday.
I believe Vincent and Tanja left Bristol for Cambridge on the 23rd December. They spent Christmas with the Morsons, and left for Holland on the 28th. Returned to England on 2nd January, I believe , or somewhere near to that date.
-
Nine
R
-
I've been think more and more about the
-
Anyone know???
-
I think
-
Nine
I am not sure about this, but I think VT would have to make the first move and request a re-trial or a review via his lawyers.
-
I believe I have discovered Why The Discussion Group and Forum that was around years ago was removed..
Apparently the Moderator was threatened with legal action, so that makes sense... In some way it makes me feel better that this was the reason... But on saying that if it was because of the libellous posts then surely Just remove some posts and not all of the thread!!!!
So in saying that is this thread safe???????
-
Thinking again on the emails etc, that should have shown up on Dr Vincent Tabaks Timeline:
I found an Article:
-
The Crime scene......
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The Pictures
-
Just another little annomily I have found:
-
Is if we apply the same logic to his other searches.... they don't lead anywhere:......
-
The Media made a great deal about Dr Vincent Tabak driving around with Joanna yeates in the boot of his car even saying that:
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
So there are CCTV cameras on Bridge Water Road the A38 where
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
You see my problem
-
Oh yes...
Why 8 Fire Brigade appliances???????
-
So if all we are left .............. NOTHING!!!
-
In
Anyone got an Answer to this Question I have posed?????
-
Would it be possible for this Topic to be moved to the Home page of Miscarriages of Justice...... Instead of hiding in the; Off Topic, And General Discussion Section?
Please ?{)(**
-
I believe that if VT had pleaded not guilty to everything, the jury would not have had enough grounds to convict him. There would have been more witnesses, more attention to the time line, more attention paid to the fact that the forensic team turned up nothing in either flat pertaining to VT having killed Jo, and that there was no motive, etc. More questioning of witnesses and cross examination would have taken place.
Nobody really knew when or where Jo died, so how could they prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that VT killed her?
The fiasco with CJ put more pressure on the police to get a result.
The fiasco with CJ also would have (IMO) put doubt in the minds of the jury members: if they messed it up once, who is to say they hadn't messed it up again---after all, VT is no more likely a murderer than CJ is.
-
This is from an Article Dated:By The Bristol Post | Posted: October 31, 2011
-
With the above post it suggests Two people...... Might not be..... But it suggests it...
Does this now lean toward what CJ said about people at the gate????
Which was his supplementary Statement he gave The Police????
And why there is NO DNA in the Flat... because she left it????
-
The fire and rescue services worked hard when they thought Jo was still alive and missing??????
What did they need to be doing then?
Weird newspaper report. Is this really what DCI Jones said? What on earth did he mean?
No DNA in the flat? Surely indicates that VT was never there: he can't have cleaned it all up in the time he had. I would have thought it is pretty difficult to clean up all traces of your DNA if you have killed someone in their home.
All the people who say that he had the entire weekend to clean up-----he didn't, because Tanja was around, and surely, nobody is suggesting she was involved. CJ was around too, and the other inhabitants of number 44: somebody would have noticed if VT was letting himself in and out of somebody else's flat with their keys.
When my next door neighbour goes away, and I look after her house, I go in and out with her keys. Yes, I have her full permission, but I cannot believe nobody ever notices that I'm doing it!!
-
mrswah...
-
Meta Data.......
The jury were told that some webpages couldn’t now be recovered as they had been
changed but that some webpages had not changed, and so the prosecution showed films of
some pages that had not been changed.
-
Playing the Devil's Advocate.......
-
Is Vincent Tabak claiming he is innocent now after admitting his guilt to a lesser charge?
-
Not as far as I am aware, Angelo.
I don't know how much of the thread you have read, but I have always had doubts about whether Vincent Tabak did kill Joanna Yeates, and I give my reasons in my posts.
Of course, I also accept the possibility of him being guilty, but this is a weird case, with very little hard evidence apart from VT's plea of guilty to manslaughter.
And everyone has been very quiet: him, his family, his friends, the media. People tell me that this is conclusive of his guilt, but I'm afraid I just find it fishy.
Do read the thread and ask questions, if you wish.
-
Pleading guilty to manslaughter was a bit of a clue surely?
-
Hi john...
-
John
The fact that VT pleaded guilty to manslaughter does not necessarily provide a clue, just as some people's "not guilty" pleas are not necessarily sound!
-
It occurs to me that the police and the prosecution wanted us to believe that Jo died on the Friday night. She might have done, but this is by no means certain: Vincent Tabak was charged with murdering her "between the 16th and 19th December", so they can't have been sure.
Statements were obtained from various people who heard screams on the Friday night------but there is no way of knowing whether or not these screams had anything to do with Jo.
The one neighbour who heard somebody scream "Help me" on the Saturday morning was never called as a witness.
A priest called Father George Henwood actually appeared in court in person, to testify that he had spoken with a person whom he thought to be Jo very near to Canynge Road. However, Father Henwood did not know Jo, and the person he saw might not have been her at all. This evidence was , presumably, intended to show that Jo reached home on the Friday evening---------but there is no guarantee that she was the person seen by Father Henwood. Yet, he was called to court as a witness.
We have never been told whether or not Jo was wearing the same clothes when she was found , as she had been wearing in the Ram pub. If she was killed on the Friday night, soon after reaching home, she would have been.
-
I should have added that there is one reason why the police and the prosecution wanted us all to believe Jo had died on the Friday night: Vincent Tabak had no alibi for then, but he did for the rest of the weekend.
-
Absolutely.
Had there been a sobbing girl, surely she would have been summoned to court to say what she knew?
I think this was the "reason why VT was arrested" that the media was told. I doubt if there ever was a sobbing girl.
There have been various speculations about whether VT and JY had ever worked together, but nothing definite. It was never suggested that they worked for the same firm at any time, but it was thought that staff from the two firms might have met on work assignments, or at conferences or parties. In fact, I believe staff from both firms did meet at at least one conference, but there was never any evidence that JY and VT had met. Their jobs were actually quite different, although both have been described as "architects" at various times. VT would have spent a good part of his working day in front of a computer, whereas JY would have spent a good part of hers out of doors.
-
LongWood Lane...............
-
Ok... I'm still looking at it and that little bit of wall isn't very long...
-
Has anyone tried going Up and down Longwood lane on Google maps/ Earth..??
-
The Top One Hundred.....
-
Well done Nne! It's all I can say--------!
-
Thankyou mrswah......
I think people need to read the posts... But that is a taste of what we have been talking about ?{)(**
-
It is often difficult to find information, w
-
John
The fact that VT pleaded guilty to manslaughter does not necessarily provide a clue, just as some people's "not guilty" pleas are not necessarily sound!
Only in cases where people are not of sound mind. Tabak knew he would be found guilty so thought he could get a better deal by pleading to manslaughter. If he was totally innocent as you suggest then pleading guilty to anything would never have occurred to him.
-
John
The fact that VT pleaded guilty to manslaughter does not necessarily provide a clue, just as some people's "not guilty" pleas are not necessarily sound!
Pleading guilty to involvement to any extent in Joanna Yeates death is highly significant. That was Vincent Tabak's undoing imo. All the excuses under the sun will never change that fact. He thought he could cut a deal and get a few years for manslaughter but it backfired on him big time.
I myself was offered a deal in my case but I told them where to stick it because accepting such a deal would preclude any future hope of appealing successfully if the situation arose.
-
The WALL on Longwood Lane Bothers me.....
It has never made sense to me.......
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Just to clarify about the Pizza...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Believe it or not, people do plead guilty to crimes that they haven't done, for a variety of reasons.
www.ipt-forensics.com/library/coerced.htm
www.economist.com/node/21525840
Also, some people come to believe that they have done something that they haven't done:
www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2913318
So, although it is possible that Vincent Tabak pleaded guilty because he actually was guilty, this is not necessarily the case.
He was on suicide watch in prison: he had never before been inside a police station, let alone on remand in a high security prison. We do not know whether or not he had a breakdown/was severely depressed/was under the influence of medication/was treated badly: all these scenarios are possible. He was also denied visitors for three weeks after being placed on remand.
By the time of the trial, he certainly gave the impression of being a broken man.
-
Believe it or not, people do plead guilty to crimes that they haven't done, for a variety of reasons.
www.ipt-forensics.com/library/coerced.htm
www.economist.com/node/21525840
Also, some people come to believe that they have done something that they haven't done:
www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2913318
So, although it is possible that Vincent Tabak pleaded guilty because he actually was guilty, this is not necessarily the case.
He was on suicide watch in prison: he had never before been inside a police station, let alone on remand in a high security prison. We do not know whether or not he had a breakdown/was severely depressed/was under the influence of medication/was treated badly: all these scenarios are possible. He was also denied visitors for three weeks after being placed on remand.
By the time of the trial, he certainly gave the impression of being a broken man.
Extremely interesting mrswah, I found this particular piece revealing....
-
I think I've answered my own question:
-
Things are always a matter of interpretation...
-
Believe it or not, people do plead guilty to crimes that they haven't done, for a variety of reasons.
www.ipt-forensics.com/library/coerced.htm
www.economist.com/node/21525840
Also, some people come to believe that they have done something that they haven't done:
www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2913318
So, although it is possible that Vincent Tabak pleaded guilty because he actually was guilty, this is not necessarily the case.
He was on suicide watch in prison: he had never before been inside a police station, let alone on remand in a high security prison. We do not know whether or not he had a breakdown/was severely depressed/was under the influence of medication/was treated badly: all these scenarios are possible. He was also denied visitors for three weeks after being placed on remand.
By the time of the trial, he certainly gave the impression of being a broken man.
Although it is possible that Vincent Tabak pleaded guilty, this is not necessarily the case. There is very strong evidence that he did NOT plead guilty. The following evidence points to the a false plea obtained by tampering with the video-link.
(1) On 31st January 2011, Judge Colman Treacy "pencilled in" a date for the start of the trial, and also a date, 4th May 2011, for the defendant's plea and case management hearing at Bristol Crown Court.
http://swns.com/news/jo-yeates-murder-vincent-tabak-gets-trial-date-14737/
(2) On 4th May 2011, a correspondent of mine who is resident in Somerset went to Bristol with the intention of sitting in the public gallery for the plea hearing. No such hearing was listed on the Crown Court timetable for that day, nor was there any clarification. My correspondent subsequently sat in the public gallery for several days of the trial later in the year.
(3) On 5th May 2011, the press reported that Vincent Tabak's plea and case management hearing was held at the Old Bailey, London - the only one of his hearings not to be held in Bristol. No explanation for the change of date and venue was published. The press had been tipped off about the changes, but the public had not been told.
(4) Instead of Judge Treacy, the hearing was held before Mr. Justice Richard Field, the judge who would also hear the trial. The defendant had not previously appeared before Judge Field, who would not be able to recognise Vincent Tabak. No explanation was published for the change of judge.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/may/05/joanna-yeates-neighbour-admits-killing
(5) At this hearing, Mr Nigel Lickley QC made his second appearance as Counsel for the Prosecution of this defendant. As Vincent Tabak appeared only by video-link on both occasions, Counsel could not be held responsible if the person claiming to be the defendant were not the same person on both occasions.
(6) At this hearing, Mr. William Clegg QC made his first appearance as Counsel for the Defence of this defendant. He was instructed by Ian Kelcey, a different solicitor from the one who had instructed the barristers who had represented Vincent Tabak at the earlier hearings, from a different law firm. There is no evidence of Mr. Kelcey ever having been present at any of the hearings, nor is there any evidence of Mr. Clegg ever having visited Vincent Tabak in prison. So Mr. Clegg could not possibly say whether the person on the video screen at the Old Bailey was the real Vincent Tabak.
(7) Mr. & Mrs. Yeates were escorted by a police officer, Emma Davies, from Bristol to London for the plea hearing. Neither of them had ever met the defendant, so they could not be sure whether he was the person on the screen.
(8) Neither Greg Reardon, nor any of Vincent Tabak's friends, nor his family, nor Hilary Douglas, the only journalist who had interviewed Vincent Tabak, nor anyone else who would recognise him by sight, was reported to be present at the Old Bailey.
(9) After Mr. & Mrs Yeates got home, they told a journalist that they had expected Vincent Tabak to plead guilty. This was an admission that Emma Davies had told Jo's parents beforehand, and she could have known only if it were the police and prosecution who controlled the plea.
(10) When he heard about the plea, the Tabak family spokesman said he was shocked by the news and had heard no suggestion that a guilty plea would be entered.
(11) When he heard about the plea, Vincent Tabak's friend Joran Jessuran, a software engineer from Eindhoven University, tweeted that he had not expected that.
(12) DCI Phil Jones made a statement to the press outside the Old Bailey after the hearing. He was not reported to have been inside the courtroom. It is possible that he had met Vincent Tabak at the police station after he was first arrested, but he took no part in the prisoner's interrogation.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-neighbour-vincent-tabak-126826
(13) The only evidence allegedly linking Vincent Tabak to the crime was enhanced DNA and 11 coat fibres on the victim's clothes, and microscopic blood traces from the victim in the boot of the car he used. He had no motive so his lawyers had no reason to allow him to plead guilty to killing her.
Just as an actress was engaged to impersonate Joanna Yeates in a TV reconstruction, it would have been straightforward to hire an actor resembling Vincent Tabak to impersonate him for the plea hearing. The room in which the actor sat could have been anywhere. Bristol is a centre of expertise for cartoon animation, so it is also possible that the plea was entered by a digital video simulation of Vincent Tabak.
-
This I find Interesting:......
-
Welcome Leonora...
Very interesting points that you make there:...
-
Leonora can I ask.... have you been following this thread?????
-
Leonora can I ask.... have you been following this thread?????
Yes
-
Yes
Excellent... And what do you think to the information that has been uncovered??
-
Yes, welcome, Leonora.
I find the change of date and venue for the plea hearing very strange. The frequent changes of lawyers is very strange too. So is the fact that Jo's parents seemed to be aware of how VT would plead: I would have thought they would expect him to deny everything.
I wonder whether they had been told about VT's meetings with Brotherton?? The public had not been told anything about that before 5th May.
There is so much that is fishy about this case, that you could be right about the impostor, but there is no evidence that such a scenario took place. Only somebody who had seen VT before the May 5th hearing, and who was also present on that day could tell us whether the man they saw was actually VT.
Why would Vincent not have insisted that he had not pleaded guilty, and that he had not been given an opportunity to plead anything?
Why would he have gone along with the scenario presented at the trial (which, I firmly believe, was a "script" devised by his lawyers).?
Why didn't he change his plea later?
-
I have been following this thread with delight. I thought I knew this case very well indeed, but this thread has thrown up many facts that were new to me, and some are very important. For example, the press themselves did not report most of the many sensible questions they put to "The Policeman" at his first press conference - because he gave evasive answers to these. He also told several big lies - so no one should believe anything he said in interviews after the trial, except when he was under oath at the Leveson Inquiry. This includes his remarks about DNA.
-
My correspondent who was in court for the trial of Vincent Tabak told me that members of the public were forbidden to take any notes. Isn't this strange? Much of what he told me was largely subjective, and he wasn't keen to answer questions from me. So if an usher from Bristol Crown Court were to post on this forum claiming that the public was informed that the plea hearing would take place in London, then I could not contradict them. However, I have posted a dozen items of evidence in support of the proposition that the plea was not what Vincent Tabak himself intended.
"Nine", you posted curiosity about 'How many times the images of Joanna Yeates was shown to the Jury' and 'What the film looked like that Lyndsey Farmery had shown the Jury' and whether 'there was any REDACTED Text'. These would have been important questions to answer and I am sorry that I missed my opportunity. Until you mentioned it, I didn't even know that the so-called IT-expert HAD shown a film, unless you mean the body farm decomposition video?
If you read carefully what Peter Brotherton told the court, and what he and Mr Clegg said to each other during cross-examination, you will be able to work out that the witness NEVER actually told the court that the defendant had said that he had killed the victim. You will also be able to work out that it was Mr Clegg himself who deceived the court into believing that his client had "confessed". Finally, you will also be able to work out that Judge Field was not doing the job, a major part of which is to monitor Counsel like a hawk to prevent them leading any witness.
Vincent Tabak's purpose in meeting with Peter Brotherton was not "to confess", but something quite different. This is totally misrepresented in "The Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies". No one heard about the so-called chaplain until the trial. The prisoner's intention was probably to seek the advice, perhaps about the choice of a different lawyer, as he was being kept in isolation. He must have been "shocked" by Crossman & Co's suggestion that he should plead guilty to manslaughter.
-
As for Brotherton.... I refuse to be polite about that man..... He was an adherant member of the Salvation army and was not at liberty to keep any information to himself,... which could also allow him to lie as to what Dr Vincent Tabak said.....
Do we really know that Dr Vincent Tabak actually talked to this PRETEND CHAPLAIN... we only have their word that this interaction took place.....
I know that Dr Vincent Tabak at no time said that he Killed Joanna Yeates.... It's like everything else ... they want you to believe this is what he said.....
As for the Judge I noticed that he wasn't doing his job when he left the documents pertaining to the case in his chambers when the prosecution directed him to them..... (1300 page document with all the timelines in it!!!)....
Whilst looking for that statement which at the mo i cannot find... I came across this.....
If Dr Vincent Tabak had pleaded guilty in May at the Old bailey.... then why did it take until September for him to sign any statement???????
Doesn't add up
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
For years, I speculated about the identity and background of Peter Brotherton. Not until this thread did I learn that he was a senior prison officer (probably retired) from another prison. Like most of the other witnesses, he was very careful not to perjure himself. Therefore, I believe that we can trust the statements he made under oath about the dates of the meetings that the prisoner had requested him. Incidentally, we CANNOT trust most of the important "facts" declared by barristers in court or reportedly displayed on the screens, as these were not proved by any witness under oath.
Vincent Tabak put off signing the enhanced statement till the very last minute because it was compiled by his lawyers. The very last answer he gave in the witness box confirmed this. You have thoroughly explored on this forum the tissue of lies which permeate his testimony. He must have been extremely reluctant to go along with it - but when he did go into the witness box, he gave a masterly performance - for two days. He was word-perfect, despite the outrageous verbal abuse to which Nigel Lickley subjected him. It was the act of a desparate but not a broken man.
-
How did they manage to represent him fully if Clegg hadn't ever met him....??
Ian Kelcey, Vincent Tabak's instructing solicitor, is a Bristol lawyer with national influence. He had chaired the Law Society's Criminal Law Committee. A member of his family represented Dr Tabak for his subsequent child pornography trial. He must have met his client in Long Lartin at least once before 5th May 2011. However, it doesn't follow that the QC whom he instructed, William Clegg, also travelled to Long Lartin in person. He would depend on the case papers submitted to him by Ian Kelcey for his own appearance at the Old Bailey on 5th May. I believe that this was also the occasion when the porn and the prostitutes were first discussed in court.
During a trip abroad, an unknown conspirator from the "Courtroom Workgroup" surrounding Vincent Tabak may have watched a recently produced TV version of a 1934 Agatha Christie mystery called “Why didn’t they ask Evans?”, in which an actor impersonated a wealthy and allegedly terminally ill man whom his accomplices murdered. All but one of his servants were sent away, while a lawyer who did not know the deceased was summoned to legalize a forged will.
-
The constantly change the information to suit whatever train of thought they want people to believe.... As I said ... some of the earlier confrences were probably more accurate.... Thats why we have NO Significant Injuries and FULLY CLOTHED!!!!!!
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg369628#msg369628
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg369560;topicseen#msg369560
Ah, yes, those INJURIES!!! I'm so glad you mentioned them. These may have been one of the "hand grenades" that Ann Reddrop of the CPS tossed into the duty solicitor's lap without warning on the eve of the bail hearing, causing Paul Cook QC to change his mind spectacularly and humiliatingly. I do wish we knew her name!!! If you are brave, you will telephone Crosland & Co to ask them which of their staff was on duty at the police station when Vincent Tabak was brought in for questioning.
Those 43 injuries MAY have been caused by her killer, whoever he was - certainly not the placid Dr Tabak, who had no motive nor any history of violence. However, many of the injuries may have been caused by all those heavy appliances needed to retrieve her body from wherever it was REALLY concealed. Or they MAY have been the result of a violent struggle with a male person some time before the incident that led to her death. No medical history was produced for Joanna in court. It is possible that the REAL reason she stayed away from work the day before she went to the Bristol Ram pub was to recover from bruises incurred in a fight the night before.
-
Although it is possible that Vincent Tabak pleaded guilty, this is not necessarily the case. There is very strong evidence that he did NOT plead guilty. The following evidence points to the a false plea obtained by tampering with the video-link.
(1) On 31st January 2011, Judge Colman Treacy "pencilled in" a date for the start of the trial, and also a date, 4th May 2011, for the defendant's plea and case management hearing at Bristol Crown Court.
(2) On 4th May 2011, a correspondent of mine who is resident in Somerset went to Bristol with the intention of sitting in the public gallery for the plea hearing. No such hearing was listed on the Crown Court timetable for that day, nor was there any clarification. My correspondent subsequently sat in the public gallery for several days of the trial later in the year.
(3) On 5th May 2011, the press reported that Vincent Tabak's plea and case management hearing was held at the Old Bailey, London - the only one of his hearings not to be held in Bristol. No explanation for the change of date and venue was published. The press had been tipped off about the changes, but the public had not been told.
(4) Instead of Judge Treacy, the hearing was held before Mr. Justice Richard Field, the judge who would also hear the trial. The defendant had not previously appeared before Judge Field, who would not be able to recognise Vincent Tabak. No explanation was published for the change of judge.
(5) At this hearing, Mr Nigel Lickley QC made his second appearance as Counsel for the Prosecution of this defendant. As Vincent Tabak appeared only by video-link on both occasions, Counsel could not be held responsible if the person claiming to be the defendant were not the same person on both occasions.
(6) At this hearing, Mr. William Clegg QC made his first appearance as Counsel for the Defence of this defendant. He was instructed by Ian Kelcey, a different solicitor from the one who had instructed the barristers who had represented Vincent Tabak at the earlier hearings, from a different law firm. There is no evidence of Mr. Kelcey ever having been present at any of the hearings, nor is there any evidence of Mr. Clegg ever having visited Vincent Tabak in prison. So Mr. Clegg could not possibly say whether the person on the video screen at the Old Bailey was the real Vincent Tabak.
(7) Mr. & Mrs. Yeates were escorted by a police officer, Emma Davies, from Bristol to London for the plea hearing. Neither of them had ever met the defendant, so they could not be sure whether he was the person on the screen.
(8) Neither Greg Reardon, nor any of Vincent Tabak's friends, nor his family, nor Hilary Douglas, the only journalist who had interviewed Vincent Tabak, nor anyone else who would recognise him by sight, was reported to be present at the Old Bailey.
(9) After Mr. & Mrs Yeates got home, they told a journalist that they had expected Vincent Tabak to plead guilty. This was an admission that Emma Davies had told Jo's parents beforehand, and she could have known only if it were the police and prosecution who controlled the plea.
(10) When he heard about the plea, the Tabak family spokesman said he was shocked by the news and had heard no suggestion that a guilty plea would be entered.
(11) When he heard about the plea, Vincent Tabak's friend Joran Jessuran, a software engineer from Eindhoven University, tweeted that he had not expected that.
(12) DCI Phil Jones made a statement to the press outside the Old Bailey after the hearing. He was not reported to have been inside the courtroom. It is possible that he had met Vincent Tabak at the police station after he was first arrested, but he took no part in the prisoner's interrogation.
(13) The only evidence allegedly linking Vincent Tabak to the crime was enhanced DNA and 11 coat fibres on the victim's clothes, and microscopic blood traces from the victim in the boot of the car he used. He had no motive so his lawyers had no reason to allow him to plead guilty to killing her.
Just as an actress was engaged to impersonate Joanna Yeates in a TV reconstruction, it would have been straightforward to hire an actor resembling Vincent Tabak to impersonate him for the plea hearing. The room in which the actor sat could have been anywhere. Bristol is a centre of expertise for cartoon animation, so it is also possible that the plea was entered by a digital video simulation of Vincent Tabak.
I think the chances of someone impersonating Vincent Tabak at any hearing was nil. These things might happen in TV dramas but not in real life in the UK. Your suggestion is a conspiracy too far!
Hearing venues are often moved to accommodate a Judge who might be sitting on a case in another area miles away. Easier to move a defendant than a Judge.
Vincent Tabask's lawyer and the CPS would know in advance what plea Vincent Tabak was intending to make.
-
That there was a "conspiracy" between the lawyers to ensure Vincent Tabak's conviction for murder is not in question. Just the cross-examination of the so-called chaplain Peter Brotherton by defence QC William Clegg proves that. Why should Mr Clegg collude with a witness to fake evidence of a confession in court, if the defendant really had admitted killing Joanna? Mr Clegg pretended to discredit the witness by suggesting that the old man did not remember what was in the statement he was alleged to have signed immediately after betraying the prisoner's confidence. But there was no such statement! If there had been, the judge and the jury would have been able to consult their copies of it to see for themselves. If the judge had not been party to the conspiracy, he would have told Counsel to stop leading the witness.
Many of the 100 points that "Nine" has listed reinforce the evidence for a conspiracy, or "courtroom group". I listed a dozen separate facts that together point to an imposter at the plea hearing. Isn't that stretching coincidence too far? Why should the real Vincent Tabak have pleaded guilty to a crime for which we now know there was scarcely any evidence against him? If it really was him on the screen, then what methods did the his lawyers, the prison authorities and the CPS use to elicit that plea? - Hypnotism? - Drugs? - The threat of violence against him, or his nieces and nephews?
-
That there was a "conspiracy" between the lawyers to ensure Vincent Tabak's conviction for murder is not in question. Just the cross-examination of the so-called chaplain Peter Brotherton by defence QC William Clegg proves that. Why should Mr Clegg collude with a witness to fake evidence of a confession in court, if the defendant really had admitted killing Joanna? Mr Clegg pretended to discredit the witness by suggesting that the old man did not remember what was in the statement he was alleged to have signed immediately after betraying the prisoner's confidence. But there was no such statement! If there had been, the judge and the jury would have been able to consult their copies of it to see for themselves. If the judge had not been party to the conspiracy, he would have told Counsel to stop leading the witness.
Many of the 100 points that "Nine" has listed reinforce the evidence for a conspiracy, or "courtroom group". I listed a dozen separate facts that together point to an imposter at the plea hearing. Isn't that stretching coincidence too far? Why should the real Vincent Tabak have pleaded guilty to a crime for which we now know there was scarcely any evidence against him? If it really was him on the screen, then what methods did the his lawyers, the prison authorities and the CPS use to elicit that plea? - Hypnotism? - Drugs? - The threat of violence against him, or his nieces and nephews?
Tabak obviously felt the need to relieve his conscience so wanted to confess to what he had done. A plea of manslaughter would have seen a much more lenient sentence imposed. The imposter claim is nonsense as is the conspiracy claim. Tabak would have been shouting from the rooftops if he had been impersonated by an imposter at the plea hearing. These things just don't happen in the UK.
-
Does a conviction for manslaughter always lead to a much lighter sentence, John?
-
Does a conviction for manslaughter always lead to a much lighter sentence, John?
Almost always since murder is seen as the more serious crime. Both can attract a life tariff however, it all depends on the circumstances of the crime.
-
Tabak obviously felt the need to relieve his conscience so wanted to confess to what he had done. A plea of manslaughter would have seen a much more lenient sentence imposed. The imposter claim is nonsense as is the conspiracy claim. Tabak would have been shouting from the rooftops if he had been impersonated by an imposter at the plea hearing. These things just don't happen in the UK.
Well, let's hope not!!
I don't buy into the impostor theory myself: it sounds extremely far-fetched, even for me, and I think there is a lot that is iffy in this case!
This is what we have instead:
A man with no history of violence , no criminal record , and in a relationship with his first serious girlfriend, deciding to take a trip to ASDA to buy perfectly "normal" items, attacking and strangling his next door neighbour on the way because she rejected his advances, putting her body in a cycle bag, and then in the boot of his car, doing his shopping looking perfectly calm, then driving a few miles to dump the body, then, a few hours later collecting his girlfriend and going arm-in-arm to buy burgers.
Apparently he managed to do all this without leaving any fingerprints or DNA in the neighbour's flat: he did not exactly have much time to clean up.
This scenario is not the real world either, and I never cease to be amazed that so many people believe it.
-
Tabak obviously felt the need to relieve his conscience so wanted to confess to what he had done. A plea of manslaughter would have seen a much more lenient sentence imposed. The imposter claim is nonsense as is the conspiracy claim. Tabak would have been shouting from the rooftops if he had been impersonated by an imposter at the plea hearing. These things just don't happen in the UK.
"These things" may or not be common in the rest of the UK, but "these things" certainly took place in the part of the UK called Avon & Somerset in 2011. It is not very helpful to dismiss the evidence of an imposter as "nonsense". If an imposter were not used, then Vincent Tabak's plea must have been obtained by coercion or blackmail.
After the trial, Dr Tabak's family stated that they feared he would be at risk from vigilante action. This is probably the reason why there is no "shouting from the rooftops" in this case. How many other foreign engineers with PhDs and no history of violence against women are serving life sentences in the UK? He was much more vulnerable than a British defendant with little or no education would have been.
Most of the media accounts of Peter Brotherton's testimony and cross-examination are incomplete and contain précis. Here is a link to one of them:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/joanna-yeates-killer-confessed-to-chaplain-2372235.html
Cross-examining Peter Brotherton at the trial, Counsel for the Defence William Clegg QC questioned whether Vincent Tabak really had told the Chaplain that he intended to change his plea, and went on to suggest that Vincent Tabak was “a depressed and distressed man unburdening himself”. Counsel asserted that the Chaplain had signed a statement on 16th February 2011, in which he had stated that Vincent Tabak had told him that he intended “to plead guilty”, not “to change his plea”.
Mr Clegg said: “Let me suggest to you there was no suggestion of ‘changing my plea’. ‘I am going to plead guilty’ – that’s what he said. You said ‘What for?’ And he said ‘For the crime I have done’.”
When the barrister suggested some of his evidence today was wrong, Mr Brotherton replied: “If that's what you say, I would agree with you.”
-
All the 'facts' you put forward for tabak being innocent are all based on his version of the thruth or your own opinions . He was looking to escape a life sentence for murder and secure a manslaughter conviction! His DNA was on Joanna's body and he must have expected that as it was one of his searches wasnt it? How does anyone know how the events of the night of the murder actually played out because we only have his version of events. It's far better to say he misread the signals that he could have accidentally killed her hence the manslaughter charge he admitted to rather than murder , Also if she was murdered outside surely that would explain No DNA in the flat which we know so could that mean she was not killed outside the flat by him or anyone else, that doesn't make him innocent , it just proves he is a liar and his misread signals are all smoke and mirrors because it fits the manslaughter plea far better than actually murder.
It was stated by him without challenge he was invited in as she waved to him. That may never have happened as there is nothing to prove this but it does however sets the scene nicely to go forwards with his story I didn't mean to do it manslaughter story so basically hearsay at best or a plain out right lie . There is nothing to say the murder took place in the flat or took place else where any arguments people make to this are either hearsay or their own opinions and can't be proved one way or the other like a lot of the points raised to claim he might be innocent no solid facts or evidence one way or the other it is purely circumstantial so can't be used . What is clear is his DNA was found on her body & her DNA was found in his car it is clear he is fighting to get the lowest sentence possible probably why he apologised in court to her family ....Most if not all the points prove he is a murderer plain and simple and anything else is nothing more than hearsay by conspiracy theorists out to get their name up in lights ......
-
The defence can only do so much as their client went yes I did it!ok not murder but he said she died at his hands so what can they do. His defence are the best in the business read the write up on him and as others have stated. As for no visits maybe they didn't want to they didn't stand by him because he admitted he murdered her to them who knows unless you were present at earlier meetings & Nothing can prove otherwise other than circumstantial evidence or hearsay .
-
All the 'facts' you put forward for tabak being innocent are all based on his version of the thruth or your own opinions . He was looking to escape a life sentence for murder and secure a manslaughter conviction! His DNA was on Joanna's body and he must have expected that as it was one of his searches wasnt it?...
Most of the posts from people who question the verdict are based not on opinions but on reliable facts, reports of alleged facts, and reports of contradictory statements by the protagonists. I have only just joined this mature thread, and I am conscious of the need not to rush in where angels fear to tread.
"His version of the truth", i.e., Dr Tabak's answers under cross-examination, as other posters on this thread have demonstrated, contained a long string of assertions that contradict the known facts, or each other, or plain commonsense. But his answers were obviously carefully rehearsed. I was particularly struck by one brilliant point made earlier on this thread that had never occurred to me before. When asked, "Why did you take the pizza?" the defendant answered "I wasn't thinking straight". Maybe he wasn't - but of all the nick-nacks in all the rooms of Jo's flat, how on earth could he know that the pizza was the one object whose disappearance would result in a mammoth pizza hunt in all the rubbish bins of Bristol?
http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/mum-s-tears-joanna-yeates-murder-trial/story-13598437-detail/story.html
"...His DNA was on Joanna's body..." Well, no, not actually. The DNA expert witness Lindsay Lennen told the court that partial DNA from an unidentifiable body fluid that had had to be enhanced before being matched to Dr Tabak's profile had been found on Joanna's body. Hers was a long testimony, and instead of seeking to discredit her evidence - something of which William Clegg QC has long and distinguished experience - he cross-examined her at great length in such a way as to REINFORCE her credibility. Lennen herself later told The Guardian that her "evidence" had not been "tested" in court.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jan/17/csi-oxford-lgc-forensics
-
I believe the policeman himself admitted that the DNA was "inconclusive."
As for the visits, Tanja, VT's brother and another person visited him in Long Lartin on February 11th, three weeks after he had first been placed on remand, so it cannot be true that nobody wanted to visit him.
So, where and when do you think VT killed Joanna, Paul, if it was not in either of their flats?
-
Cross-examining forensic scientist Lindsay Lennen, Clegg raised the possibility that Yeates's body could have been transported from her flat in Clifton, Bristol, to the verge where the body was found in Tabak's cycle bag. He asked her if was possible that Tabak's DNA could have been transferred from the bag to Yeates. Lennen agreed it was possible.
That proves he either killed her or he moved the body and someone else killed her but as no other DNA was found that is impossible so he is the only one guilty of her murder ... either way it proves her DNA came directly off him or his bag what reason would she be doing in his bag oh yes just a minute she was dead! killed by him & nothing else prove otherwise .
-
"For the Crime I have done"??????
That could refer to absolutly anything..... It depends what he has been told is a crime in this country... He wouldn't know British Law... And certain Laws in this country can be applied when and where it suits....
That is how I looked at it from October 2011 to May 2012. Then the truth came to me in a garden in northern Germany, but it could just as well have been the road to Damascus. I could barely contain my impatience to get back to the hotel to check on the computer what was actually said in court. Vincent Tabak NEVER said "for the crime that I have done". Nor did Peter Brotherton ever say those words under oath. ONLY William Clegg QC said those words! Counsel did NOT ask the witness, "Did he say these words?" - so the witness was not perjuring himself by replying, "If that is what you say, then I would agree with you".
A barrister cannot be prosecuted for what he says in court. He can tell lies if he thinks he can get away with it. He can say things that no witness under oath has said, if he thinks the judge won't notice. In this trial, both barristers stated an astonshing lot of things that the jury took in good faith as facts, even though no witness ever testified to them. And the judge never stepped in, as he should have done.
This is terribly important, and terribly simple, yet it took me 6 months to realise it.
-
I believe the policeman himself admitted that the DNA was "inconclusive."
As for the visits, Tanja, VT's brother and another person visited him in Long Lartin on February 11th, three weeks after he had first been placed on remand, so it cannot be true that nobody wanted to visit him.
So, where and when do you think VT killed Joanna, Paul, if it was not in either of their flats?
The DNA Was inconclusive , the only thing inconclusive was just where it came from there is no doubt it belongs to him and that is decisive and proven beyond doubt .
All the points raised have been proven inconclusive nothing more than fabricated, opinions and prove nothing all the proven evidence points to VT .....
My opinions on where or when he murdered her are irrelevant and as pointless as your opinions that he didn't murder her , its what the court, jury and professionals thought and have proved beyond all reasonable doubt ...
-
And as there is no recording of this meeting with Brotherton, then we do not know what was said!!!!
Maybe the pertinent question to Brotherton should have been:
What is your profession???
I am sure Brotherton was careful enough to make sure that his conversations with the defendant WERE recorded, without telling him. We know that Amanda Knox's first conversation with her mother after her imprisonment was secretly recorded, and Brotherton, as you yourself found out recently, was a professional prison officer. He knew all the ropes. His testimony had all the hallmarks of being carefully "boilerplated" - of sentences cut out from a transcription and pasted together to deceive the jury, without his actually lying.
-
Have you a transcript of what Brotherton actually said????
This is not a transcript, but I compiled it carefully from the reports in the news media and tweets from the court, some of which, disconcertingly, are no longer available.
“I was the chaplain at the prison where the defendant was held. I started to volunteer at the prison in January 2011. I have been a prison visitor since 1975. The prison was Long Lartin in Worcestershire.”
“My first meeting with the defendant was on 2nd February 2011. He was in the first cell of the prison’s health unit, which has a Perspex door, as he was under surveillance 24 hours a day. This was because of fears that he could kill himself.”
“We had a second meeting on 5th February 2011, lasting five minutes.” The witness did not recount what the two of them had talked about during their first two meetings. “He asked for paper and pencil, and asked to talk to me again in confidence.”
“At our third meeting, on 8th February 2011, he went to his cell to get his mug so he could have his water”. This was two days before Vincent Tabak’s 33rd birthday.
“I shook hands with him and asked him ‘How are you?’ He said ‘So-so. I am going to tell you something that will shock you’ I replied, ‘You tell me and we shall see’, or words to that effect”.
“He told me, ‘I am going to change my plea to guilty’. I asked him, ‘Is this about the young lady in Bristol?’”
The coyness of this question suggests that they had not previously talked about the fate of Joanna Yeates at all, nor about why Long Lartin’s most famous remand prisoner was there.
“He answered ‘Yes’ I asked him, ‘Are you sorry for what you have done?’ He replied ‘yes’”.
“He told me, ‘It is going to be difficult to tell my girlfriend’. I told him, ‘I would be willing to help you tell your girlfriend about what has happened. I advise you to talk to your solicitor’. He wanted to talk more, but I didn't want him to, as he was getting upset. ‘Would you like me to say a prayer with you?’ I offered. ‘No thank you’, he answered.”
“I told him that I would have to disclose our conversation. This was because he was not religious. It was not a religious confession. He replied: ‘Well I'm not going to tell you anything else’. There was a little bit of anger in his voice, he was nervous, and there was a tremble in his voice. I gave him a handwritten prayer, shook hands with him and left”.
-
My opinions on where or when he murdered her are irrelevant and as pointless as your opinions that he didn't murder her , its what the court, jury and professionals thought and have proved beyond all reasonable doubt ...
Up to five members of the jury were not convinced that Vincent Tabak murdered Joanna. Those jurors who were convinced must have been swayed by her 43 injuries and the signs of a struggle described under oath by Greg Reardon - who told the court that he had tidied most of these up before anyone else arrived. Both the judge and Ann Reddrop (CPS) - professionals, both, declared that Vincent Tabak was a liar. I and most other posters would endorse this. His account of how he killed Joanna in her flat and then moved her from room to room, flat to flat, Clifton to Failand, has been shown on this thread to be a pack of inconsistent lies.
So where was she really killed? You have expressed some strong opinions, Paul, but your SUGGESTIONS for a more plausible scenario resulting in Joanna's death would make a welcome contribution.
-
I find new things all the time.... why was this not produced in court... It would have shown signs of a struggle and there should have been finger prints on it if it had been broken then put back in place..
-
Well, let's hope not!!
I don't buy into the impostor theory myself: it sounds extremely far-fetched, even for me, and I think there is a lot that is iffy in this case!
This is what we have instead:
A man with no history of violence , no criminal record , and in a relationship with his first serious girlfriend, deciding to take a trip to ASDA to buy perfectly "normal" items, attacking and strangling his next door neighbour on the way because she rejected his advances, putting her body in a cycle bag, and then in the boot of his car, doing his shopping looking perfectly calm, then driving a few miles to dump the body, then, a few hours later collecting his girlfriend and going arm-in-arm to buy burgers.
Apparently he managed to do all this without leaving any fingerprints or DNA in the neighbour's flat: he did not exactly have much time to clean up.
This scenario is not the real world either, and I never cease to be amazed that so many people believe it.
The trip to Asda was most probably an attempt to create an alibi.
-
The trip to Asda was most probably an attempt to create an alibi.
How would a trip to Asda create an alibi?????
-
How would a trip to Asda create an alibi?????
For someone who had just committed murder the first thought would have been to try to create an alibi so a trip to the nearest store with CCTV would fit the bill.
Tabak's admission in a statement given to his defence team was read out in court. He admitted killing Joanna but claimed he never set out to kill her. Everything else is merely a smokescreen. It will never be known if he killed her at her flat or outside her flat or somewhere else.
I don't know how anyone can claim he is innocent?
THE killer of Jo Yeates told his lawyers he pressed a hand around her throat
for 20 seconds to stop her screaming, a court heard yesterday.
But Dutchman Vincent Tabak, whose account of how he strangled Jo was revealed
for the first time, said he used only “moderate force” and never intended to
kill her.
Referring to a statement Tabak, 33, made to his defence team, prosecutor Nigel
Lickley QC, said: “The mechanism of death, as best the defendant can recall,
is as follows.
“The two were facing each other. He put one arm around her back with his hand
in the middle of her back and she screamed. He put the other hand over her
mouth which caused the screaming to cease.
“He removed his hand from her mouth and the screaming continued.
“He then put his hand around her throat — he believes it was the one that had
been behind her back — and held it there for about 20 seconds.
“He applied no more than moderate force on a scale of one to three. He did not
intend death or serious injury.
“His actions above killed Miss Yeates. The defendant accepts his actions were
unlawful.” The court heard engineer Tabak, who admits manslaughter but
denies murder, signed the defence statement on September 22.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/845725/he-held-jo-yeates-throat-for-20-seconds-to-stop-her-screaming/
-
So, Greg stated, under oath , that there was a state of disorder inside the flat, which he tidied up.
This indicates, does it not, that whoever killed Joanna had been in her flat, whether or not she was killed there or elsewhere.
If that person was VT, where is the forensic evidence? There would have been a complete DNA profile, I would imagine, and fingerprints. There would have been fingerprints on that front door that VT seemed so interested in.
Had there been good forensic evidence pointing to VT having been in Jo's flat, the prosecuting counsel would have used it as reliable evidence: much more reliable than the enhanced stuff!!
-
I don't know how anyone can claim he is innocent?
I don't know how anyone who has followed the posts on this thread from its beginning can still claim that Vincent Tabak is guilty of anything at all!!!
It should be obvious to you, Angelo222, that his own testimony given over two harrowing days in the witness box was a tissue of lies, full of serious discrepancies, put together by his own lawyers oh-so-obligingly to accommodate the Prosecution's case. Without the alleged confession to Peter "chaplain" Brotherton and the plea at the Old Bailey, that case falls apart completely.
I have tried very hard in my recent posts, by reference to the actual words spoken in court, to demonstrate that the alleged confession was a fake. "It was not a religious confession" - because it was not a confession at all!!! It was a clever piece of trickery, as one might expect from a brilliant barrister - who just happened to forget which side he was supposed to be on!
I have also tried to show that the plea was probably entered by an imposter or by a digital conjuring trick. I don't understand why this should be regarded as so unlikely, but then the onus is on those who react that way to suggest why Dr Tabak himself should have entered such a plea. After the trial, we learnt how astonishingly meager the evidence against him really was. If the CPS had more evidence, such as DNA from the house, they would certainly have produced it in court. But they didn't. So none of his lawyers should ever have allowed him to enter such a plea.
DC Karen Thomas, one of the officers who flew to Holland to interview Dr Tabak as a witness on 31 December 2010, while the landlord was still in custody, told the court that his behaviour and statements led her to make him a suspect. An employee of LGC Forensics, Lindsay Lennen, testified in court to traces of DNA, fibres and blood splatter linking the defendant and his car to the victim - but this evidence has been shown to be deeply questionable. Unlike the general public, LGC Forensics knew very well that there was no DNA evidence against the landlord, so they promptly entered into a collusive agreement with the Daily Mail to put pressure on the police to promote their proprietary enhancement process. This was revealed at the Leveson Inquiry.
As has been explained on this thread, many so-called facts were fed to the jury to persuade them that Joanna was killed in the flat on the Friday night. I would especially draw your attention to the hitherto unremarked witness who came all the way from Glasgow to tell the jury that she had examined the contents of Joanna's stomach to determine the time of death, but omitted to tell them what she had actually found! Qui s'accuse s'excuse. Joanna was undoubtedly killed elsewhere, much later, when Dr Tabak had an alibi, so someone else did it.
-
I don't know how anyone who has followed the posts on this thread from its beginning can still claim that Vincent Tabak is guilty of anything at all!!!
It should be obvious to you, Angelo222, that his own testimony given over two harrowing days in the witness box was a tissue of lies, full of serious discrepancies, put together by his own lawyers oh-so-obligingly to accommodate the Prosecution's case. Without the alleged confession to Peter "chaplain" Brotherton and the plea at the Old Bailey, that case falls apart completely.
I have tried very hard in my recent posts, by reference to the actual words spoken in court, to demonstrate that the alleged confession was a fake. "It was not a religious confession" - because it was not a confession at all!!! It was a clever piece of trickery, as one might expect from a brilliant barrister - who just happened to forget which side he was supposed to be on!
I have also tried to show that the plea was probably entered by an imposter or by a digital conjuring trick. I don't understand why this should be regarded as so unlikely, but then the onus is on those who react that way to suggest why Dr Tabak himself should have entered such a plea. After the trial, we learnt how astonishingly meager the evidence against him really was. If the CPS had more evidence, such as DNA from the house, they would certainly have produced it in court. But they didn't. So none of his lawyers should ever have allowed him to enter such a plea.
DC Karen Thomas, one of the officers who flew to Holland to interview Dr Tabak as a witness on 31 December 2010, while the landlord was still in custody, told the court that his behaviour and statements led her to make him a suspect. An employee of LGC Forensics, Lindsay Lennen, testified in court to traces of DNA, fibres and blood splatter linking the defendant and his car to the victim - but this evidence has been shown to be deeply questionable. Unlike the general public, LGC Forensics knew very well that there was no DNA evidence against the landlord, so they promptly entered into a collusive agreement with the Daily Mail to put pressure on the police to promote their proprietary enhancement process. This was revealed at the Leveson Inquiry.
As has been explained on this thread, many so-called facts were fed to the jury to persuade them that Joanna was killed in the flat on the Friday night. I would especially draw your attention to the hitherto unremarked witness who came all the way from Glasgow to tell the jury that she had examined the contents of Joanna's stomach to determine the time of death, but omitted to tell them what she had actually found! Qui s'accuse s'excuse. Joanna was undoubtedly killed elsewhere, much later, when Dr Tabak had an alibi, so someone else did it.
There is nothing whatsoever contained within this thread which would make me doubt Tabak's conviction.
Your opinion is worthless when faced with Tabaks own plea of guilt. Next you'll be claiming he was tortured into pleading guilty. @)(++(*
-
Firstly, yes, I know he made a confession, but how do we know he didn't make it under duress? .....How do you know he did make it under duress ? just hearsay and your own thoughts
-
There is nothing whatsoever contained within this thread which would make me doubt Tabak's conviction.
Your opinion is worthless when faced with Tabaks own plea of guilt. Next you'll be claiming he was tortured into pleading guilty. @)(++(*
Well said. in a nutshell putting all this craziness back in its place!
-
That is a real shame Angelo222 I thought I had uncovered some interesting facts..... Answer me this please??
If he can't be at home to do two of the searches, how can the searches be his????
Sadly Nine the only interesting facts you have uncovered are those in your own head, your own opinions and hearsay , nothing is ever concrete or actual fact , things like ....I know he made a confession, but how do we know he didn't make it under duress? .....How do you know he did make it under duress ? just hearsay and your own thoughts again no actual facts or proof .....The DNA Was inconclusive , the only thing inconclusive was just where it came from there is no doubt it belongs to him and that is decisive and proven beyond doubt .
All the points raised have been proven inconclusive nothing more than fabricated, opinions and prove nothing all the proven evidence points to VT why can't you just accept the fact you are wrong?
-
Tell me please Paul..... How do crime scene photos's change??????? they don't but neither to they prove any of your opinions , your insecurities or the fact you don't like being questioned or proved wrong by facts & truths such as the DNA doesn't lie & the only DNA found on her body was his no one else or you claim he is innocent but yet can't name or provide another suspect so if your opinions , points & links were true surely they would have uncovered links to who did the crime the fact they don't leads a sane person to come to the only conclusion possible and that is that VT is guilty as charged & sentenced .
AS FOR...I don't understand why you disappear when i ask you a question???? I have a actual life that doesn't allow me to sit in front of a screen all the time & certainly doesn't allow me to troll people like some do
-
Sadly Nine the only interesting facts you have uncovered are those in your own head, your own opinions and hearsay , nothing is ever concrete or actual fact , things like ....I know he made a confession, but how do we know he didn't make it under duress? .....How do you know he did make it under duress ? just hearsay and your own thoughts again no actual facts or proof .....The DNA Was inconclusive , the only thing inconclusive was just where it came from there is no doubt it belongs to him and that is decisive and proven beyond doubt .
All the points raised have been proven inconclusive nothing more than fabricated, opinions and prove nothing all the proven evidence points to VT why can't you just accept the fact you are wrong or does your ego prevent that because you are perfect in everything you do ?
Paul, you have mistakenly blamed Nine for things I said!
Actually, I have always accepted that I might be wrong, and have said so before now.
You could be wrong, too!
-
Paul, you have mistakenly blamed Nine for things I said!
Actually, I have always accepted that I might be wrong, and have said so before now.
You could be wrong, too!
Well actually I haven't as when you are one and the same person it would be correct to name either of you but as you both hunt in a pack it's not hard to confuse the too , but I fail to see what that has to do with the case mrswah ???
Let's start by getting our definitions straight @drewscapegoat: is an Internet troll he is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, in fact, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response he has done it all and more and both Nine & yourself mrswah post, write and spell the same as he does which raises questions are all 3 of you the same person many not only me believe this is true ....
So lets keep comments about the case & not nit picking about the odd name error ....
Am I ever wrong yes I am because no one in the world is perfect & if they claim to be they are bigger lairs than both of you .....
-
Can I just say I signed into this forum tonight to reply to a comment made by Angelo. I haven't posted on this thread for a while because its pretty much pointless.
Nine you straight away mentioned my likes on said post quickly followed by my choice of picture and slam straight into a mention of ' a man you don't know'
You brought Drew aka Mr Andrew Ashman to the table for whatever reason so please don't start pointing the finger at others. Its all part of the game!
-
Can I just say I signed into this forum tonight to reply to a comment made by Angelo. I haven't posted on this thread for a while because its pretty much pointless.
Nine you straight away mentioned my likes on said post quickly followed by my choice of picture and slam straight into a mention of ' a man you don't know'
You brought Drew aka Mr Andrew Ashman to the table for whatever reason so please don't start pointing the finger at others. Its all part of the game!
I'm glad you have come to the conclusion that I don't know DA....
What Game???????? You have lost me??????
-
Time shouldn't change on the clock because the battery would probably be dead by then. equally if the battery was a Duracell they last 4 times longer so maybe it wasn't dead .....Denying the truth,doesn’t change the facts.Your personal experience, is your perception of truth. But, your truth may not be mine... and, neither may be factually correct....
-
Tell me please Paul..... How do crime scene photos's change??????? they don't but neither to they prove any of your opinions , your insecurities or the fact you don't like being questioned or proved wrong by facts & truths such as the DNA doesn't lie & the only DNA found on her body was his no one else or you claim he is innocent but yet can't name or provide another suspect so if your opinions , points & links were true surely they would have uncovered links to who did the crime the fact they don't leads a sane person to come to the only conclusion possible and that is that VT is guilty as charged & sentenced .
AS FOR...I don't understand why you disappear when i ask you a question???? I have a actual life that doesn't allow me to sit in front of a screen all the time & certainly doesn't allow me to troll people like some do
Why would I provide a suspect????? why would I know?????
-
The crime scene photo's have change... ...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg374846#msg374846
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg374848#msg374848
These images were supposed to be when the media were allowed in after the jury came in to see the flat...
Time shouldn't change on the clock because the battery would probably be dead by then... But more importantly the shoes on the shoe stand should NOT change position!!!
Infact where are the pictures before they moved the carpet?????
Normally crime scene photo's are of what a crime scene looks like after a perpetrator has been at the scene..
So maybe Greg did a good clean whilst pottering about....
Maybe, there weren't any carpets?????
I'm sure there would have been in the rented flat.. you normally get flooring at least!!
Objects at crime scenes do get moved around by police and the CSI teams Nine, no real conspiracy there but thank you for pointing it out in any event, you certainly have put some time and effort into your posts if nothing else.
-
Why did the shoes change position?????
Everything is checked for clues at a crime scene so items like the shoes will be lifted up and set back afterwards.
-
Yes ...Things may get moved John... But they shouldn't be moved when the Jury have been to see the flat...
I think they called it a time Capsule.....
In an ideal world probably but items are never put back exactly where they were found by those who first attended the scene so there will always be discrepancies in photos taken at different times.
-
I was under the impression that the photographs came from when the media came into the flat after the Jury had just been shown around it...
Therefore nothing should move position...
Also John.... why would they allow Greg to remove his possesions from a crime scene???
Possessions can be removed if police agree. It is up to the senior investigating officer to decide what is significant and what is not.
-
Possessions can be removed if police agree. It is up to the senior investigating officer to decide what is significant and what is not.
Why would they leave the Coat Stand behind if Dr Vincent Tabak put his coat on it??????
-
Why would they leave the Coat Stand behind if Dr Vincent Tabak put his coat on it??????
I have no idea so no point in speculating.
-
There is nothing whatsoever contained within this thread which would make me doubt Tabak's conviction.
Your opinion is worthless when faced with Tabaks own plea of guilt. Next you'll be claiming he was tortured into pleading guilty. @)(++(*
(1) On being arrested and taken to the police station, in a state of shock and distress, he was stripped naked, groped, and photographed by a complete stranger, nurse Ruth Booth-Pearson. I am sure you would feel excruciatingly humiliated if that happened to you.
(2) He was not allowed to wear his own clothes again. For the next ten days, he was forced to wear scruffy clothes from goodness knows where.
(3) He was deprived of his prescription glasses until after his second court appearance, so he could barely see who was interrogating him. He was provided with plastic off-the-shelf glasses instead. Fact!!!
(4) He didn't sleep a wink on his 5th night in custody in Bristol because all the other prisoners knew he was there and he was terrified of being beaten up.
(5) He was then moved to Gloucester prison, and one or two days later to Long Lartin Prison, which specialises in inmates who are especially violent - not like the lads in Bristol. Could he choose his cell mates? Of course he couldn't. Fact!!! Any hint that he wouldn't do what he was told, or plead as he should, and he could be threatened with a serial killer as a cell mate.
(6) Long Lartin also specialises in foreign prisoners who cannot be deported for fear of torture. Fact!!!
(7) In gross violation of the rules for remand prisoners, he wasn't allowed any visits by his family nor friends until the day of Joanna's funeral. Fact!!!
(8) He was tricked into betraying confidences to a fake chaplain whom "Nine" on this thread has discovered was actually a senior officer from another prison. This person threatened "to tell his girlfriend" about the porn that the police alleged he had been viewing on his computer and the prostitutes they alleged he had been patronising.
-
Christopher Jefferies told of what it was like being in custody:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25625572
Fortunately, he did not get as far as prison. I have to assume that things were even worse for VT in custody, since he did.
-
Christopher Jefferies told of what it was like being in custody:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25625572
Fortunately, he did not get as far as prison. I have to assume that things were even worse for VT in custody, since he did.
Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have also described graphically how they were stripped naked and examined by strangers, in their respective published accounts of their experiences of the Italian criminal justice system. Each of them had been in custody more than 24 hours before they were humiliated in this way.
-
Firstly, yes, I know he made a confession, but how do we know he didn't make it under duress? .....How do you know he did make it under duress ? just hearsay and your own thoughts
But Vincent Tabak NEVER actually made a confession. That is what we have been deceived into believing. However, if you read the words actually spoken in court, it was only the QCs who made that allegation in court, and the press and the jury took them at face value. The so-called chaplain NEVER said that the prisoner had told him he had killed Joanna. He never even said the defendant had "confessed". The only time he used the word "confession" was when he told the court, "It was not a religious confession". We were all disgusted by the way he used this as an excuse to betray the prisoner's confidence - but we were all duped. The important word in this remark was "not".
All the stuff about telling his superiors was mere window dressing to justify making this statement. What is more, it would probably not have worked in Dutch, but only in English. "Nine" may correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the Dutch word for a confession to a priest is quite different from the Dutch word for the confession of a crime.
It was Counsel for the Defence who, in cross-examining the "chaplain", spoke the words that deceived us all into believing that the defendant had "confessed" within a few days of his incarceration.
Turn over every other stone in this case, every other witness, every other statement, and you will find rottenness and deceit in every other instance.
-
Murder is not a game, but a serious matter. Arresting one innocent man might be regarded as a misfortune; to convict a second innocent man might look like carelessness. These facts reveal something MUCH WORSE than mere carelessness.
I would draw attention to the two or three persons whom Christopher Jefferies saw and heard on Joanna's front path. The main source for this incident is his 2nd witness statement to the Leveson Inquiry. He told the police about these persons within an hour or two of watching the first TV appeal by Joanna's parents, because something that someone said in that broadcast didn't accord with something or someone he had seen.
Why did the police never react to his statement reporting these persons? They can hardly have failed to be of interest to the police. Any of them may have been the killer, a witness, or Joanna herself. The police never made any public appeal for these specific persons to come forward. Nor did they ever explain publicly why they had never appealed for them to come forward. Did they eliminate them? Did the landlord identify any of them?
Numerous documentaries have been made about this case, and all of them turned a blind eye to the presence of these mysterious persons seen by the landlord, in the vicinity of a crime scene, close to the time of the crime. How could they ignore such an obvious cover-up?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
But Vincent Tabak NEVER actually made a confession. That is what we have been deceived into believing. However, if you read the words actually spoken in court, it was only the QCs who made that allegation in court, and the press and the jury took them at face value. The so-called chaplain NEVER said that the prisoner had told him he had killed Joanna. He never even said the defendant had "confessed". The only time he used the word "confession" was when he told the court, "It was not a religious confession". We were all disgusted by the way he used this as an excuse to betray the prisoner's confidence - but we were all duped. The important word in this remark was "not".
All the stuff about telling his superiors was mere window dressing to justify making this statement. What is more, it would probably not have worked in Dutch, but only in English. "Nine" may correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the Dutch word for a confession to a priest is quite different from the Dutch word for the confession of a crime.
It was Counsel for the Defence who, in cross-examining the "chaplain", spoke the words that deceived us all into believing that the defendant had "confessed" within a few days of his incarceration.
Turn over every other stone in this case, every other witness, every other statement, and you will find rottenness and deceit in every other instance.
You have a curious way of twisting things, Tabak did confess to killing Joanna but called it accidental, thus why his admission to manslaughter.
By the way I have removed your claims that Tabak was tortured in prison as they are a total nonsense. We have very strict rules here so I would be careful who you libel in future. No further warning will be given.
-
You have a curious way of twisting things, Tabak did confess to killing Joanna but called it accidental, thus why his admission to manslaughter.
By the way I have removed your claims that Tabak was tortured in prison as they are a total nonsense. We have very strict rules here so I would be careful who you libel in future. No further warning will be given.
Thank you for reading my post with sufficient care to redact just the words that you considered to be in breach of the rules for the forum. The facts that you left standing speak for themselves.
I have taken care not to twist anything on this thread. All the twisting was done by Counsel for the Defence, not to mention those witnesses for the Prosecution who showed such economy with the truth - such as DC Karen Thomas, who flew to Schiphol, and filled 40 pages of her notebook with notes on the interview with Vincent Tabak and his girlfriend, but never explained to the court how they could have talked about the direction in which the landlord's car was facing for the best part of 6 hours!
You are putting together two separate episodes separated by eight months. Vincent Tabak's conversations with the so-called chaplain (who unknown to the defendant was actually a senior officer from another prison) took place in February 2011. Not until the trial in October did anyone talk about a "confession", and when they did so, it was to make a manipulative misrepresentation of one of these February conversations.
Later during the trial, Dr Tabak went into the witness box himself, on two consecutive days. He answered many detailed questions from both Counsel about an encounter he claimed he had had with Joanna, about the circumstances that he claimed resulted in her death, and about his claim to have transported of her body. I would call this an "admission", to distinguish it from the so-called "confession".
The only reason why you and other people believe in Vincent Tabak's guilt is because of the trial and the reports of it in the media. When scrutiny of these, including his own testimony, shows that so many of the proceedings were phoney, and lack the most fundamental requirements for credibility, then I don't understand why you cannot see that there is no longer any basis for believing Dr Tabak to be guilty at all.
-
Thank you for reading my post with sufficient care to redact just the words that you considered to be in breach of the rules for the forum. The facts that you left standing speak for themselves.
I have taken care not to twist anything on this thread. All the twisting was done by Counsel for the Defence, not to mention those witnesses for the Prosecution who showed such economy with the truth - such as DC Karen Thomas, who flew to Schiphol, and filled 40 pages of her notebook with notes on the interview with Vincent Tabak and his girlfriend, but never explained to the court how they could have talked about the direction in which the landlord's car was facing for the best part of 6 hours!
You are putting together two separate episodes separated by eight months. Vincent Tabak's conversations with the so-called chaplain (who unknown to the defendant was actually a senior officer from another prison) took place in February 2011. Not until the trial in October did anyone talk about a "confession", and when they did so, it was to make a manipulative misrepresentation of one of these February conversations.
Later during the trial, Dr Tabak went into the witness box himself, on two consecutive days. He answered many detailed questions from both Counsel about an encounter he claimed he had had with Joanna, about the circumstances that he claimed resulted in her death, and about his claim to have transported of her body. I would call this an "admission", to distinguish it from the so-called "confession".
The only reason why you and other people believe in Vincent Tabak's guilt is because of the trial and the reports of it in the media. When scrutiny of these, including his own testimony, shows that so many of the proceedings were phoney, and lack the most fundamental requirements for credibility, then I don't understand why you cannot see that there is no longer any basis for believing Dr Tabak to be guilty at all.
Not so, the reason I believe him guilty is because he signed a statement admitting killing her and the fact that only his DNA was found on her. I'm afraid all the rest of it is merely semantics, water under the bridge.
-
Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have also described graphically how they were stripped naked and examined by strangers, in their respective published accounts of their experiences of the Italian criminal justice system. Each of them had been in custody more than 24 hours before they were humiliated in this way.
That's what happens when you are remanded in custody, people hide the strangest things in their body cavities.
-
Angelo222 my question is... If Dr Vincent Tabak' is in court having as what they say... confessed to this crime... If they were trying to prove Manslaughter AND not Murder...
Why was there no medical assesment given in court.. or any mitigating circumstances that you would usually associate with a Manslaughter Plea????
It's this type of inconstistency that leads people to question what happened to Dr Vincent Tabak....
Also Angelo222.... Do you think the treatment of Dr Vincent Tabak was fair ??? The fact he wasn't given access to friends or family for almost 25 days from his arrest... Surely that cannot be right!!!
All seems a bit strange, a prisoner is entitled to see family members and lawyers. Maybe Tabak refused to see friends and family as was his right?
-
You have a curious way of twisting things, Tabak did confess to killing Joanna but called it accidental, thus why his admission to manslaughter.
By the way I have removed your claims that Tabak was tortured in prison as they are a total nonsense. We have very strict rules here so I would be careful who you libel in future. No further warning will be given.
I agree. Sally Ramage says . He thought they would try him for manslaughter, as he has maintained with excruciating honesty throughout.
-
I agree. Sally Ramage says . He thought they would try him for manslaughter, as he has maintained with excruciating honesty throughout.
So he accidentally Manslaughtered her. He certainly attacked her. How very sad for her.
-
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
So i question how they got him to sign this statement?????? Because they obviously didn't have any evidence against him!!!!!
once again Nine you miss the point completely. Even Sally who you like to quote says he was truthful throughout and expected a manslaughter charge which fits with his google searches. Whatever else happened DOES NOT change the fact he killed her!
-
So he accidentally Manslaughtered her. He certainly attacked her. How very sad for her.
Very sad Eleanor and didn't warrant the awful comments that were posted about her earlier today. Thankfully they seem to have been removed!
-
Very sad Eleanor and didn't warrant the awful comments that were posted about her earlier today. Thankfully they seem to have been removed!
Yes, they were removed, twice. And they were disgusting. I am simply not having that.
There isn't much doubt in my mind that something went seriously wrong when Tabak approach Joanna for whatever reasons, and God knows why he thought he could do that. That in itself was awful.
And thence killed her to shut her up because she was hollering.
The man is dangerous, and is now precisely where he should be.
Murder? Manslaughter? She is still dead.
-
I cannot imagine that anyone would think that what happened to Joanna was NOT very sad.
Very sad indeed, for her, and her family and her boyfriend, and her friends.
I don't think anybody would dispute that. No way! Why would they? Not unless they were inhuman, and nobody here is. My own daughter was the same age as Joanna at the time , and she was badly affected by what happened. In fact, it was she who drew my attention to it.
I believe Joanna was attacked and murdered. I do not believe it was manslaughter.
My only point is, I dont believe it was Vincent Tabak who did it.
-
Yes, they were removed, twice. And they were disgusting. I am simply not having that.
There isn't much doubt in my mind that something went seriously wrong when Tabak approach Joanna for whatever reasons, and God knows why he thought he could do that. That in itself was awful.
And thence killed her to shut her up because she was hollering.
The man is dangerous, and is now precisely where he should be.
Murder? Manslaughter? She is still dead.
Very well put Eleanor and thanks for making sure the offensive comments didn't remain. They had no right to ever appear on here in the first place. Joanna was a victim
-
Not so, the reason I believe him guilty is because he signed a statement admitting killing her and the fact that only his DNA was found on her. I'm afraid all the rest of it is merely semantics, water under the bridge.
I must correct you. It is quite wrong to state that only Vincent Tabak's DNA was found on her. After the enhancement of what biological traces were found on Joanna and her clothes, two distinct DNA profiles were allegedly detected. Investigators apparently disregarded one of these profiles, but linked the other profile to Vincent Tabak. It was only a partial profile, giving no indication of what kind of body fluid it might have been. No one can be convicted on a trace of this kind, in contrast to a trace that gave a full profile without the need for enhancement. It was neither challenged nor proved in court.
The statement he signed, by which you set so much store, was a flagrant work of fiction compiled by Vincent Tabak's own defence team, AND based closely on this hare-brained "theory" advanced by unattributed detectives eight days BEFORE he was arrested:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/did-jo-yeates-spurn-killers-advances-103472
It is hare-brained simply because none of the evidence that we know was available to the police at the time of this theory could possibly have led them to arrive at this particular scenario, rather than a more plausible theory.
-
What comments were posted about Joanna Yeates today????
And Eleanor, It is a sad fact that a young lady lost her life.... Nothing can remedy that,, a terrible tragedy...
But I feel that it wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak who did this crime... and if it wasn't him it was someone else, maybe it's the DNA profile that was found on Joanna Yeates!!!
I understand we may not agree... But why haven't the prosecution brought any concrete evidence to court to show that Dr Vincent Tabak was either going over Clifton Suspenion Bridge or From Bedminster to Longwood Lane...
They had a blurry picture of his car on PARK STREET!!!!!
Nothing of substance was brought to court to prove it was Dr Vincent Tabak...
And why would the prosecution with hold the 1300 page document until the last minute??????
Tabak didn't cross the Clifton Suspension Bridge. There is another bridge.
-
A sample of Tabak's DNA was found on her chest, however scientists could not establish what it came from , which mean they couldn't say which part of HIS BODY it came from but that it was HIS
The bottom line is that nobody apart from Tabak can say what happened – and he claims his memory of exactly what happened remains sketchy of course it was he had just murdered someone
-
Tabak said he tried to kiss Yeates after she invited him into her flat and made a flirtatious remark. He insisted he had not meant to kill or seriously harm her, adding that he had only wanted to kiss her and was not planning to try to have sex with her. 43 separate injuries to her body suggest different
The 33-year-old Dutch engineer denied that he had lifted Yeates's top or touched her breasts. He also said he had not been spying on her before the attack, which happened on 17 December last year. his DNA found on her chest again proves different whether it was done pre or post death no one will ever know apart from VT himself .
-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/did-jo-yeates-spurn-killers-advances-103472
-
Operation Braid is a video game and there was a piece of console found at the flat that has never been explained......
-
Leonora your comments were both disrespectful & highly offence towards a dead lady who was murdered at the hands of VT & I will not comment further on such trash that belongs in the gutter where they belong .
-
Operation Braid is a video game and there was a piece of console found at the flat that has never been explained..
You knew that? Well, just "Braid" actually. It was Avon & Somerset Constabulary who added the word "Operation".
In that case, you may be able to explain why the police assigned the name "Operation Braid" to the search for Joanna, on the very day she was reported missing, when neither her parents nor the general public knew whether or not she had left of her own accord. I find the name extremely revealing, but when I tried to explain this earlier today, my post was removed. There are at least three points of interest. You seem to be better able to get your posts through the eye of the needle than I have been.
-
You knew that? Well, just "Braid" actually. It was Avon & Somerset Constabulary who added the word "Operation".
In that case, you may be able to explain why the police assigned the name "Operation Braid" to the search for Joanna, on the very day she was reported missing, when neither her parents nor the general public knew whether or not she had left of her own accord. I find the name extremely revealing, but when I tried to explain this earlier today, my post was removed. There are at least three points of interest. You seem to be better able to get your posts through the eye of the needle than I have been.
Leonora, why don't you just stick to known facts, with perhaps a bit of inoffensive opinion thrown in? No one will have a problem with that.
And you might just get a bit of discussion going.
-
Leonora your comments were both disrespectful & highly offence towards a dead lady who was murdered at the hands of VT & I will not comment further on such trash that belongs in the gutter where they belong .
You are fully entitled to post your very strong opinions, even though I should have thought that disregarding the careful arguments of other posters was itself against the rules of this forum. I know very well that nothing I have posted can be dismissed as "trash". Denouncing posts that neither I nor other posters can see must be against the rules too, so I expect that whoever removed my post will send it to me by mail so that I have the opportunity to revise it and assess any content that could be considered objectionable.
-
Leonora, why don't you just stick to known facts, with perhaps a bit of inoffensive opinion thrown in? No one will have a problem with that.
And you might just get a bit of discussion going.
So far as I am aware, sticking to known facts is what I have been doing, meticulously. In general, I do not do opinions. If I have expressed any opinions, they will have been solidly backed up by hard facts.
-
So far as I am aware, sticking to known facts is what I have been doing, meticulously. In general, I do not do opinions. If I have expressed any opinions, they will have been solidly backed up by hard facts. I suggest you stop slinging mud and post your specific objections.
and you aren't rude to Mods? Eleanor gave you some sound advice you still think you are right! I reported your post as soon as it appeared. Not sure if anyone else did but it was removed and rightly so
-
I have been on here on and off today---and I would say , a lot of "off", but I haven't seen anything that was libellous, or rude to the mods. Will someone PM me and tell me what it was? I'm nosy!
-
I have been on here on and off today---and I would say , a lot of "off", but I haven't seen anything that was libellous, or rude to the mods. Will someone PM me and tell me what it was? I'm nosy!
*&*%£
mrswah.... you make me laugh... I suppose you don't find out if you don't ask....
-
Well, is someone going to enlighten me then?
-
And, perhaps, as well as enlightening me, someone might show me how to add a smiley!
-
Have you not got them all in from of you when you post?????
Should be a load of yellow emoji's just above the post box...... click on which one suits.... ?{)(** ?{)(** ?{)(** ?{)(** ?{)(** ?{)(** ?{)(** ?{)(**
If you haven't got them you'll need to turn them on in your profile if i remember correctly 8(>((
I've attached a picture of what it looks like when i reply mrswah... does yours look the same????
-
I knew that Braid was a video game and that a shard of console had been found, that was my conection to the video game, But I don't know when they first called it operation braid....
The earliest reference to "Operation Braid" that I can link dates from Tuesday 21st December 2010:
http://swns.com/news/parents-of-missing-25-year-old-bristol-woman-launch-plea-for-help-12546/
The code name is given in the last paragraph of the news report in this link. I used to have a reference from the day Joanna was reported missing itself, that was a Monday, but it seems to have been removed from the internet.
No explanation for this cryptic code name was made public. I cannot think of any reason why it should have been prompted by the discovery of part of a console in Joanna's flat, as there are presumably many video games and many other possible ways to assign a name. Of all the names in all the world, why did the police choose "Braid?"
The link to a description of the game that I posted earlier today, in the post that was removed entirely, is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braid_(video_game)
There are three significant points about this:
(1) The game is about the search for a princess who has been "snatched". If Joanna had left of her own accord, then "Braid" was a tasteless choice of name. Therefore it seems probable that the police were already convinced that Joanna had actually been "snatched" - as indeed we know she had. It seems probable, therefore, that Greg Reardon had told the police that he had found the evidence of a struggle in the flat, which he would later describe in court. However, in public, this was left open. Not until Thursday 23rd December 2010 did her parents make public their own belief that she had been abducted.
(2) The central person who has been snatched is a "princess". Joanna's disappearance rapidly became a topic of such national importance that it was as if she WAS a princess. The Policeman subsequently defended all the publicity given to her disappearance by the need to mobilise the public in order to report anything and everything that might help find her. It seems probable that this massive publicity plan was already at the front of their minds when they decided to use the code name "Operation Braid".
(3) A peculiarity of this game is that the character of each of the protagonists is volatile and can change radically in the course of the play. Those searching for Joanna and those searching for her killer certainly came and went like the pieces in a kaleidescope.
-
The earliest reference to "Operation Braid" that I can link dates from Tuesday 21st December 2010:
http://swns.com/news/parents-of-missing-25-year-old-bristol-woman-launch-plea-for-help-12546/
The code name is given in the last paragraph of the news report in this link. I used to have a reference from the day Joanna was reported missing itself, that was a Monday, but it seems to have been removed from the internet.
No explanation for this cryptic code name was made public. I cannot think of any reason why it should have been prompted by the discovery of part of a console in Joanna's flat, as there are presumably many video games and many other possible ways to assign a name. Of all the names in all the world, why did the police choose "Braid?"
The link to a description of the game that I posted earlier today, in the post that was removed entirely, is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braid_(video_game)
There are three significant points about this:
(1) The game is about the search for a princess who has been "snatched". If Joanna had left of her own accord, then "Braid" was a tasteless choice of name. Therefore it seems probable that the police were already convinced that Joanna had actually been "snatched" - as indeed we know she had. It seems probable, therefore, that Greg Reardon had told the police that he had found the evidence of a struggle in the flat, which he would later describe in court. However, in public, this was left open. Not until Thursday 23rd December 2010 did her parents make public their own belief that she had been abducted.
(2) The central person who has been snatched is a "princess". Joanna's disappearance rapidly became a topic of such national importance that it was as if she WAS a princess. The Policeman subsequently defended all the publicity given to her disappearance by the need to mobilise the public in order to report anything and everything that might help find her. It seems probable that this massive publicity plan was already at the front of their minds when they decided to use the code name "Operation Braid".
(3) A peculiarity of this game is that the character of each of the protagonists is volatile and can change radically in the course of the play. Those searching for Joanna and those searching for her killer certainly came and went like the pieces in a kaleidescope.
Yes I agree, the Police do name Operations names for a reason... But I'm not sure what the reason behind naming this Operation "Braid"....
But I must admit when ever I look for anything to do with the word "Braid"... it comes to the video game... or a hairstyle...
I never understood why her mum insisted she was abducted!!
EDIT:....... thought I'd use the font of all knowledge.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braid_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Braids
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Braiding (computing)
-
They eliminated Greg quickly because they knew he had been away in Sheffield. They must have checked him out. He is the first person they would have checked.
-
Jixy... Same old Question.... How can the searches be his if he wasn't at home to do TWO of the searches which was shown in court!!!!!!
I still think that it's more probable that she was killed later than what has been suggested... especially as Greg needed to check what clothes she was wearing... that suggests he's seen the clothes she wore that day to work were at home....
She could have quite easily have left the flat with someone she knew..!!!
I have also said before that I didn't agree with the manslaughter... and I'm sure if Sally Ramage had read the 1300 page Document her mind would also be changed!!!
She never left the flat because her personal effects were found in the flat.
-
What comments were posted about Joanna Yeates today????
And Eleanor, It is a sad fact that a young lady lost her life.... Nothing can remedy that,, a terrible tragedy...
But I feel that it wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak who did this crime... and if it wasn't him it was someone else, maybe it's the DNA profile that was found on Joanna Yeates!!!
I understand we may not agree... But why haven't the prosecution brought any concrete evidence to court to show that Dr Vincent Tabak was either going over Clifton Suspenion Bridge or From Bedminster to Longwood Lane...
They had a blurry picture of his car on PARK STREET!!!!!
Nothing of substance was brought to court to prove it was Dr Vincent Tabak...
And why would the prosecution with hold the 1300 page document until the last minute??????
If Tabak is the innocent angel that some appear to believe he is then why did he not shout out from the heavens at his trial that he was the victim of a conspiracy and never voluntarily signed any confession? Truth being he did sign it voluntarily because he thought he would get a kick up the backside and an eight to twelve year incarceration with the possibilty of release at the half-way stage for throttling the life out of that beautiful young girl.
-
Despite several warnings some members are still posting libellous comments on this thread. If this continues the thread will be removed as will be the members concerned.
This is a final warning!
-
She never left the flat because her personal effects were found in the flat.
That is not necessarily true John. She could easily have been killed before ever getting back to her flat, or she could have been abducted afterwards. The killer would then be in possession of her keys, and it would not have been difficult for that person to place her belongings back in her flat.
As I have previously pointed out, had she been attacked and killed in her flat by VT, his fingerprints/DNA would have been all over it. The prosecution would have had a far more convincing case, as they would not have had to rely on enhanced DNA (which could not be challenged, as the sample was used up in the enhancement process).
If Jo was killed in her flat, somebody other than VT must have done it.
-
If Tabak is the innocent angel that some appear to believe he is then why did he not shout out from the heavens at his trial that he was the victim of a conspiracy and never voluntarily signed any confession? Truth being he did sign it voluntarily because he thought he would get a kick up the backside and an eight to twelve year incarceration with the possibilty of release at the half-way stage for throttling the life out of that beautiful young girl.
!
He had every chance then and as time goes on he still hasn't even mentioned the word conspiracy or challenged it. Unlike the 145 pictures. Both the legal team and himself did find a voice to try and stop that! He wasn't the incapable 'placid' Tabak then.
As John says he pinned his hopes on a lesser sentence. His google searches in the very plea he went with also back this up!
-
!
He had every chance then and as time goes on he still hasn't even mentioned the word conspiracy or challenged it. Unlike the 145 pictures. Both the legal team and himself did find a voice to try and stop that! He wasn't the incapable 'placid' Tabak then.
As John says he pinned his hopes on a lesser sentence. His google searches in the very plea he went with also back this up!
I know the defence barrister (Dean Armstrong QC) challenged the 145 pictures, but I am not aware that VT did.
Do you have a link for that, Jixy?
-
I have removed the libellous posts made this morning and locked this thread until admin can decide further action.
-
I have removed the libellous posts made this morning and locked this thread until admin can decide further action.
Thank you, I have dealt with this. Not a shred of evidence has been provided in support of the opening post, instead all that has been raised are allegations of impropriety against basically anyone associated with the Tabak prosecution. Tabak admitted killing Joanna Yeates and he is apparently of sound mind so it must be accepted.
I have unlocked this thread in the hope we can return to proper debate by members who are prepared to comply with the forum rules.
-
!
He had every chance then and as time goes on he still hasn't even mentioned the word conspiracy or challenged it. Unlike the 145 pictures. Both the legal team and himself did find a voice to try and stop that! He wasn't the incapable 'placid' Tabak then.
As John says he pinned his hopes on a lesser sentence. His google searches in the very plea he went with also back this up!
I'm sure he was the shy unassuming respectable guy some claim him to be but his obsession appears to have overtaken his sensibilities the night he tried it on with Joanna. The poor girl must have fought desperately for her life in the end.
I don't think he set out to kill her though according to what I have read but kill her he did and now suffers the consequences.
-
Yes I am sure he is. Even the nicest of people can kill. I agree to that he most likely didn't set out to kill her and his confusion over some facts is due to his panic taking over
In court he said he was sorry to Joanna's family and I do think he probably meant that too
-
Jixy and John, do you think anyone is capable of murder?
One can be physically capable, as VT certainly was, and CJ probably was not, and I am certainly not (arthritic!!).
What about mentally and emotionally capable? Do you think anyone could (under certain circumstances) kill someone, and then deal with the disposal of the body?
I don't think I could do it, I really dont. Watching my mother dying was bad enough, and even then, I was offered a "last look " at the body at the undertaker's, and I couldn't take up the offer.
I find it really difficult to accept that VT could have done all that-----when he (apparently) had not done anything like it before. I can't believe someone can go to ASDA with a body in the boot of his car, and appear totally calm, unless they had done it before----- some serial killers could do it, but I just can't believe VT could.
Posters have asked me why on earth Tanja's father wouldn't have stood up for Vincent, had he thought him innocent. I find it very difficult to understand why Tanja's parents did not see something "dodgy" about Vincent well before Joanna's murder, if he was the kind of man who could commit murder.
Why didn't his work colleagues see something dodgy? His friends? The people whom he knew at university?
I have read up on a number of murder cases. In most cases, somebody has spotted something dodgy about the perp before he/she committed the murder. Nobody seems to have done this in VT's case.
And, I really don't understand how he could have killed her in her flat, and left no forensics.
-
Jixy and John, do you think anyone is capable of murder?
One can be physically capable, as VT certainly was, and CJ probably was not, and I am certainly not (arthritic!!).
What about mentally and emotionally capable? Do you think anyone could (under certain circumstances) kill someone, and then deal with the disposal of the body?
I don't think I could do it, I really dont. Watching my mother dying was bad enough, and even then, I was offered a "last look " at the body at the undertaker's, and I couldn't take up the offer.
I find it really difficult to accept that VT could have done all that-----when he (apparently) had not done anything like it before. I can't believe someone can go to ASDA with a body in the boot of his car, and appear totally calm, unless they had done it before----- some serial killers could do it, but I just can't believe VT could.
Posters have asked me why on earth Tanja's father wouldn't have stood up for Vincent, had he thought him innocent. I find it very difficult to understand why Tanja's parents did not see something "dodgy" about Vincent well before Joanna's murder, if he was the kind of man who could commit murder.
Why didn't his work colleagues see something dodgy? His friends? The people whom he knew at university?
I have read up on a number of murder cases. In most cases, somebody has spotted something dodgy about the perp before he/she committed the murder. Nobody seems to have done this in VT's case.
And, I really don't understand how he could have killed her in her flat, and left no forensics.
Most people are probably capable of pulling the trigger in certain circumstances. It takes a certain type of fiend however to plan a cold blooded murder or murders like in the Jeremy Bamber case.
People can snap when pushed to extremes or get themselves into trouble for all sorts of reasons. Temporary insanity is a well recognised phenomena. Later they have pangs of guilt and greatly regret what they did, I believe Tabak falls into this category.
Killers don't have a sign on them warning people to beware, most might appear a little odd, reclusive, a loner etc.
Forensic evidence has to be found. Unless there was a break in, forensic evidence can be difficult to find. Given he strangled Joanna however I am surprised there wasn't more of his DNA found on her.
A question. These multiple injuries which Joanna suffered, do we know what they were? Could she have been driven over after she died in an attempt to conceal evidence?
-
The public knew nothing about Joanna's 43 injuries until the trial.
After Joanna's body was found, and the case was deemed a murder inquiry, the police officer leading the inquiry held a press conference with a group of journalists, who were invited to ask questions. One of the journalists asked whether or not Joanna had any injuries, and the police officer said not apart from having been strangled.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8noQpXm0HQU
Nobody has ever said where the 43 injuries came from. I would guess that some would have come about as a result of the rescue operation to recover her body, and from the fact that her body was frozen. The bruises that she had would have been inflicted while she was alive (apparently, bruising can only be inflicted while a person is alive).
Driven over by a car? Well, anything is possible, but I have never heard of that being suggested.
-
'Joanna Yeates suffered 43 injuries in desperate fight against strangler'
(http://www.vedantahedging.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/rsz_brand-logo.png)
Tuesday 11 October 2011
Joanna Yeates fought a desperate battle for survival against her killer, a court heard today.
The 25-year-old landscape architect suffered 43 injuries, mostly to the neck, as she fought for her life in her Bristol flat, the jury was told.
Vincent Tabak, 33, who admits killing his next-door neighbour but denies murder, was bigger, stronger and more powerful.
He knew that he was strangling her to death but he carried on the fatal attack regardless, the court was told.
On the second day of the trial at Bristol crown court, Nigel Lickley QC, prosecuting, told the jury of the forensic evidence discovered by a pathologist who examined Joanna's body over three days.
Of the 43 injuries 12 were to her head and neck, two to her trunk, 21 to her arms and four to her legs, said the prosecutor.
The pathologist concluded that Joanna died as a result of compression of her neck as Tabak strangled her with both hands.
"It was not instantaneous, it took some time for her to suffocate and force to be used to kill her," said Mr Lickley.
"Other injuries showed contact with a roughened surface while she was alive - a floor, the ground or a rough surface. Apart from the fear the attack caused her, it would have been painful. She would have resisted and struggled.
"The pathologist reveals that for at least one consistent period of time sufficient force was applied by the killer's hands to her neck to kill her. Her neck was held for long enough and hard enough to kill. There was a violent struggle by Joanna to try and survive. Despite that Tabak continued to squeeze her neck to kill her."
The court heard that Joanna's blood alcohol level was 67 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, showing she had drunk between one and a half and two and a half pints of cider and was lower than the drink drive limit of 80/100.
Tabak, a Dutch engineer lived in the next door flat to Joanna and her boyfriend Greg Riordan in the Clifton area of Bristol. She was last seen on her way home after pre-Christmas drinks in a Bristol pub.
Her body was found by dog walkers in a lane in North Somerset on Christmas Day. Tabak had taken her dead body in the boot of his Renault Megane and stopped at an Asda supermarket to buy rock salt, beer and crisps, the court heard.
Later he texted his girlfriend Tanja Morson to say that he was "bored". Tabak has pleaded guilty to manslaughter but not guilty to murder.
The case continues.
Her chest was exposed and Tabak's DNA found on her body, court told
Vincent Tabak's DNA was discovered on Joanna Yeates's chest, the court was told.
Her pink T-shirt was pushed up and her chest exposed outside her bra when her body was found, the jury heard. But after his arrest Tabak claimed the forensic scientists had deliberately contaminated the evidence for money from the press.
It was only a month later that he told a Salvation Army chaplain in prison what he described as "shocking" news that he was going to plead guilty. He formally entered his guilty plea to manslaughter in May.
Nigel Lickley, prosecuting, said: "This means that he accepts that he unlawfully killed Joanna, not by accident."
He told the jury: "You have to determine his state of mind when he killed Joanna Yeates, including the time leading up to her death and what he wanted to do when he held her throat for long enough and with sufficient force to kill her.
"He was in control. He could have stopped, but he didn't. He didn't panic or lose control at that time. He was controlled and calculating."
The court was told that Tabak confessed to Peter Brotherton, a voluntary chaplain for the Salvation Army who offered guidance and pastoral care to prisoners.
"On 8 February Tabak told him he had something to tell him and it would shock him," said Mr Lickley.
"He said: ' I'm going to plead guilty for the crime I have done.'
"The chaplain asked him: 'Was that the young lady in Bristol?'
"Tabak said 'yeah'. The chaplain asked: 'Are you sure?" Tabak said he was."
Defence counsel William Clegg QC told the court that Joanna first saw her killer on the night she was strangled through her kitchen window.
Screams heard by partygoers in the road were not Joanna's, he said. Mr Clegg said the couple on the way to a party were standing too far away from the alleged murder scene.
"The defence are going to suggest that it is by no means certain that the scream that was heard was connected to this event at all because of the distance involved and the timing," he said.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/joanna-yeates-suffered-43-injuries-in-desperate-fight-against-strangler-6452369.html
-
It is awful to see the break down of Joanna's injuries but does clarify what those injuries were. heartbreaking to imagine anyone fighting for their life
-
Has anyone watched the video of the press conference that I put up?
Does anyone have any idea why DCI Jones would have told the press that Joanna had no injuries?
The public knew nothing about the injuries until the trial started: I only hope that somebody had warned Jo's family.
-
Has anyone watched the video of the press conference that I put up?
Does anyone have any idea why DCI Jones would have told the press that Joanna had no injuries?
The public knew nothing about the injuries until the trial started: I only hope that somebody had warned Jo's family.
He obviously was misinformed.
-
Well, as I always say, anything is possible, but I find it hard to believe that a senior policeman leading a murder investigation would be misinformed about the results of a post-mortem examination on the victim.
Even if he had been misinformed at the time of that press conference, or did not yet have a written report, surely he would have discovered the truth at some time before the trial.
I can understand him not wanting the media to know too much early on, as some reporters/journalists do "go to town" with salacious reporting (as we later saw with Christopher Jefferies ). it is also possible that some might have asked "awkward" questions, such as whether the rescue operation was responsible for some of Joanna's injuries. The complicated rescue operation, after all, was barely reported, even though some journalists/reporters would have been hanging around at the scene and would have got a glimpse of all that fire and rescue equipment.
The injuries pointed to a violent attack on Joanna. Weirdly, the only two men arrested in connection with the crime had no previous form for violence. I'm sure we all would have heard about it if they had done.
At the time of the trial, many, if not all, newspapers carried stories about the 43 injuries, and this probably influenced a lot of people into believing that VT was guilty of murder. I dare say it influenced the jury too, although Judge Field, in his summing up, did direct the jury to concentrate only on Joanna's bruises, as those were known to have been inflicted before her death.
-
It was all such a mess, and some terrible things were said by The Media about entirely innocent people.
It is of no wonder to me that this all stopped at the arrest of Vincent Tabak. The Media did seriously have to stop. They had all gone too far.
I presume that the DNA of Vincent Tabak found on the chest of Joanna Yeats was found on her naked chest. Or was it not?
-
The media did not stop its salacious reporting after Vincent Tabak was arrested. In fact, after he was convicted, they really went to town: here is one example
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/joanna-yeatess-killer-vincent-tabak-88630
I read half a dozen such articles yesterday, from a variety of newspapers. Although VT had been convicted of murder by the time this stuff was printed, and so, in the eyes of the world, was not an innocent man, it still was not necessary to print any of these articles. Why?
Because there is no evidence that any of it is true. Allegations about escorts did not form part of the trial, and the police never investigated the claims of any of these ladies. There is no firm evidence that the man described in any of these stories was actually VT. There are vast numbers of tall men with foreign accents around!! In the article above , the man described did not even wear glasses, and , apparently, he wore fancy shoes.
It should not have been very difficult for the editor of the newspaper concerned to check his/her facts, and find out whether VT sometimes wore contact lenses, and whether or not he had a penchant for fancy shoes!
As for the question about the DNA, I do not know exactly where it was (apparently) found. My principal concern is that there should not have been any need to rely on enhanced DNA at all. If VT killed Joanna in either of their flats, or in Tanja's car, there should have been plenty of good forensic evidence available. The fact that there wasn't is one of the main factors (or perhaps the main factor) why I don't believe it was VT who killed Joanna.
-
As for the question about the DNA, I do not know exactly where it was (apparently) found. My principal concern is that there should not have been any need to rely on enhanced DNA at all. If VT killed Joanna in either of their flats, or in Tanja's car, there should have been plenty of good forensic evidence available. The fact that there wasn't is one of the main factors (or perhaps the main factor) why I don't believe it was VT who killed Joanna.
I have much sympathy with those comments given the circumstances of the crime. Had someone fought with her and strangled her one would think there should be all sorts of forensic evidence available. Since there isn't, one could not be blamed for thinking that the perpetrator went prepared and it was not the accidental killing it was made out to be?
-
So, supposing the perpetrator did go prepared, and that perpetrator was VT. He killed Jo in her flat, as he said, created all the disorder in the flat, and then had to rid the flat of his DNA and fingerprints.
After all, there can't have been any: had there been, the prosecution would have used that evidence. Why rely on enhanced DNA when you have the full profile, and fingerprints?
We know that VT went to Asda some time that evening (we don't know exactly when either, since the timestamp is missing from the CCTV-----why????? And, what happened to his receipt from Asda, which would have had the time on it????? There must have been a receipt. It isn't necessarily easy to see from CCTV what someone is buying. The police would have wanted to check that he had bought beer, crisps and rock salt, rather than bleach, cleaning rags, etc).
We also know that he picked Tanja up from the coach, and they were caught on CCTV together afterwards. Did he have enough time to remove all traces of himself from Jo's flat, particularly if he also had to dispose of Jo's body, and then (presumably) shower and change his clothes.
I shouldn't think, for one moment, that VT was experienced , either in the disposing of bodies, or in the cleaning of forensics. The fact that he is a big bloke is neither here nor there. He would have needed to know what he was doing in order to leave no trace of himself at a murder scene.
-
it was not the accidental killing it was made out to be?
No, I don't believe it was an accidental killing. It was a violent attack. It seems this is how the jury saw it too.
The difference is, that most people believe VT did it, and I don't.
-
So, supposing the perpetrator did go prepared, and that perpetrator was VT. He killed Jo in her flat, as he said, created all the disorder in the flat, and then had to rid the flat of his DNA and fingerprints.
After all, there can't have been any: had there been, the prosecution would have used that evidence. Why rely on enhanced DNA when you have the full profile, and fingerprints?
We know that VT went to Asda some time that evening (we don't know exactly when either, since the timestamp is missing from the CCTV-----why????? And, what happened to his receipt from Asda, which would have had the time on it????? There must have been a receipt. It isn't necessarily easy to see from CCTV what someone is buying. The police would have wanted to check that he had bought beer, crisps and rock salt, rather than bleach, cleaning rags, etc).
We also know that he picked Tanja up from the coach, and they were caught on CCTV together afterwards. Did he have enough time to remove all traces of himself from Jo's flat, particularly if he also had to dispose of Jo's body, and then (presumably) shower and change his clothes.
I shouldn't think, for one moment, that VT was experienced , either in the disposing of bodies, or in the cleaning of forensics. The fact that he is a big bloke is neither here nor there. He would have needed to know what he was doing in order to leave no trace of himself at a murder scene.
Taking one point at a time. I agree the almost absence of DNA is concerning to say the least. In the circumstances in which Joanna was killed one would expect to find various pieces of a forensic puzzle to fit together. Ultimately however, all that was found was one DNA sample linking Tabak to the victim and then only after a special technique had been used to enhance it. Out of interest, do we have access to the forensic report relating to this find?
In relation to the visit to Asda and to picking up his then girlfriend, is there a timeline available depicting Tabak and the victims movements on the night she was murdered?
Your last point. With the best will in the world I don't see how anyone could 'clean' a crimescene let alone do it in a matter of minutes.
-
it was not the accidental killing it was made out to be?
No, I don't believe it was an accidental killing. It was a violent attack. It seems this is how the jury saw it too.
The difference is, that most people believe VT did it, and I don't.
That is your prerogative mrswah but belief cannot stand alone. We have to judge each case on the evidence. You believe Tabak didn't kill Joanna but you have the major hurdle of his confession to overcome. I admit I am not well versed in the background to this case but when someone of sound mind pleads to manslaughter after researching it on his home computer then warning bells begin to ring. For me the only decision in this case was whether it was manslaughter or murder.
-
Could someone suggest who else it could have been?
-
Could someone suggest who else it could have been?
That would be libellous, would it not, Eleanor?
-
Taking one point at a time. I agree the almost absence of DNA is concerning to say the least. In the circumstances in which Joanna was killed one would expect to find various pieces of a forensic puzzle to fit together. Ultimately however, all that was found was one DNA sample linking Tabak to the victim and then only after a special technique had been used to enhance it. Out of interest, do we have access to the forensic report relating to this find?
In relation to the visit to Asda and to picking up his then girlfriend, is there a timeline available depicting Tabak and the victims movements on the night she was murdered?
Your last point. With the best will in the world I don't see how anyone could 'clean' a crimescene let alone do it in a matter of minutes.
Joanna's Timeline
8.00pm Joanna left the Ram pub, where she had been socialising with work colleagues.
8.10 pm Captured on CCTV in Waitrose.
Between 8.10 and 8.30 pm, she texted three friends, asking if they were free to meet up that evening.
8.29pm Captured on CCTV in Bargain Booze buying cider.
8.30pm Telephoned her friend Rebecca.
8.37pm Captured on CCTV buying a pizza in Tesco Express
8.45pm Captured on CCTV passing the Hophouse pub
Shortly afterwards, she spoke to a priest, Father George Henwood, who was out walking his dog. Although the priest testified in court, he did not know Jo, and it is possible that the person he saw was not her (IMO).
Vincent's Timeline (according to what he said in court)
Approx 7pm Arrived home from work.
Between 7 and 7.15 pm: Went out to take pictures of the snow. It is possible that this is when he saw Chris Jefferies and spoke to him about mildew in his flat. CJ might have told him that Greg had gone to Sheffield, after having had trouble starting his car.
7.25-7.37pm On computer, looking at his bank account.
Some time shortly after 8.50pm, he is alleged to have killed Joanna in her flat, and brought the body back to his flat, moved his car into the driveway, placed the body in a cycle bag, and then into the boot of the car.
9.25pm Texted Tanja
10.13pm Left home to go to Asda, with Jo's body in the boot of his car
10.30 pm Shopping in Asda. Texted Tanja.
12.10am Back at home, apparently after having dumped Jo's body.
12.18am. Texted Tanja to find out if she was on the coach. Went out to dispose of the cycle bag, pizza and sock. Returned home.
1.38am Left to meet Tanja from the coach. Went to buy burgers.
Re the forensics, I assume that the police and lawyers would have been given a written report, but, as far as I am aware, there isn't one in the public domain. However, the following outlines the findings:
www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jan/17/csi-oxford-lgc-forensics
-
That would be libellous, would it not, Eleanor?
I don't know. The whole thing is gutting a bit beyond me. I no longer have any certainty about any conviction. But on that note, you might as well give up altogether.
It was a particuliar case, although for the life of me I cannot remember why. What makes any one murder any more awful than another?
-
That would be libellous, would it not, Eleanor?
I believe it would be mrswah....
-
. What makes any one murder any more awful than another?
All murder is awful. However, some convicted murderers are given longer tariffs than others, so , presumably, judges must think that some murders are more awful than others.
And, of course, it is worse to murder several people than one.
-
I mostly try to stay off Sub Forums because I just don't have the knowledge or the time or the patience. But I do get dragged in now and again when someone reports something. And so I feel that at least I should try.
So far this has left me with a pile of abuse, probably because The Reporter didn't get quite what they were looking for. I can only look at a comment and then decide what I should do, which mostly doesn't require any opinion of mine on the case itself.
I am only a Moderator, which means what it says.
Your arguments sound reasonable to me, but then you are never unpleasant. Whether or not I agree with you is neither here nor there.
These sub forums could do with a few more like you.
-
Taking one point at a time. I agree the almost absence of DNA is concerning to say the least. In the circumstances in which Joanna was killed one would expect to find various pieces of a forensic puzzle to fit together. Ultimately however, all that was found was one DNA sample linking Tabak to the victim and then only after a special technique had been used to enhance it. Out of interest, do we have access to the forensic report relating to this find?
In relation to the visit to Asda and to picking up his then girlfriend, is there a timeline available depicting Tabak and the victims movements on the night she was murdered?
Your last point. With the best will in the world I don't see how anyone could 'clean' a crimescene let alone do it in a matter of minutes.
No report I'm afraid John.. That would be perfect if that was available to see... Especially as Lyndsey Lennen had said she turned the DNA around in 48 hours everything as well as the suspects clothes. Surley it would have a date on the report!
Which has always begged the question?
How did she have access to Dr Vincent Tabaks clothing so early on in the investigation?
And why did the Police say it to weeks to enhance the DNA profile???
As we have mentioned the DNA, there was something I came across yesterday...
Clegg: you never answered any of the police questions except about the telephone calls. Why was
that?
I was following the advice of my solicitor who told me not to say anything at all.
Clegg: In your first statement, you lied, Why did you lie?
I was hoping that they didn’t have enough evidence and was hoping they would let me go.
Clegg: When did you realise that they had enough evidence
When I leant that they found DNA on the body.
You met Brotherton and told him why you did.
Did you want to kill Joanna:
No definitely not
Now.... which first statement is he referring too???
Because that sounds like he is in custody... So that cannot be his first statement..
Or is he referring to the Interview in Holland????
Nope it definatley sounds like he is in custody.... Because he goes on to say he was hoping they would let him go!!!
Ok... think i need to look at this as two possibilities to try and make sense out of it!!
So If we start with the first statement being when they Interviewed him in Holland... Then that would make the Holland interview a suspect statement and not a witness statement. The reason I say this is because he then goes onto say was hoping they would let me go.
And the police had always implied that this was a little trip to get a supplementary statement about a car changing position!!!
Which I never believed in the first place... especially when the police woman says: At the end of the process
Which sounds like he was being interrogated as a suspect and not a witness, no matter how nicely she believed she had dressed it up!!
Or we look at his first statement as being when they had him in custody at the police station, and as he says he kept quite about most things.. Then that doesn't make sense either...
If he kept quite.. How could he lie???
Why would he say that he was hoping they would let him go?? Must be in custody!!
So he's in custody , saying virtually nothing , yet he was supposed to have lied and even though the prosecution have stated he followed the on going case, so that he could keep abreast of every part of the investigation.. He must have know about DNA..
Clegg: When did you realise that they had enough evidence
When I leant that they found DNA on the body.
Then later he says that once they took a DNA sample in Holland he knew it would be a "sure match??? "
So which is the first statement???????
If in Holland he gave his DNA sample, he must have know that they were checking it against some other sample, whether it was found in the flat or on her body.. So why would he voluntarily give this sample?? To incriminate himself???
Clegg: When did you realise that they had enough evidence
When I leant that they found DNA on the body.
This implies that they are telling him whilst he's in custody that they found DNA on Joanna Yeates, but he was supposed to have searched about frozen DNA in January before his arrest.....
So if he knew they had DNA evidence that would match him why would he even think they would let him go????
The contradictions in the evidence that even the defence has is crazy... Nothing clean cut!!!
EDIT:.... Another statement Dr Vincent Tabak says at trial:
And you went to Holland over Christmas
Yes
Then in Holland the police took your DNA . What did you think would happen?
I was thinking I would be arrested anytime.
Clegg: Do you know what DNA is?
Yes
What did you think if they found DNA on Joanna?
A sure match.
Again if he knew when they took his DNA in Holland why would he say: When I leant that they found DNA on the body.
So is this Holland Interview his first statement????? He wants them to let him go!!!!
Which in my mind means that they detained him under Dutch Law and the 6 hour interview of a suspect!!!!!!
https://philpapers.org/archive/RAMTMT-4.pdf
-
The hundred questions.......
Thought I'd post this again as it is missing from my old posts:
(1): Why the need to use 8 Fire Brigade Appliances ?
(2): The piece of significant evidence handed into the police
(3): The forensic pictures showing how they had used broom handles to move Joanna Yeates that were missing from the trial.
(4): The Priest that talked to Joanna Yeates near her home on the 17th December 2010
(5): The sobbing girl, that had apparently given Dr Vincent Tabak’s name.
(6) CJ who had seen people at the small gate who could have answered many questions, but was not in court.
(7): Tanja Morson, Dr Vincent Tabak’s girlfriend who could have confirmed or denied any scenario put forward.
(8): The prosecutions full disclosure of the 1300 page document till the 7th Oct 2011
(9): A witness who lived behind saying that he heard someone shout “help me” on Saturday 18th December 2010 mid morning.
(10): How many days could a body lie on Longwood Lane without being discovered by, walkers, joggers etc.
(11): Any good Character witness’s for Dr Vincent Tabak.
(12): A psychiatrist report on Dr Vincent Tabak’s mental health whilst incarcerated..
(13): An explanation to the shard of console found at the crime scene. who did the console belong too?
(14): The CCTV image of Dr Vincent Tabak’s car on “Park Street”.. Some of the media had inferred it was when he was trying to dump Joanna Yeates. But he was picking Tanja up on the 18th December 2010.
(15): What happened to his application for bail, I couldn’t understand why he was never on bail.
(16): Video putting Dr Vincent Tabak at the scene of the crime.
(17): Witness’s putting Dr Vincent Tabak at the scene of the crime.
(18): DNA evidence of Dr Vincent Tabak in Joanna Yeates flat
(19): DNA evidence of Joanna Yeates in Dr Vincent Tabak’s flat
(20): An explanation as to how Joanna Yeates earrings ended inside the bed cover.
(21): Photographs of the scene when the police first arrived on the 20th December 2010
(22): An expert who could demonstrate the difficulties in moving a dead weight.
(23): The lack of body fluids at Dr Vincent Tabak’s flat.. She was in his flat for an hour according to the prosecution.
(24): The body fluids in Joanna Yeates flat to prove that was where she was killed.
(25): Joanna Yeates black handbag she is seen carrying.
(26): Solid DNA profile of Dr Vincent Tabak on Joanna Yeates, (Partial is inconclusive).
(27): An explanation to how Andrew Mott had to try to stop a body from thawing after she was found, having apparently been there since the 17th December 2010 and was frozen solid.
(28): Finger nail scrapings that might have revealed who attacked her.
(29): Any medical records as to why Joanna Yeates had taken time from work days before the 17th Dec. (could have explained why it didn’t take long to strangle her).
(30):A demonstration of how easy or hard it would be to lift a body inside a bicycle bag/ cover.
(31): A demonstration of how difficult it would then be to lift a dead weight into the boot of a car.
(32): The Defence team missing that it was impossible for Dr Vincent Tabak to do two of the searches the prosecution said he did.( I will explain this one later)..
(34): How the defence did not pick up on the fact that the prosecution ask the jury to add a word to their document.. changing the definition of a search.
(35): The Drive times it would have taken Dr Vincent Tabak to complete various journeys.
(36): A proper explanation as to why it was a sexually motivated assault when no signs of a sexual assault existed.
(37): A demonstration at Joanna Yeates flat of how her body was moved from room to room and between flats, no timing of this event took place, and if it was even possible to lift a body up as there were no drag marks.
(38): The CCTV from Clifton Suspension Bridge the police had used to speak to one witness/suspect, I believe early in their investigations.
(39): Bank records of Dr Vincent Tabak’s apparent purchase of callgirls.
(40): The american prostitute who claimed that Dr Vincent Tabak had tried to use chloroform in a sex game. The proof of purchase.
(41): Any female person whom Dr Vincent Tabak has made a pass at in the past.
(42): The Morson Family and their relationship with Dr Vincent Tabak.
(43): The finger prints missing from the TV Dr Vincent Tabak said he turned off.
(44): Any Finger prints of Dr Vincent Tabak anywhere in the flat.
(45): Mr Reardon verifying whether Bernard the cat was inside the house when he left for sheffield.
(46): How The couple from Flat one travelled to work every morning, did they walk or drive?
(47): Pictures of what was inside the forensic tent if Joanna Yeates wasn’t.
(48): Anything that puts Joanna Yeates in Dr Vincent Tabak’s flat
(49): A Witness that saw Dr Vincent Tabak go into Joanna Yeates Flat.
(50): CCTV footage of Dr Vincent Tabak going across Clifton suspension Bridge
(51): CCTV footage of him travelling on the A38 between Bedminster and Longwood Lane
(52): A GPS signal putting Dr Vincent Tabak on Longwood Lane.
(53): Finger prints on the oven Dr Vincent Tabak turned off.
(54): The Porn searches I believe should have been redacted in the film the IT expert had shown to the court.
(55): The searches that should make sense but don’t.
(56): The fact that he was in his own flat till 9:29pm on Friday 17th December 2010 by his own defences admission.
(57): Where were the translations of any of the Dutch language, from texts or internet searches Dr Vincent Tabak would have made.
(58): His actual laptop in court.
(59): The phone call from Holland played in court when he was supposed to be implicating CJ.
(60): The videoed interviews of Dr Vincent Tabak whilst he was in custody
(61): The Tatteringer Reims Champagne cork at the crime scene.
(62): Good Character statements.
(63): The searches he couldn’t do because he wasn’t at home.
(64): A Full DNA profile
(65): The Timestamped Video from the Asda in Bedminster.. (time blurred out)
(66): The 1300 page document I believe should have originally been bigger if it contained the porn searches within.
(67): The Medical reports on Dr Vincent Tabak
(68): The Kitchen window.. measured to see If Joanna Yeates could see out clearly and Dr Vincent Tabak being able to see in as they were basement flats of irregular height.
(69): How the forensic expert turned everything around in 48 hours including the suspects clothing.
(70): The other DNA profile they didn’t test
(71): The crime scene photo’s that differ, when it’s a time capsule.
(72): The Clock with a different time.
(73): The shoes on the shoe stand change position.
(74): All the kitchen items being moved from the flat.
(75): The Coat stand that Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have touched clearly seen in the crime scene photo’s when I would have thought it would be in evidence.
(76): A Cat tray for a cat that goes outside.
(77): Mr Reardon being allowed to take all his possessions from a crime scene.
(78):The Pizza and note sent to the pub.
(79): The sock a member of the public handed in.
(80): why so much information has disappeared from the internet.
(81): Joanna Yeates being found in a flower print T-shirt that was described in one newspaper when she was in a plain T-shirt in the Ram pub.
(82): Court drawings showing her wearing blue Jeans, when she was last seen wearing grey/black jeans on the tesco video.
(83): The defences own distain of their client. (unkind words)
(84): Dr Vincent Tabak being moved between 3 prisons in 48 hours.
(85): Not seeing anyone he knew for 23 days plus. Cj had explained 3 days was difficult being isolated.(23 days must have been unbearable). (IMO)
(86): Not having his own glasses, so he could actually see.
(87): The salvation army MEMBER who acted as a chaplain.
(88): His family making an appearance on the witness stand.
(89): The lack of snow on the ground on the 17th December 2010 as Joanna Yeates walks past waitrose. I have read on many forum’s that it didn’t snow until the 18th December 2010.
(90): How much of the grass verge on Longwood Lane was defrosted by the grit that had been put on the road,with the weather being so bad that weekend.
(91): Why his plea trial was at The Old Bailey via video link and not at Bristol like the rest of Dr Vincent Tabak’s court appearances.
(92): The detention in Holland which was a 6 hour interview, which they dealt with him as a suspect.
(93): CJ being on bail until march, because they thought that he and Dr Vincent Tabak had colluded.
(94): How much vegetation was on Longwood Lane in that small area to sufficiently hid a body and how long this would take, so not to draw attention to the shape on the small verge.
(95): How statistically strangers do not normally move bodies from crime scenes, they normally walk them to the location.
(96): Why turning left out of his front door would have been the most logical route to the main street.
(97): Was he ever asked which route he took to collect his car from Canygne Road to park it outside his flat?
(98): Why he would take the pizza?/ doesn’t make any sense to me personally.
(99): Why in early police conferences, they stated that there was no significant injuries and that Joanna Yeates was fully clothed.
(100): The intercom that was in Joanna Yeates flat, where some images show it broken outside the flat, but video’s show it with the panel in tack.
The MOTIVE???
-
Looking at the Holland interview the other day I had questions as to whether it was legal??
Pre-trial arrest: schedule
Detained for questioning By: the police
Period: 6 hours (excluding the hours
between midnight and 9 am.)
Location: police station
Possible extension*
: By: the police
Period: 6 hours (excluding the hours
between midnight and 9 am.)
Location: police station
Custody order: By: (Assistant) Officer of Justice
Period: no more than six days (2 x 3 days)
Location: police station
Detention By: examining judge
Period: no more than fourteen days
Location: detention centre or police station
Remand By: the court
Period: no more than 90 days
Location: detention centre or prison
(following arraignment)
* Where the nature of the alleged offence does not permit detention in custody, the
interview is solely for the purpose of confirming the suspect’s identity.
The total time spent in custody and on remand prior to conviction is also known
as ‘pre-trial arrest’. If sentenced to a period of imprisonment, the time spent in
custody prior to sentencing will usually be counted towards the period you
actually serve.
If as this document and quotes that I have used... "States" that the interview had to be held in a Police Station..
Then how did the UK Police get permission to interview him???
They shouldn't have!!!!
Which means that if they needed permission to interview him from the Dutch Authorities, then they had to have gone over to Holland with the sole intention of interviewing him as a suspect!!!!
Gone all the way to Holland in such a hurry!!! for what reason??
There was No evidence whatsoever that Dr Vincent Tabak at that time could be concidered a suspect, let alone the police going ready for a 6 hour interview without an offer of legal representation at this time!!!
They must have known why they were interviewing him in this way...
Did he get his RIGHTS read to him???????
I know that is why the police woman calls it a "Process".... because she can't admit that it is a statement as a suspect (IMO)..
She means "PROCESS" as in interviewing him as a suspect, as there would have been NO need to collect a sample of his DNA, so early in the investigation...
They hadn't collected DNA from any of Joanna Yeates close circle of friends by that point, so why would they need Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA???
He wasn't a suspect... he or Tanja had just rung to give a supplementary statement... So why did they go to Holland all prepared?????
It begs another question.... If they conducted a suspect statement in Holland at the Airport/Hotel then has it been obtained illegally as he was not in a police station at the time???
As we know 6 hours is the allotted time Dutch law allows to detain someone for questioning before you either get an extension, detain or release!!!!
Where the nature of the alleged offence does not permit detention in custody, the
interview is solely for the purpose of confirming the suspect’s identity.
Is this the part of the dutch law that was used to question him??? To confirm his name???
Seriously... how does this stand up legally????
Could this interview that was actually as it reads an interview of a suspect, then would this violate any law codes??
Would this piece of evidence go towards Dr Vincent Tabak having a re- trial????
This question takes me back to my other posts.... Which was Dr Vincent Tabak's first statement????
If it was the Holland one... then as far as I can see, it was obtained illegally????
Or if it was the one in custody... How could he lie when he hadn't said anything!!!!!!
Can anyone clarify if the statement obtained in Holland was legal????
This is what the Police woman actually said in the video link i post earlier on in this thread:
He was Vague in some area's... He was over interested in other area's, Particulary around our Forensic examination...
There was things in his account that just didn't seem right.... to me.
And then his reluctance to give his DNA at the end of the process....... Again started to Ring Alarm Bells
See what I mean.... At the end of the process
Process can mean only one thing!!!!!
This would give more credence as to why mrs N. Osey wasn't allowed to see any of Dr Vincent Tabak's statements...And not because of data protection in case of a re-trial!!!! But because it probably would have shown the Holland interview was just that... An interview of a suspect!!!!
https://www.rechtspraak.nl/SiteCollectionDocuments/If-you-are-suspected-of-a-criminal-offence.pdf
-
I've started having a look at that video again, It's a while since I had seen it...
Dc Karen thomas says:
He could remember that Chris Jefferies car had been parked on the drive way at Canygne Road, in a particular position. The evening before Jo went missing. And the next morning the car was facing in the opposite direction.
Aha... You see, the problem with this is what day are they referring too???
DC Karen Thomas again slips up in my opinion... because they originally believed that Joanna Yeates went missing on the Saturday 18th Decemeber 2010....
His statement could not warrant them going to Holland if they always believed she went missing on Friday 17th December 2010..
Because Dr Vincent Tabak must have been referring to.. Thursday 16th December 2010....And the next morning would be Friday 17th December 2010... and that would be irrelevant!!!!!
So again I will keep asking..... why did they need to go over to Holland to interview him????? His information was irrelevant!!!!!
Joanna Yeates - Crimewatch the full story - Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRDtLjPfdw0
EDIT:.... We Now find that DCI Phil Jones says in the video Killers: Vincent Tabak... that.. at 23.33
Vincent Tabak and his girlfriend made a telephone call..
To me it sounds like Tanja rang and passed the telephone over to Dr Vincent Tabak.
But He goes on to say further:... at 23.53 mins of the video
He rang up with information stating that on the evening of the 17th December the person in custody who had a car parked at the rear of that premises in the communal parking area 44 Canygne Road. Their car had moved
So for what ever reason they always believed that her disappearance was the 18th December 2010 and not the 17th December 2010
That was significant... for me as a senior investigator and he knew the relevance of that
Now this information would only be relevant if it was the 18th December they believed that Joanna Yeates was killed.
What other information did they know that suggested it was the 18th December?????
-
Again using this video.....
When Police checked Jefferies DNA against the sample found on Jo's body, there was no match.He was freed without charge
Again... it could not takes weeks to enhance the DNA profile as the police said it did...
So having Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA on the 31st Decemebr 2010 they would have surely have checked it immediately..
Why wait till the 20th January 2011 to arrest him?????
Another issue I have is at: 6 mins 3 sec the programme say:
That night he bungled her body into his boot and went looking for a place to discard it.
Then they show the CCTV footage of him on PARK STREET... when we know that this is when he went to pick Tanja up from her party!!!!
Joanna Yeates - Crimewatch the full story - Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRDtLjPfdw0
-
mrswah... I remember quite awhile ago that you mentioned that Dr Vincent Tabak was going to some type of party on Longwood Lane and this was the reason that he had researched Longwood Lane so early on..
Do we know where the dinner party was held that Tanja and he attended?? Because I'm slightly confused when DCI Phil Jones states on the Killers Video at 17:19 he says:
And there was one instance at one dinner party some of the funeral guest there were concerned about walking home and he walked them home.
Where did these guests live ???
It does suggest in my opinion that this event could have being held near Longwood Lane as the guest needed walking home, especially if they had attended a wake... they would have been far more nervous if this FUNERAL party was held near to where Joanna Yeates had been discovered.
And who has ever heard of a funeral dinner party?????????? I'm positive he says Funeral guests... how odd!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nJqbxSVNOA
-
[ moderated ] A difference of opinion.
At 31:25 mins: The Policeman says: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4htq8y
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg369062#msg369062
It was around the 20th January, that erm... we positively identified there were components in the mixed DNA.. of Vincent Tabak
Now as I'm re watching the video " Killers: Vincent Tabak"... The lady from the CPS says this: at 28:03 mins
The Police having had his DNA sample obtained voluntarily in Holland and checked against... erm.. findings on Jo's body.. discovered that it was his DNA was on her body...and that was one of the key factors, that lead to the planned arrest of him later in January..
She speaks as if the DNA sample had been checked a lot earlier than the 20th of January... So why the planned arrest???
-
at 34:13 (Killers: Vincent Tabak) DCI Phil Jones says:
Very soon we identified that as early as the 19th December at 10:30 that evening he was on google maps at home, on his laptop, looking at Longwood Lane
Now I've gone back to the searches and:
At Line 257 of the prosecution Chart
Tabak searched on Google Maps for
‘Longwood Lane’
At Line 258 (afternoon- at work)
Tabak performed Google searches on the words
‘manslaughter’
‘previous offenders’
‘Maximum sentence Manslaughter’
Tabak then performed a Yahoo search for the words
‘penalty for manslaughter’
So Timeline 257 must be 10:30pm on the 19th December 2010
So not till the afternoon of Monday the 20th Decemeber 2010 did he apparently suddenly start looking for "Manslaughter"...
This must mean than nearly half of the timeline searches are between the 17th December 210 and the 19th Dec 2010
WOW.... they must hold alot of texts emails etc..... in those few days!!!!!!!!
Why would he jump from Longwoood Lane on the 19th Dec 2010... to checking out penalties for manslaughter on the 20th Dec 2010
That makes no sense what so ever... she wasn't found until the 25th Dec 2010... and he hadn't had his DNA sample taken at this point!!!!
I tell ya.... these searches make NO sense.... No sense whatsoever!!!!!!
If it took till 19th of December 2010 to have 257 timelines... for 3 days
That leaves 310 Timelines available until the 19th January when his final search is recorded.. 31 days.. these timelines include Texts, emails and phone calls... Thats 10 items a day on avaerage and we know that he texted and emailed Tanja regularly... So where is the obsessive checking of everything to do with this case... Because they can't be much of it for 31 days!!!!!
At Line 347 of the prosecution chart
Tabak searched Google maps for
‘maps to Longwood lane’
‘Mirror newspaper website’
‘BBC news’
‘alcohol –police limits’
Again searches google maps... what would the purpose of that be??????
These timelines are always interesting.... Think i need to look again at them...
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
A refresher from the defence.......
These are the quotes from various newspapers at the time:
1: Clegg said his conduct after Yeates died when he hid the body was "frankly disgusting" and had caused untold anguish and agony to her family.
2: "I'm not going to ask you to like Vincent Tabak. There's probably nothing to like."
3: And Miss Morson seems to agree, having failed to make a single appearance at court.
4: He had told "lie after lie to the police.
5: “did everything he could to cover his tracks”.
6: He added that he would not try to justify Tabak’s actions after her death, saying his client was “living a lie” by attending dinner parties and attempting to carry on his life as normal.
7: "I'm not going to ask you to have any sympathy for him. He deserves none.
8: "I'm not going to ask you to excuse his conduct. There can be no excuse.
9: "If I was to set out to win a popularity contest I would lose.
10: He told the court: "Of course, afterwards his behaviour is utterly disgraceful. It's not going to be justified by me
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/19/vincent-tabak-joanna-yeates-court
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8855897/Vincent-Tabak-Totally-detached-crazy-person.html
https://www.channel4.com/news/tabak-to-describe-yeates-death-in-own-words
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/vincent-tabak-branded-manipulating-cunning-liar/story-13664765-detail/story.html#ApuIakqxDvkSwVkp.99
Oh My..... Is all I can say.... No not really...
These are the words of the defence......Utterly disgraceful !!!!!
Aren't the Defence Council supposed to be supporting their client????
-
.
Now.... which first statement is he referring too???
Because that sounds like he is in custody... So that cannot be his first statement..
Or is he referring to the Interview in Holland????
The first statement (where VT stated that he wouldn't have recognised Joanna had he not seen her picture in the newspaper) was made at the police station, when VT was first arrested.
The interview at Schiphol began as a witness interview------but became a suspect interview. VT's sister, and possibly Tanja too, may well have realised this, which was why they were "fussing" over him. No statement came out of this interview, though. What was discussed over six hours is a matter for conjecture : Karen Thomas, the police officer who went to Holland, said that she went because of the info Vincent and Tanja had given re the changing position of the landlord's car, but no way could it have taken six hours to discuss that!
In the Judge Rinder programme, CJ is interviewed, and says that all the residents of no 44 had their DNA taken very early on in the investigation, and that all were willing to comply as nobody had anything to hide. So, they had CJ's DNA and also VT's.
-
The interview at Schiphol began as a witness interview------but became a suspect interview. VT's sister, and possibly Tanja too, may well have realised this, which was why they were "fussing" over him. No statement came out of this interview, though. What was discussed over six hours is a matter for conjecture : Karen Thomas, the police officer who went to Holland, said that she went because of the info Vincent and Tanja had given re the changing position of the landlord's car, but no way could it have taken six hours to discuss that!
The Holland Interview, no matter how they dress it up has to be a suspect interview...
DCI Phil Jones says on Killer: Vincent Tabak 26:53
So I sent a team.. two investigators out to the Netherlands.. To speak to him and his girlfriend... As a witness to capture that information, because I thought it was crucial to my investigation....
You see.... even he can't contain himself... He goes from saying " speak to HIM and HIS girlfriend"...
And then he just can't quite hold it!!... Because he then says "As A witness"....
We started plural, then went straight to Dr Vincent Tabak!!!!
I believe it was Tanja who actually made that phone call and then passed the telephone over to Dr Vincent Tabak... Either that or it was on speaker phone!!!
They had absolutly NO evidence when they arrested CJ... this information from Dr Vincent tabak and Tanja would NOT have changed anything in the UK at the time... They still would have had to let CJ go!!!!!
There was absolutly no need for them to waste tax payers money on a trip to Holland, which was basically going over to ask if a car had changed position...
And.. with DC karen Thomas saying:
He could remember that Chris Jefferies car had been parked on the drive way at Canygne Road, in a particular position. The evening before Jo went missing. And the next morning the car was facing in the opposite direction.
And DCI Phil Jones saying:
He rang up with information stating that on the evening of the 17th December the person in custody who had a car parked at the rear of that premises in the communal parking area 44 Canygne Road. Their car had moved
Surley they must have believed for more than one reason that Joanna Yeates came to her demise on the SATURDAY!!!!
But At 23:40 of the video DCI Phil Jones says:
At ten o'clock that morning Vincent Tabak and his girlfriend made a telephone call
They concentrate on Dr Vincent Tabak.... surely Tanja Morson had witnessed the same, they both returned home TOGETHER in the early hours of Saturday 18th December 2010, they would have seen the car in the drive as it is next to their flat....
So Tanja Morson had the same view as Dr Vincent Tabak!!! Lets not forget, she was the most talkative out of the two of them, so I believe it to be more likely that Tanja had called the Police. And Dr Vincent Tabak corroborate what they had witnessed.
Seriously... A car changing position... utter do do!! They had nothing to hold CJ on.. his lawyer wasn't letting it go that easily...
A Team???? why a team???? simple witness statement from a Placid Dutchman and his girlfriend... One Officer could have managed to take a simple witness statement..
Yes... that is interesting... what do they do?.... Play Good Cop Bad Cop???
If it was a Witness statement, they would only need ONE officer to take any relevant details at that time...
Apparently we are talking about a car changing position, that is all... nothing more... No whistles blowing here!!!!
I am utterly convinced that they went over to Holland to treat Dr Vincent Tabak as a SUSPECT and not a WITNESS...
I do not know about Police protocol, but I would imaging that they would need another officer to corroborate the information that the interrogating officer is gathering!!!!!
And simply need one Officer if it was an interview of a witness!!!!
I believe that DC Karen Thomas took notes!!! So did she not simply take this for him to fill in!!!!
http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguidesc/report/docs/lps9.pdf
or did they use this: http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguidesc/report/docs/lps10.pdf
Which gives powers under section 20(2)(j) to take a compelled statement????
WoW..... The more you investigate the more you find..... Didn't Karen Thomas Say:
He was Vague in some area's... He was over interested in other area's, Particulary around our Forensic examination...
There was things in his account that just didn't seem right.... to me.
And then his reluctance to give his DNA at the end of the process....... Again started to Ring Alarm Bells
So at the point she realised and decided that his version of events didn't ring true... did she then:....... Do this:.....
Any unsolicited admission made during a voluntary interview is admissible against the person who made it. You should record the admission in your notebook, sign and date it and ask the persons making the admission to sign and date though they may not be compelled. Any further questioning should be under caution.
DID SHE CAUTION DR VINCENT TABAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 6 hours of chat must have revealed plenty in her opinion!!!!
This can include facilities to see witnesses in private (subject to a person’s right to have another person present if you are requiring information under section 20(2)(j)). You do not have to make appointments to see employees via their employer. However, you should arrange to see potential witnesses at an appropriate time.
Oh My Oh My.... An Appropriate Time????? Another person present?????
In some cases it may be more appropriate to obtain the home contact details of the potential witness and contact them there.
More APPROPRIATE to interview them at HOME!!!!!!!!! NOT IN HOLLAND!!!!!!!!
All witnesses should be treated with courtesy and every attempt should be made to put witnesses at their ease. It is preferable to speak to witnesses in a private room so that there is a more relaxed environment. At the outset, you should explain to the witness that the primary aim of taking a statement from them is to find out what happened.
Any statement should be written and signed in ink. Witness statements should be drafted so that they are concise and to the point. They should only deal with matters within the direct knowledge of the witness. As far as is possible, you should try to record the witness’ own words.
Remember this was a simple statement about a CAR changing position!!!!!
Not questioning Dr Vincent Tabak about his movements that weekend!!!!!!!!!!
The statement forms include declarations that the witness has told the truth and space for the witness signature, so it is best to use a statement form. If the statement is recorded in a notebook, or on plain paper, and proceedings are likely, then a typed version needs to be prepared and the witness asked to read, agree and sign it.
So is this statement available for all to see.... Is this possibly why his Holland statement could be his FIRST statement!!!!
With DC Karen Thomas's suspicions regarding the information she was obtaining from Dr Vincent Tabak and her suspicions, should she have not cautioned him????
6 hours is an awful long time to collect a simple witness statement!!!!!!
NB. Confusingly the expression “voluntary statement” is sometimes used to refer to a statement under caution from a suspect. In HSE we use the expression to mean a statement voluntarily given by a witness to fact who is not a suspect, to differentiate it from a compulsory statement taken using powers under section 20 HSWA.
So was it a VOLUNTARY STATEMENT!!!!!!
http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguidesc/collectingwitness/statements.htm
Which begs the question????? "Where is Tanja Morson's witness statement about the car changing position????"
WHY... was the telephone call never played to a packed court room, to show the Jury that "he told.. lie after lie"..
This whole thing is fishy to me...
EDIT:...... OMG... Light.. Switched.. and On spring to mind!!!!
DC Karen Thomas could not "CAUTION" him........ they were in the wrong COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So what does it mean about this statement that was gathered in HOLLAND?????
Was it Legally Obtained?????????????
-
Just had a thought.... Did they use the statement that he made in Holland as part of the evidence they used to charge him with on the 22nd January 2011????
Remember he never spoke in the Police Station!!!
I do not believe they brought this particular statement to trial... As I am no Legal Expert and common sense rules..
Wouldn't this statement be inadmissible at trial because of the way in which it was obtained???
There is something fundamentally wrong about The Holland Interview... !!!
The whole Interview is so ambiguous and as such I don't believe that they followed Police Protocol...
How could they in a foreign land... I think it's making me feel Sweary.... Words that spring to mind:
(1): Stitched
(2): Up
(3): Like
(4): A
(5): Kipper
OMG.. I so wish I'd studied Law... These questions I have are sending me mad!!
Come on someone tell me..... Is It legal!!!!!!
-
Police to Police Inquiries...
If no answer is forthcoming, get of your peach and look yourself.... ?{)(**
I believe that the British Police would have needed permission from the Dutch authority even to obtain a witness statement... And therefore the following should apply:
Police-to-police enquiries
ACPO (2012) Practice Advice on European Cross-Border Investigations, section 5.3 Police-to-Police Enquiries and section 13 Information, Intelligence and Evidence Sharing
Enquiries may relate to tracing vehicles, suspects, victims or witnesses, or to checking bank account details. In all cases investigators must first contact the force ILO for advice and assistance.
Did the Officers contact the ILO for advice and ASSISTANCE?????
All police-to-police enquiries should be submitted on an INTERPOL enquiry form (NCA form 1) via the ILO to NCA international. NCA form C (risk assessment) should also be completed and forwarded to the ILO for onward transmission. Some forces, however, may have existing agreements in place via other channels.
Did they use an Interpol enquiry form??????
Overseas deployment
To travel abroad in support of a UK investigation, a police officer should first seek the authority of their chief constable or equivalent.
Well I supposed DCI Phil Jones granted them the authority, But he's not a "Chief Constable" Is He???
NCA international must be contacted before a police officer travels abroad for operational reasons in support of a UK investigation. A UK investigation may have links with other international crime enquiries, including organised crime. The presence of UK police officers abroad could jeopardise an ongoing European investigation and in some cases put officers at risk.
Did they contact "The National Crime Agency"??????
Providing assistance abroad
There are limited circumstances in which a UK police officer would is required to conduct enquiries abroad. In the majority of cases, the UK police will merely assist foreign police with an ongoing investigation.
UK police officers travelling abroad do so at the invitation, and with the permission, of the requesting state. Officers visiting another state have the same status as a member of the public. They have no jurisdiction while abroad. This is no different from when a foreign law enforcement officer visits the UK.
Where was their Invitation????
Limitations
Cross-border investigations can have varied resource implications for forces because:
different jurisdictions have differing needs (eg, the method of dealing with or processing requests for information)
the unique circumstances of each case requires different levels of response
there is a difference in the requirements of individual victims and their families
different forces have differing capacities and priorities to provide assistance.
As every case is different, each must be assessed on its own merits and resourced proportionately, according to its needs.
I would call this case a cross border investigation....
Eurojust
Based in The Hague in the Netherlands, Eurojust is a legal body of the European Union set up to improve the effectiveness of investigating and prosecuting serious and organised cross-border crime. EU member states are represented by a prosecutor, investigator or judge. Eurojust may act through its members or as a college.
At the time DC Karen Thomas believed he was a suspect, why wasn't she in contact with Eurojust???
http://eurojust.europa.eu/Pages/home.aspx
SIS
To meet the operational requirements set out in the Schengen agreement, every Schengen member state must establish a central authority as a single contact point for exchanging supplementary information related to SIS data.
Supplementary Information..... No No... don't do that... they may arrest you!!!
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/european-investigations/#police-to-police-enquiries
-
Now I'm going to try and cover this subject and I am in no way taking it lightly...
This is with regards Dr Vincent Tabak and not any other case,which I am not trying to be dissmisive about, child abuser are appauling individuals and should be punished as such.
I wanted to try and understand when and where the first publications started as regards Dr Vincent Tabak and the child porn pictures.
So I trawled through the available publications online to see the first date that this was reported and the amount of images that were first described in the papers:
I have to say, that with me having the opinion that the porn did not exist at trial, I am of the same opinion with relation to the child porn too..
I fully believe the idea that Dr Vincent Tabak did not have child porn on his laptop... I believe the idea of the child porn was to keep in the mind of the public that Dr Vincent Tabak was a monster, with that in mind, no one would touch him with a barge pole with any idea that he may be innocent in relation to the Joanna Yeates case .
Members of the public would be ridiculed if they stood up to be counted as any type of supporter for Dr Vincent Tabak, as they would be branded in the same light as he has since the trial.
Anyway... I have found various articles to refer to:
An officer involved in the investigation, who asked not to be named, told the Bristol Evening Post that he and his colleagues wanted to clear up speculation surrounding these "other matters".
He said: "Tabak had 30 images depicting child pornography on his laptop computer at home. They were all category four images."
BYMIRROR.CO.UK
17:14, 1 NOV 2011
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murderer-vincent-tabak-276472
I have two problems with this statement, the information has been leaked after the leveson enquiry had warned the media about using selacious material when it hadn't been prove before a court. And 2... The amount of images is 30??? why 30.... didn't that number change????
An officer involved in the investigation, who asked not to be named, told the Bristol Evening Post that he and his colleagues wanted to clear up speculation surrounding these "other matters".He said: "Tabak had 30 images depicting child pornography on his laptop computer at home. They were all category four images."
By Josie Ensor11:37AM GMT 01 Nov 2011 of the telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8862100/Joanna-Yeatess-killer-Vincent-Tabak-had-child-pornography-on-his-computer.html
Both publications have used the Bristol post as there source..??
But as the Evening Post exclusively revealed after Tabak's trial in October, Avon and Somerset police found vile images on his laptop of children being sexually abused.
In all there were 30 indecent images, all of level four out of five in terms of extremity.
By The Bristol Post | Posted: February 11, 2012
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/detectives-speak-joanna-yeates-8217-s-killer/story-15197992-detail/story.html#E70M47WI79xBeBBp.99
It also emerged yesterday that Tabak will be questioned by detectives over 30 alleged indecent images of children found on his laptop.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2100095/Dutch-killer-Jo-Yeates-set-cost-British-taxpayer-hundreds-thousands-pounds-legal-aid-bill.html
So we all agree that there are 30 images at this point.
It has been wrongly reported that the police investigation on this matter only started two weeks ago.
"We have been working closely with the Crown Prosecution Service on this area of the case ever since Vincent Tabak was convicted of murder in October 2011 and we will continue with this joint approach to ensure a decision is reached as soon as possible."
The Bristol Post | Posted: November 18, 2013
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/decision-child-porn-charges-jo-yeates-killer/story-20095856-detail/story.html#ghCiAqTefbbrcUdM.99
So two years later and they haven't made their minds up on whether or not to prosecute Dr Vincent Tabak with catergory 4 images, which according to the mirror...
During the trial, the prosecution alluded to "other matters" surrounding Tabak, un-related to the murder charge.
It turned out those "other matters" were the indecent images, revealed in the Post, depicting penetrative sexual activity involving a child or children.
When did the prosecution mention other matters??????
Now this is extremeley serious!!!! what is making the Um and Ah as to whether they should prosecute?????
Why are they not rushing to:
(A): Protect these children
(B): And prosecute him ASAP?????
There must be some kind of protective measures that are taken for the children that are involved in this matter...
We have been working closely with the Crown Prosecution Service on this area of the case ever since Vincent Tabak was convicted of murder in October 2011
Pardon me???? Area of the case???? Now i do not believe that the child porn was ever brought infront of the judge at the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak and the way that sounds is they had the material earlier....
If this is the case... why wasn't it brought before the judge at trial..... even if it would be seen as inadmissible, they could have brought the information to the judge for him to make a decision on the matter...
t quoted a CPS spokeswoman as saying the decision had taken a "long time", adding: "The inquiry had been put on a backburner, not because it wasn’t important but it was rated a low priority with the defendant already being in prison."
Back Burner????? what... what are they talking about.. not important enough to protect these children, I cannot believe what they are saying absoultly crazy... They should be rushing to protect the poor children first and foremost and making the person pay for their crimes... But for some perculiar reason they want to put it on the Back Burner!!!
Makes no sense whatsoever.....
The officer said that, due to Tabak's conviction for murder and life sentence, he did not think the Crown Prosecution Service would take action.
Again to me it suggest that these images are not quite what we have been lead to believe... with them hesitating to take action.
Another thing I noticed happened whilst they waited to take Dr Vincent Tabak to court was the reporting in the newspapers of other child offenders and how they linked Dr Vincent Tabak's name to these articles.
And Vincent Tabak, too, watched child porn. He strangled architect Joanna Yeates in Bristol. Thirty images of children being sexually abused were found on Dutch-born Tabak’s computer.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2522846/High-profile-cases-child-killers-hooked-extreme-porn-just-tip-iceberg.html#ixzz4YHFAmp9l 12 December 2013 (still 30 images.)
Like Bridger, paedophiles such as Soham murderer Ian Huntley and Tia Sharp’s killer Stuart Hazell were all unknown to police before they carried out their crimes, as were extreme pornography fanatics Vincent Tabak and Graham Coutts – who brutally murdered Joanna Yeates and special needs teacher Jane Longhurst respectively.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/april-jones-detective-warns-police-4036572
These articles are before Dr Vincent Tabak was brought to court in relation to the child porn... I believe these type of stories firmly impress in the public's mind that he was a vile man who looked at child porn images, even before the trial took place .
Which in itself is prejudicial.....
So we come to the actual trial of Dr Vincent Tabak and the child porn charges...
But a judge rejected his claims of being unable to get a fair trial and three hours later Tabak pleaded guilty to four charges of possessing 145 indecent photographs of children.
Bristol Crown Court heard how the most sickening images involved pre-pubescent girls.
Six were at the most serious level A and nine at level B and were found on his Dell laptop as detectives investigated the murder of 25 year-old landscape architect Jo in Bristol.
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/jo-yeates-killer-vincent-tabak-admits-possessing/story-26106453-detail/story.html#3bBdAhpO3F0FLxbY.99
How did we manage to jump from 30 images to 145 images???????? We have managed to find an extra 115 images that were not available some years earlier.... HOW?????
Mr Bartlett said the majority of images - 129 - were at the lowest level and involved two teenage girls.
So lets do the maths....
145 - 129 = 16 we have 16 images to put into Catergories
16 - 6 = 10 6 Category (A): Images
10 - 9 = 1 9 Category (B): Images
So what was the solitary image that wasn't Categorised????
How is it that Nothing ADDS UP ever.. In anything in relation to Dr Vincent Tabak is apart of????
Its not whether the images are terrible... It's whether they were ever on Dr Vincent Tabak's computer, because I do not understand how we start with 30 and end up at 145 ???
Hang on a minute... this is news to me....
Four years ago the adjoining court room at Bristol had heard how the introverted loner was obsessed with sex and probably killed Jo - who lived in the groundfloor flat next door to him - when she spurned his advances.
How did the Jury hear that Dr Vincent Tabak was Obsessed with SEX!!!!!!!
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/jo-yeates-killer-vincent-tabak-admits-possessing/story-26106453-detail/story.html#3bBdAhpO3F0FLxbY.99
During the trial, the prosecution alluded to "other matters" surrounding Tabak, un-related to the murder charge.
It turned out those "other matters" were the indecent images, revealed in the Post, depicting penetrative sexual activity involving a child or children.
If there were other matters that could prejudice the trial why was there no objections made... By the prosecution alluding that Dr vincent Tabak may have something unsavioury hidden it only will add to what I believe is a jury's impression of him, and who is to say where or not they took that statement to the Jury room!!!!
It make me feel that having something else to charge Dr Vincent Tabak with allowed them to have access to him, which ordinarily when a trial has finished that should be the end of the matter. Access whenever they wished to speak to him in relation to these charges... And with images being kept on file, they can still get access to him to question him about these images...(IMO).
Which I find weird... there have been many people who have tried to get contact to Dr Vincent Tabak, only to have their request declined.
As far as I can see... This is an unfair tactic.... and may be the reason we do not hear Dr Vincent Tabak shouting from the Rooftops proclaiming his Innocence... Or his family making any statements.. But that is just my opinion...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2522846/High-profile-cases-child-killers-hooked-extreme-porn-just-tip-iceberg.html
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/april-jones-detective-warns-police-4036572
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/decision-child-porn-charges-jo-yeates-killer/story-20095856-detail/story.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2100095/Dutch-killer-Jo-Yeates-set-cost-British-taxpayer-hundreds-thousands-pounds-legal-aid-bill.html
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/detectives-speak-joanna-yeates-8217-s-killer/story-15197992-detail/story.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8862100/Joanna-Yeatess-killer-Vincent-Tabak-had-child-pornography-on-his-computer.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murderer-vincent-tabak-276472
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/jo-yeates-killer-vincent-tabak-admits-possessing/story-26106453-detail/story.html
Just making sure I have the links I gain the information from:.....
-
Looking at the Holland interview the other day I had questions as to whether it was legal??
If as this document and quotes that I have used... "States" that the interview had to be held in a Police Station..
Then how did the UK Police get permission to interview him???
They shouldn't have!!!!
Which means that if they needed permission to interview him from the Dutch Authorities, then they had to have gone over to Holland with the sole intention of interviewing him as a suspect!!!!
Gone all the way to Holland in such a hurry!!! for what reason??
There was No evidence whatsoever that Dr Vincent Tabak at that time could be concidered a suspect, let alone the police going ready for a 6 hour interview without an offer of legal representation at this time!!!
They must have known why they were interviewing him in this way...
Did he get his RIGHTS read to him???????
I know that is why the police woman calls it a "Process".... because she can't admit that it is a statement as a suspect (IMO)..
She means "PROCESS" as in interviewing him as a suspect, as there would have been NO need to collect a sample of his DNA, so early in the investigation...
They hadn't collected DNA from any of Joanna Yeates close circle of friends by that point, so why would they need Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA???
He wasn't a suspect... he or Tanja had just rung to give a supplementary statement... So why did they go to Holland all prepared?????
It begs another question.... If they conducted a suspect statement in Holland at the Airport/Hotel then has it been obtained illegally as he was not in a police station at the time???
As we know 6 hours is the allotted time Dutch law allows to detain someone for questioning before you either get an extension, detain or release!!!!
Is this the part of the dutch law that was used to question him??? To confirm his name???
Seriously... how does this stand up legally????
Could this interview that was actually as it reads an interview of a suspect, then would this violate any law codes??
Would this piece of evidence go towards Dr Vincent Tabak having a re- trial????
This question takes me back to my other posts.... Which was Dr Vincent Tabak's first statement????
If it was the Holland one... then as far as I can see, it was obtained illegally????
Or if it was the one in custody... How could he lie when he hadn't said anything!!!!!!
Can anyone clarify if the statement obtained in Holland was legal????
This is what the Police woman actually said in the video link i post earlier on in this thread:
See what I mean....
Process can mean only one thing!!!!!
This would give more credence as to why mrs N. Osey wasn't allowed to see any of Dr Vincent Tabak's statements...And not because of data protection in case of a re-trial!!!! But because it probably would have shown the Holland interview was just that... An interview of a suspect!!!!
https://www.rechtspraak.nl/SiteCollectionDocuments/If-you-are-suspected-of-a-criminal-offence.pdf
He was interviewed in Holland as a witness regardless of what the police were thinking. He would only become as suspect after being arrested and cautioned. I assume he voluntarily attended the interview?
-
Now I'm going to try and cover this subject and I am in no way taking it lightly...
This is with regards Dr Vincent Tabak and not any other case,which I am not trying to be dissmisive about, child abuser are appauling individuals and should be punished as such.
...
I have to say, that with me having the opinion that the porn did not exist at trial, I am of the same opinion with relation to the child porn too..
I agree with your opinion.
The Prosecutor made at least two separate applications each to try to tell the jury at the murder trial about the defendant's use of prostitutes and his viewing of adult porn videos as evidence of his "bad character". The judge firmly rejected all these applications, essentially because these activities didn't fulfill CPS requirements for bad character evidence. Isn't it obvious, though, that an application, had it been made, to tell the jury that the defendant possessed illegal images of child abuse on his computer would have succeeded? I can think of no other explanation for this omission on the part of the Prosecutor, than that he had no evidence at all linking the defendant to the child abuse images, the adult videos or the escort girls.
-
He was interviewed in Holland as a witness regardless of what the police were thinking. He would only become as suspect after being arrested and cautioned. I assume he voluntarily attended the interview?
Hi John...
Whether or not it was voluntary, what cooperation did the Dutch authorities give to allow an interview with one of their Nationals??
He wasn't a British subject!! It would have different implications and different lines of procedure to follow
Was this an Official visit??? Where all the correct procedures followed with regards this Witness Statement????
Were the Dutch Embassy Informed of their intention????
If so there should be a nice clean paper trail available. With all the relevant forms attached to this inquiry.
We found out later that he had been interviewed in Holland and to be honest how many people are going to look into whether proper protocols where in place????
Once vilified in the papers, who will check????
I believe the information I provided does say if they have reason to believe he is anything other than a witness he should be cautioned... so why not???
I've got to say, why wasn't any Dutch police at this interview???
This is a supplementary statement about a car changing position.... Why On Earth.. Would the Dutch Authorities even give permission for this minor detail???
The British police could have asked him on his return to the UK!!!!!
And I'm just as surprised that the Dutch authorities didn't tell them the same!!!!!!
How did this conversation go??????
Ring Ring.... Ring Ring..... "Could we please pop over and have a chat with one of your Dutch Nationals, he saw his neighbours car move and we'd like to get it in writing.."
What information would they have to impart for the Dutch Authorities to give permission to the British Police in regards to this small piece of information!!
Again... doesn't make a great deal of sense to me.....
-
He was interviewed in Holland as a witness regardless of what the police were thinking. He would only become as suspect after being arrested and cautioned. I assume he voluntarily attended the interview?
He attended the interview voluntarily. The Detective Constable who testified in court about her interview with the defendant at Schiphol told the jury that her suspicions became aroused during the interview. She further recounted how the defendant became agitated and how his sister and girlfriend fussed over him. She stated her opinion that the sister was a "mother hen type". In my opinion she showed disrespect for someone who through no possible fault of her own was losing a family member. In my opinion the judge should have asked the witness whether she had cautioned the defendant after beginnng to suspect him, as I believe is required both by the Police & Criminal Evidence act, and by judgements in the European Court of Human Rights.
In my opinion, the judge ought to have asked the witness to tell the court what procedures were followed to avoid violating Netherlands sovereignty.
-
He attended the interview voluntarily. The Detective Constable who testified in court about her interview with the defendant at Schiphol told the jury that her suspicions became aroused during the interview. She further recounted how the defendant became agitated and how his sister and girlfriend fussed over him. She stated her opinion that the sister was a "mother hen type". In my opinion she showed disrespect for someone who through no possible fault of her own was losing a family member. In my opinion the judge should have asked the witness whether she had cautioned the defendant after beginnng to suspect him, as I believe is required both by the Police & Criminal Evidence act, and by judgements in the European Court of Human Rights.
In my opinion, the judge ought to have asked the witness to tell the court what procedures were followed to avoid violating Netherlands sovereignty.
So why did she not follow procedure as lain out here?? And caution him!!
Any unsolicited admission made during a voluntary interview is admissible against the person who made it. You should record the admission in your notebook, sign and date it and ask the persons making the admission to sign and date though they may not be compelled. Any further questioning should be under caution.
Or if she didn't have the authority in a foreign land... at least stop the interview???
-
I agree with your opinion.
The Prosecutor made at least two separate applications each to try to tell the jury at the murder trial about the defendant's use of prostitutes and his viewing of adult porn videos as evidence of his "bad character".
Do you know the dates of these applications?????
-
Do you know the dates of these applications?????
No, the dates were not reported. I assume that is because the media were forbidden to report the dates on which the applications were made. Naturally, most people assume that they were all made during the trial. However, I see no reason why the first of them should not have been made during the Plea and Case Management hearing at the Old Bailey, five months before the trial opened. This is because the Prosecution had been directed by the first judge on the case to present all the case papers by a date in April.
This may be one reason why the hearing was held at the Old Bailey. The consequence of this would be that the journalists would have had good time to telephone the escort girl for their stories.
-
No, the dates were not reported. I assume that is because the media were forbidden to report the dates on which the applications were made. Naturally, most people assume that they were all made during the trial. However, I see no reason why the first of them should not have been made during the Plea and Case Management hearing at the Old Bailey, five months before the trial opened. This is because the Prosecution had been directed by the first judge on the case to present all the case papers by a date in April.
This may be one reason why the hearing was held at the Old Bailey. The consequence of this would be that the journalists would have had good time to telephone the escort girl for their stories.
I do remember reading recently that it was when the trial had started...
What makes you think that there were two applications regarding the porn????
And the only reporting in May I know of was to say that Dr Vincent Tabak had a 3 minute hearing to confirm his name.
If the porn material had been produced in May, I'm positive the defence would have checked his laptop also....
As we know the defence didn't get furnished with the 1300 page document until the 7th Oct 2011 and I believe this was the time that the porn was also argued....
I cannot imaging the prosecution creating themselves more work when they didn't need to???
-
Whether or not it was voluntary, what cooperation did the Dutch authorities give to allow an interview with one of their Nationals??
Were the Dutch Embassy Informed of their intention????
I've got to say, why wasn't any Dutch police at this interview???
This is a supplementary statement about a car changing position.... Why On Earth.. Would the Dutch Authorities even give permission for this minor detail???
The British police could have asked him on his return to the UK!!!!!
And I'm just as surprised that the Dutch authorities didn't tell them the same!!!!!!
Again... doesn't make a great deal of sense to me.....
In my opinion, a report that detectives from Bristol had travelled to the Netherlands to interview witnesses would have made the headlines about 1st January 2011. News that the police were doing something serious to find the killer would have made a good impression on the public. But it wasn't reported in the media at the time. Why did the police neglect this opportunity to improve their image? Was it to prevent the airport police at Schiphol from getting wind of an interview in which they ought to have been involved?
One doesn't have to be a 'conspiracy theorist' to raise one's eyebrows over the incident of two detectives flying to the Netherlands to ask a question about the direction in which the landlord's car was parked. In my opinion, being an Avon & Somerset taxpayer would be sufficient qualification. In my opinion the judge at the murder trial ought to have reminded the witness that she had sworn to tell "...the WHOLE truth..." and that this included telling the court what issues had occupied the best part of 6 hours' interview and 40 pages in her notebook.
-
What makes you think that there were two applications regarding the porn????
I reached that conclusion because I read two different statements from the judge:
[The] Judge ... dismissed the application to have the material introduced to the trial, and rejected prosecution’s claim that it showed an intent to kill. He said: “These films show actors, acting out roles. None of the women suffer GBH. None of the women are killed. These are not snuff movies. The women did not die.”
[The judge] concluded: “In my judgement, the watching, the possession of porn showing violence and the threat of violence is reprehensible conduct. But even if there was some sexual motivation, this does not go to prove the defendant had the intention to kill her or cause her serious injury.”
I also read different arguments from Counsel for the Defence, giving a distinct impression of two different discussions on different occasions. Furthermore there were inconsistencies in the way the journalists reported these applications, arousing my suspicions. But I could be wrong.
-
I do remember reading recently that it was when the trial had started...
What makes you think that there were two applications regarding the porn????
And the only reporting in May I know of was to say that Dr Vincent Tabak had a 3 minute hearing to confirm his name.
If the porn material had been produced in May, I'm positive the defence would have checked his laptop also....
As we know the defence didn't get furnished with the 1300 page document until the 7th Oct 2011 and I believe this was the time that the porn was also argued....
I cannot imaging the prosecution creating themselves more work when they didn't need to???
I too read that an application was made when the trial hard started - i.e., during the first week when the jury was sworn in, and (according to Sally Ramage) the 1300 page document was suddenly produced by the Prosecution. This only reinforces my assertion that more than one application was made, as 5th May would have been the obvious occasion for the Defence to challenge the evidence of bad character, if it existed. There is simply no reason to believe that the police would have failed to find what they were looking for on the confiscated computers and in the defendant's bank statements, if it was there, within a few months of his arrest. We know that reporting restrictions were imposed.
http://swns.com/news/vincent-tabak-murderer-watched-fetish-porn-before-killing-jo-yeates-21401/
There is nothing to suggest that the porn was included in the 1300 page document. The 5th May hearing is shrouded in mystery and controversy, because the date and venue were changed, and because the press and the victim's parents were notified but the public were not.
I am no fan of the Counsel for the Prosecution, but his opening speech, stretching over 1½ days, was certainly a tour de force. He was not a man to limit himself to one application when the first failed.
-
I reached that conclusion because I read two different statements from the judge:
[The] Judge ... dismissed the application to have the material introduced to the trial, and rejected prosecution’s claim that it showed an intent to kill. He said: “These films show actors, acting out roles. None of the women suffer GBH. None of the women are killed. These are not snuff movies. The women did not die.”
[The judge] concluded: “In my judgement, the watching, the possession of porn showing violence and the threat of violence is reprehensible conduct. But even if there was some sexual motivation, this does not go to prove the defendant had the intention to kill her or cause her serious injury.”
I also read different arguments from Counsel for the Defence, giving a distinct impression of two different discussions on different occasions. Furthermore there were inconsistencies in the way the journalists reported these applications, arousing my suspicions. But I could be wrong.
I'm looking for info regards this Leonora:...
The material was withheld from the jury after Judge His Honour Mr Justice Richard Field deemed that they did not inspire the attack on Jo, but ruled it admissable for background purposes.
What does background purposes mean?
Nigel Lickley QC, prosecuting, tried to argue that the material gave Tabak motive for the killing.
He told the court: ”The material was found on the defendant’s laptop at home and also in relation to two hard drives – one found at home and one found at work.
This sounds like it's at the trial........
He pleaded guilty to her manslaughter at a brief hearing at the Old Bailey in May, but the Crown rejected his plea and opted to pursue the charge of murder against him.
Brief hearing sounds like the Porn wasn't mentioned then...
Tabak, who sat hunched in the dock, spoke only once.
The clerk asked him: 'Are you Vincent Tabak?'
He replied: 'Yes I am.'
Nothing said here as far as I can tell.... the information was spoken about in court, so I would say that must mean that it happened at trial... If Dr Vincent Tabak had anything to say about the porn he would have spoken then,... And reporting restrictions would have been inforced...
Mr Lickley said: ”In short these images, we submit, hold resonance with the final position of the deceased.
”There is a similarity in the two females height, hair colour and the clothing.
”Miss Yeates was wearing a short pink top and jeans. Miss Yeates was found wearing her jeans in tact but her t-shirt she was wearing had been lifted up above her bra.
Again.... news to me... A short pink top??????? So I now Have description of this top Joanna Yeates was wearing... It is short with a flower pattern and is pink.... Nothing like the top she is seen wearing in the Ram pub on the 17th Dec 2010...
He also watched domination porn videos on January 7, while searching for information on the Jo Yeates case.
Examination of his computer showed that at 7.37am he was looking at that material to do with the murder investigation.
Not Possible..... these are the searches for the 7th January 2011
At Line 422 of the prosecution chart
At 9.10 am (at work)
Tabak searched for press articles on the murder.
Then he Googled the words
‘DNA test’
‘Waste recycling’
‘rubbish collection’
At Line 427 of the prosecution chart
Tabak researched on Wikipedia the words
‘life imprisonment’
‘previous offenders’
‘named persons’
‘sentencing’
His earliest search is at 9:10am... if he had been searching at 7:37am that morning it would be there......
And it isn't... they are not going to miss an opportunity to show his insatiable appetite to keep abreast of every movement of this investigation, as they have stated before he spent all his time googling about the case.....
I am of the definate opinion that the porn was not mentioned until the trial.... which brings us back to the 1300 page document and the missing porn!!!!
EDIT:.... It definately wasn't in September 2011..
The greying 33-year-old wore glasses, a white shirt, blue tie and grey suit for the 30 minute hearing before Judge Martin Picton.
Different Judge... And May 2011 was only a brief hearing... So I believe it was when the Trial started!!
I genuinely do not believe the Prosecution would reveal their hand before Trial.. They did not reveal the 1300 pages... And the sobbing girl disappeared...
Senior prosecutor, Nick Lickley QC, said although the case starts on October 4, the evidence is unlikely to be opened until October 6, with witnesses being called from Monday, October 10.
Opening evidence October 6th 2011... This could be when they brought the porn to trial... A few days before the Jury sat... Then again you have the 7th October 2011 when the Defence recieved the 1300 page document... NO Time re re-produce it.... I believe the 1300 page Document was just that... 1300 pages from start of trial to finish of trial!
Double EDIT:.....
More proof that the Pornogrphy was when the Trial started:
The attorney general is considering whether to take action over a tweet revealing Vincent Tabak's interest in hardcore pornography that was posted during his trial.
There is no way it was mentioned at any other time than at the Trial!!!! Random person, so it has to be at trial!!!
During the four-week trial orders were in place to stop the media reporting Tabak's interest in pornography depicting women being strangled during sex.
It was feared that if the jury knew of Tabak's interest in such material it would be unfairly prejudiced against him and make a fair trial impossible.
Orders where in place during the 4 week trial......
Again...Again... and Again.... I will say.... How did the Prosecution remove the Porn from the searches of Dr Vincent Tabak within a 1300 page document which should be far greater in size....
Having to reproduce some 19500 pages... get them proof read sorted out so every Juror, the judge the prosecution and the defence each had a copy... free from the porn searches?????
Re- Number the Timelines and of course, colour code them so the prosecutions copy had colours fro Emails, texts and searches that Dr Vincent Tabak made....
I have said and still believe.........there was no Porn!!!
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/vincent-tabak-bristol-crown-court-pre-trial/story-13366667-detail/story.html#D5os45HPsHGTa4ER.99
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039495/Joanna-Yeates-parents-David-Teresa-face-Vincent-Tabak-court-1st-time.html#ixzz4YJENVvYW
http://news.sky.com/story/yeates-murder-jury-selected-10485256
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
http://swns.com/news/vincent-tabak-murderer-watched-fetish-porn-before-killing-jo-yeates-21401/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/31/attorney-general-tweet-tabak-porn
-
Leonora....
Even if you do try to split the pornography between two different dates:... It will not change the fact that the prosecutions 1300 page document never had any porn searches in it at any time...
They would have had to reproduce this document!!! Cannot change that fact.
I cannot see how this is even possible.
Just another thought Leonora... If the Porn is split between dates and it is brought to trial in October 2011 ..
How did the IT Expert remove the porn searches from the film she had shown the `Jury.. without redacting it or deleting it... She too would have to sort her timelines out to correlate with the Prosecutions Timelines....
The more I think about it the more I know it doesn't make any sense for it to be split between two dates.... If the judge thought originally that it would be prejudcial to use as evidence in May 2011 then there would be no need it being mentioned in court in Oct 2011.. This would have been dealt with then....
And Oct 2011 is where the guy tweeted about it.... Because that information would have only come to pass after the trial had finished... And not during... So.. I believe that the Porn revelations have to be in October 2011
-
Leonora....
sorry for some reason it posted twice...
This is getting really, really complicated, but it is also very interesting. Before I try to deal with your reactions, please bear with me while I reiterate: the application and rejection of the 'tame' evidence of "bad character" PROVES not only that the alleged images of child abuse can never have been linked to the defendant or his computer, but also that the evidence that was rejected was also a fabrication. This is terribly important.
I share your exasperation at the lack of urgency about tracing the identities of the children who allegedly were abused. I cannot for the life of me understand why other members of the public, especially in Bristol, didn't react to this.
Compared to the falsification of the child abuse charge, everything else in this connection is a distraction, but nevertheless it deserves a proper discussion.
Nothing that has been made public links the so-called IT-expert who testified at the murder trial either to the adult porn videos or to the images of child abuse. On the contrary, several accounts of the trial contain evidence that she wasn't an IT-expert at all, since they report that she spoke only to identify the identity of the web pages shown to the jury. You or I could have done the same thing. This means that all the defendant's Google searches taken from the 1300 page document, which you have so painstakingly dissected, were hearsay!
The person who testified in court did not actually tell the jury that she had analysed the defendant's computers and hard disks herself. She may have done this work, or it may have been done by one or more others whose names have never been made public. Or not done at all.
-
Leonora....
Even if you do try to split the pornography between two different dates:... It will not change the fact that the prosecutions 1300 page document never had any porn searches in it at any time...
They would have had to reproduce this document!!! Cannot change that fact.
I cannot see how this is even possible.
No, I agree that the 1300 never had any porn searches in it. We are meant to believe that it was the same person who produced this document and the list of porn searches, but that is only inference. The press's only source for the porn searches was Counsel for the Prosecution, and he never stated who (if anyone) had analysed them. So there was never any need to change the 1300 page document - which the judge should have rejected, since the lateness of its submission violated so seriously the CPS's rules.
I don't suppose anybody has ever bothered to compare the timeline in the 1300 page document with the timings of searches that Counsel for the Prosecution alleged were made by the defendant. There could well be serious clashes, but I certainly haven't bothered to look for them.
-
I'm looking for info regards this Leonora:...
What does background purposes mean?
This sounds like it's at the trial........
Brief hearing sounds like the Porn wasn't mentioned then...
Nothing said here as far as I can tell.... the information was spoken about in court, so I would say that must mean that it happened at trial... If Dr Vincent Tabak had anything to say about the porn he would have spoken then,... And reporting restrictions would have been inforced...
Only the judge can know what he meant by "background purposes". He gave the news media permission to report Counsel for the Prosecution's account of the so-called bad character evidence, as well as the objections successfully lodged by Counsel for the Defence against this "evidence" being put to the jury, and his own justification for rejecting the applications.
None of the passages you quote contains anything that precludes parts of the discussion between the three lawyers from having taken place at the "brief" hearing at the Old Bailey on 5th May. If Counsel for the Prosecution submitted only thumbnail images from the porn videos, and a brief description, then the first discussion would have been "brief". The defendant himself took no part in these discussions, and I seriously doubt if the person who pleaded guilty via video link really was the defendant. The real defendant may not have learnt about his plea until he saw it on TV later that day.
Just because it was spoken in court doesn't mean it was spoken at the trial. The Old Bailey, where the plea hearing was held, is also a court. Everything said at the plea hearing was also "spoken in court".
I too wondered especially about whether the short pink top described here really was the blouse the victim wore in the pub and the garment found on her body. There was one credible witness who had been present in the pub and who could have been cross-examined about the colour and pattern of her blouse, but this opportunity was not taken. If the top she wore in the pub that winter evening really was short, it might well have caused a few heads to turn! In view of all else that is wrong with this case, something tells me that the two tops were different.
-
No, I agree that the 1300 never had any porn searches in it. We are meant to believe that it was the same person who produced this document and the list of porn searches, but that is only inference. The press's only source for the porn searches was Counsel for the Prosecution, and he never stated who (if anyone) had analysed them. So there was never any need to change the 1300 page document - which the judge should have rejected, since the lateness of its submission violated so seriously the CPS's rules.
I don't suppose anybody has ever bothered to compare the timeline in the 1300 page document with the timings of searches that Counsel for the Prosecution alleged were made by the defendant. There could well be serious clashes, but I certainly haven't bothered to look for them.
I would love to take a look at that 1300 page document....
we know from whats available, that the timelines of the prosecution are incorrect as the two searches I have shown he was not at home for them....
That infromation alone should discount the searches full stop...
-
There is no way it was mentioned at any other time than at the Trial!!!! Random person, so it has to be at trial!!!
I don't believe that the alleged blogger who was alleged to have tweeted about the porn really existed. I don't know what the purpose of this story would have been. The main thing is that the tweeter could have learnt about the porn at the plea hearing in May or at the trial in October, but the tweets were not transmitted, or were not detected by the authorities, until the trial. The ushers at the trial were very strict about non-journalists not tweeting or even taking handwritten notes. The person could also have tweeted outside the courthouse from memory. Even if he really existed, this doesn't disprove my contention that the "bad character" evidence was first discussed at the May hearing.
-
I too wondered especially about whether the short pink top described here really was the blouse the victim wore in the pub and the garment found on her body. There was one credible witness who had been present in the pub and who could have been cross-examined about the colour and pattern of her blouse, but this opportunity was not taken. If the top she wore in the pub that winter evening really was short, it might well have caused a few heads to turn! In view of all else that is wrong with this case, something tells me that the two tops were different.
And I have wondered also whether Jo was found wearing the same clothes as she had been wearing in the pub. Any of her workmates who were in the pub with her could have enlightened the court on that matter.
In the same way, it should not have been difficult to establish the following:
Whether or not VT owned a cycle bag, and whether one (or a suitcase) was missing after 17th/18th December. (Tanja would have known)
Whether VT had ever been caught looking at porn while at work, or whether he had been seen googling non work related information.
Whether any women who knew VT found him "creepy" or weird, or whether he had ever "tried it on" with any of them.
Whether or not he had changed his clothes before picking up Tanja in the early hours of 18th December (had he disposed of a body, he would have needed to). Had he used the washing machine?
But then, of course, he had admitted killing Jo, so there was, apparently no need to check on any of these matters!!
-
So why did she not follow procedure as lain out here?? And caution him!!
Or if she didn't have the authority in a foreign land... at least stop the interview???
From my own experience I have found that protocols and procedures involving international cooperations between police and prosecuting authorities can be fraught with many problems, the language barrier being one of them. I have also discovered that one country's interpretation of the rules might not coincide with how other country's view them. Judge's are all too willing to turn a blind eye to these goings on as I have also recently discovered. Document's are often illegally changed and passed on the basis of good faith to foreign States. The whole thing can be one big stitch up at times!
I'm afraid that when it comes to police enquiries abroad, innocent until proven guilty comes a very poor second.
-
From my own experience I have found that protocols and procedures involving international cooperations between police and prosecuting authorities can be fraught with many problems, the language barrier being one of them. I have also discovered that one country's interpretation of the rules might not coincide with how other country's view them. Judge's are all too willing to turn a blind eye to these goings on as I have also recently discovered. Document's are often illegally changed and passed on the basis of good faith to foreign States. The whole thing can be one big stitch up at times!
I'm afraid that when it comes to police enquiries abroad, innocent until proven guilty comes a very poor second.
I agree.
In 1994, the police officer who would become Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset at the period covered by this murder case was appointed as the Investigations Co-ordinator to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. In this capacity, according to his CV, he led a large multi-disciplinary/multi-lingual/multi-cultural team operating in differing geographical locations throughout the former Yugoslavia and the Netherlands. In my opinion he was just the right man to smooth the path of the two detectives who flew to Schiphol on new year's eve.
The judge certainly seems to have turned a blind eye to certain aspects of the testimony of the Detective Constable in the witness box. However, in my opinion Counsel for the Defence also compromised himself, by not cross-examining her to satisfy himself that her failure to caution his client at the Schiphol interview had not violated his human rights, and that the entire interview had not violated Netherlands sovereignty.
-
And I have wondered also whether Jo was found wearing the same clothes as she had been wearing in the pub. Any of her workmates who were in the pub with her could have enlightened the court on that matter.
In the same way, it should not have been difficult to establish the following:
Whether or not VT owned a cycle bag, and whether one (or a suitcase) was missing after 17th/18th December. (Tanja would have known)
Whether VT had ever been caught looking at porn while at work, or whether he had been seen googling non work related information.
Whether any women who knew VT found him "creepy" or weird, or whether he had ever "tried it on" with any of them.
Whether or not he had changed his clothes before picking up Tanja in the early hours of 18th December (had he disposed of a body, he would have needed to). Had he used the washing machine?
But then, of course, he had admitted killing Jo, so there was, apparently no need to check on any of these matters!!
All the indoor CCTV clips that were made public are in colour - EXCEPT those taken inside the Bristol Ram pub. Now why would a pub that we know attracted boisterous football supporters wearing distinctive colours install black & white CCTV? The alternative explanation is that someone redacted the colour out of the video clips so as to prevent anyone from noticing that the victim had changed her blouse somewhere between the pub and Longwood Lane.
The very first appeals by the police for her safe return contained only the vaguest description of what she would have been wearing, with no mention of the colour of her blouse, nor of the bright green that can be seen in the CCTV clips showing her going into the various shops. In his opening speech, Counsel for the Defence mentioned that one of the things she took off when she got back to her flat was her "green fleece". However, no witness ever told the court whether she really did have a green fleece on, or whether it was the lining of her cream coat that was green. Was he seeking to confuse the jury?
There was no need to call the defendant's girlfriend to testify about the cycle bag, as Counsel for the Defence cross-examined the DNA witness in depth about the plausibility of his own client's claim to have transported the body in a cycle bag or cover. The defendant himself told the jury that is what he had used, and they had no reason not to believe him.
I agree that he would have changed his clothes and showered before picking up his girlfriend, if he really had killed his neighbour with his bare hands so that she bled, and disposed of her body.
-
Could posters please refrain from posting exceptionally long posts as they are difficult to reply to. TY
-
The very first appeals by the police for her safe return contained only the vaguest description of what she would have been wearing, with no mention of the colour of her blouse, nor of the bright green that can be seen in the CCTV clips showing her going into the various shops.
This is possibly because they were not sure when she had died? Had they known she had died soon after arriving home, all her colleagues in the pub could have given a good description of what she had been wearing. VT said that he killed her on the Friday night, so why is it that he was charged with killing her "between the 16th and the 19th December"??
-
One of the most problematic conundrums is how did he manage to move the body on his own????
Because this task is so difficult, the police had kept CJ on bail until march because they thought the pair of them had colluded..
When someone had died their centre of gravity changes which in turn makes it more difficult to control, This is one time a Demonstration was needed.
Stranger murders tend to walk there victim to any given location. Alternatively, they would leave them in situ..
I cannot see how Dr Vincent Tabak managed to carry Joana Yeates..
(a): From Kitchen to her bedroom
(b): From her bedroom to the hallway
(c): From her hallway down side of building
(d): Across rear of the building
(e): Placing her on ground outside flat
(f): Carrying her into his flat
(g): carry her down his hallway
(h): Putting her in his small bedroom
(i) Putting her in Bicycle bag/ cover
(j):Carrying her through his hallway
(k): Take her outside the flat
(l): Lift her into boot of car (fail)
(m):Lift her into boot of car again
(n): Lift her out of car boot
(o): Take her out of Bicycle bag / cover
(p): Try lift her over wall
(q): Lay her down and cover her up because she is TOO HEAVY to lift!!!!!!!
Firemen train to get the upper body strength it takes to lift unconscious people...
So what made Dr Vincent Tabak turn into Superman???
The energy expanded to constantly move a dead body must require an extremely fit person, and looking at the images of Dr Vincent Tabak in the run with Tanja Morson, he looks completely exhausted.
So I wouldn't say he was extremely fit...
The amount of perspiration Dr Vincent Tabak would have produced would have fallen all over Joanna Yeates and he would have no control as to where this perspiration would land, if he tried to clean this up from her clothing, fibres from what ever cloth he used would have been found on the forensic examination.
Has anybody tried to see how difficult it is to lift someone who is unconscious up?
He had to start from floor level, that first movement in it's self is incredibly difficult to achieve.
When every I have seen real crime programs a solitary perpetrator can not easily manage to lift a dead weight... they tend to drag the victim to either the car... or the location that they have hidden them.
Not make more and more EVIDENCE of the crime they committed... I believe that's when the perpetrator has killed someone in their home... you often see drag marks or smears of blood as they have wrestled to move the body.
With the constant moving of Joanna Yeates between her flat and Dr Vincent Tabak's flat to her eventual resting place, seems to me to be quite an impossibility., especially with the time constraints available to Dr Vincent Tabak.
This ... Remember, is the first time he has ever done anything illegal and it's the BIGGY... He would not be able to have such a calm exterior and go about his business, and even if you believe that he could, his own body would give him away with the amount of perspiration it produced..
-
This is possibly because they were not sure when she had died? Had they known she had died soon after arriving home, all her colleagues in the pub could have given a good description of what she had been wearing. VT said that he killed her on the Friday night, so why is it that he was charged with killing her "between the 16th and the 19th December"??
I don't agree with you.
Her death did not become known until a week later. The first appeals, on the Monday and the Tuesday, allowed all possible scenarios, from voluntary disappearance to forcible removal. The police always insisted that she got back to her flat, because her outdoor coat and other items were in the flat. They also believed that she had left the radar, presumably wearing these same indoor clothes, by the time her boyfriend told them he failed to contact her by phone after reaching Sheffield. Her colleagues in the pub could have told the police what she was "last seen wearing" indoors, so their failure to describe her clothing suggests that the police already "knew more than they were telling", as her father later stated.
-
Now as I'm re watching the video " Killers: Vincent Tabak"... The lady from the CPS says this: at 28:03 mins
She speaks as if the DNA sample had been checked a lot earlier than the 20th of January... So why the planned arrest???
That telling remark was new to me. With hindsight, the arrest always seemed to have been planned, and now you have found the master-mind behind the case acknowledging it. This means that she also planned the public appeal made by the victim's parents three days before the arrest, AND the story of the tip-off from the weeping girl who never made it to court.
I believe it was also the lady from the CPS who had planned the arrest of the landlord. At the time of the second arrest, she had just won high public praise from "The Times" for rounding up a paedophile ring in Cornwall, so you may be sure that she would have told the police to scrutinise any computers that they confiscated for images of child abuse.
-
I don't agree with you.
Her death did not become known until a week later. The first appeals, on the Monday and the Tuesday, allowed all possible scenarios, from voluntary disappearance to forcible removal. The police always insisted that she got back to her flat, because her outdoor coat and other items were in the flat. They also believed that she had left the radar, presumably wearing these same indoor clothes, by the time her boyfriend told them he failed to contact her by phone after reaching Sheffield. Her colleagues in the pub could have told the police what she was "last seen wearing" indoors, so their failure to describe her clothing suggests that the police already "knew more than they were telling", as her father later stated.
Agreed Leonora... They did not know what she was wearing or a description of her clothes would have been given to the public at the time they were supposed to be looking for her.. Which means whatever she wore at the Ram that evening were still at home.
EG: ...
When last seen he was wearing a green hat, a green leather jacket, brown or green corduroy trousers and brown walking boots.
He had also been carrying a red walking stick.
t http://www.kentlive.news/police-appeal-for-missing-orpington-man-83-last-seen-using-a-red-walking-stick/story-29833067-detail/story.html#RSEaM6S9oQxY35j7.99
This was NOT the case for Joanna Yeates and the pictures used were of her wearing the White Coat... which in itself would be slightly misleading.
-
Could posters please refrain from posting exceptionally long posts as they are difficult to reply to. TY
Apologises John... Sometimes I need the relevant Quotes and Links to back up what I am saying 8)--))
-
That telling remark was new to me. With hindsight, the arrest always seemed to have been planned, and now you have found the master-mind behind the case acknowledging it. This means that she also planned the public appeal made by the victim's parents three days before the arrest, AND the story of the tip-off from the weeping girl who never made it to court.
I believe it was also the lady from the CPS who had planned the arrest of the landlord. At the time of the second arrest, she had just won high public praise from "The Times" for rounding up a paedophile ring in Cornwall, so you may be sure that she would have told the police to scrutinise any computers that they confiscated for images of child abuse.
Exactly... No sobbing girl to tip them off with regards Dr Vincent Tabak.......
So......... What Evidence did the Police have to arrest Dr Vincent Tabak in the first place???
Because the partical DNA sample would NOT be enough.....
The Police having had his DNA sample obtained voluntarily in Holland and checked against... erm.. findings on Jo's body.. discovered that it was his DNA was on her body...and that was one of the key factors, that lead to the planned arrest of him later in January..
And as the CPS Lady said: They Planned it...!!!!
EDIT... If my memory serves me correctly... from the helpjo/wordpress, the interview that the parents gave was transmitted on the 19th January 2011 this is what prompted the Sobbing Girl telephone Call.. It was aired just before they were due to do the Crimewatch.. reconstruction...
So how could the CPS lady Plan, an arrest before they aired anything????
And couldn't plan to arrest him the next day at about 6:00am!!! (20th January 2011)
-
Exactly... No sobbing girl to tip them off with regards Dr Vincent Tabak.......
So......... What Evidence did the Police have to arrest Dr Vincent Tabak in the first place???
Because the partical DNA sample would NOT be enough.....
And as the CPS Lady said: They Planned it...!!!!
I believe that the slender basis for his arrest was (1) the tip-off from the anonymous girl, whom they would allege was his girlfriend, for the benefit of the duty solicitor, and (2) his own statement placing him in the vicinity of the presumed scene of the crime without an alibi during the Friday evening before the snow fell to cover the body.
I believe that the police didn't introduce the DNA evidence until the second day of his custody, pretending that the match to the partial DNA found on the body had been made from the swab taken from him by the duty nurse immediately after his arrest. The duty solicitor would not have known about the Schiphol interview.
The police seem to have introduced new evidence gradually during the second day, including perhaps the fibres from his black coat and the blood spots on his car. Eventually, after the solicitor and her QC had declared that bail would be applied for, the CPS probably revealed the presence of 43 injuries on the body, the signs of a struggle in the flat, and the attempt to incriminate the landlord at Schiphol. Very humiliatingly, the solicitor decided her client was guilty after all, suggesting he should plead manslaughter, and her QC was obliged to withdraw the bail application.
-
The police seem to have introduced new evidence gradually during the second day, including perhaps the fibres from his black coat and the blood spots on his car. Eventually, after the solicitor and her QC had declared that bail would be applied for, the CPS probably revealed the presence of 43 injuries on the body, the signs of a struggle in the flat, and the attempt to incriminate the landlord at Schiphol. Very humiliatingly, the solicitor decided her client was guilty after all, suggesting he should plead manslaughter, and her QC was obliged to withdraw the bail application.
Why were the 43 injuries kept secret for so long?
I am assuming there never was a "sobbing girl".
Does anyone think VT's arrest was planned for a particular date to stop the Crimewatch programme being aired?
-
Why were the 43 injuries kept secret for so long?
I am assuming there never was a "sobbing girl".
Does anyone think VT's arrest was planned for a particular date to stop the Crimewatch programme being aired?
The injuries were probably kept secret to keep one step ahead of the duty solicitorand mislead her into believing that it wasn't murder. The injuries would also have been revealed if the news media had been invited to the inquest, but presumably they were not invited. Presumably the police put pressure on reporters not even to mention that an inquest had been opened.
I am sure you are right - the sobbing girl was imaginary. You may be right about "Crimewatch". In my opinion the date of the arrest was fixed so as to charge the prisoner 28 days after the murder investigation had begun. It also gave the CPS the weekend to dot the i's and cross the t's of the case before the magistrate's hearing.
-
Yes, I agree with you about the 28 days-----VT was arrested just in time, before a review of the investigation would have taken place.
-
Apologies---it's me again!!
Most people tell me that they know VT is guilty because he pleaded guilty, and admitted killing Jo, and that nobody would plead guilty if they were innocent. This seems to be the general consensus of people on this forum---and on other forums.
However, VT claimed that he killed her on the Friday night, and in her flat. There are doubts about him having killed her in either of their flats as there was no forensic evidence. It now seems that there are doubts that Jo died on the Friday night, as we cannot be sure what she was wearing. If she died shortly after arriving home, as VT said, she would have been wearing what she had been wearing in the Ram pub, minus her coat and boots!
So, if the details are not true, how can we know the guilty plea is true? If Jo died later than the Friday night, it is very unlikely that VT killed her. He had an alibi.
-
Apologies---it's me again!!
Most people tell me that they know VT is guilty because he pleaded guilty, and admitted killing Jo, and that nobody would plead guilty if they were innocent. This seems to be the general consensus of people on this forum---and on other forums.
However, VT claimed that he killed her on the Friday night, and in her flat. There are doubts about him having killed her in either of their flats as there was no forensic evidence. It now seems that there are doubts that Jo died on the Friday night, as we cannot be sure what she was wearing. If she died shortly after arriving home, as VT said, she would have been wearing what she had been wearing in the Ram pub, minus her coat and boots!
So, if the details are not true, how can we know the guilty plea is true? If Jo died later than the Friday night, it is very unlikely that VT killed her. He had an alibi.
Sherlock Holmes famously remarked that the detective should eliminate the impossible, and concentrate on what is possible, no matter how improbable it may seen. Probability plays a large role in assessing how other people and institutions will react to our own behaviour. The defendant in this murder case was an extremely trustworthy person. Forgive me for spelling it out, but trusting other people, and developing our own trustworthyness, play essential, and indeed, motivational roles in society.
If the victim had declared that she intended to relocate to Arizona, taking the children with her so that he would never see them again, then the defendant might well have flown into an angry rage - though I suggest that this particular defendant was so gentle that he wouldn't have raised his hand against her.
However, this is a fantasy scenario, as they certainly had no children, and if they were in some prior secret romantic relationship, no hint of this was given at the trial. So the probability that this particular defendant would have acted in the way the court wants us to believe he did is obviously ZERO.
It is perfectly true that some people cannot take rejection - "hell hath no fury!" - but this applies only to rejection by a partner with whom one has had a sustained, consummated, sexual relationship. NOBODY except a sociopath reacts violently to rejection after a brief flirt. Therefore the only possible explanations for why the defendant agreed to take part in this trial are that (1) he had agreed to do so, perhaps under coercion of some sort, possibly to protect his girlfriend from being charged as his accomplice, or (2) he was an imposter who agreed to impersonate the real defendant, even at the trial.
-
I am sorry to post at some length, but the question of MOTIVE has bedevilled both the reporting and the discussion of this case. Only a sociopath would kill without a motive. From the day her body was discovered, to the very end of this case, the police and the lawyers have wriggled out of any serious public analysis of what motive the killer of this particular victim, in her particular circumstances, might have had. The Chief Investigating Officer lost no opportunity to twist the facts to make it into an unmotivated sex-related attack, with the unbelievably bizarre resulting conflict with the known character of the person who was eventually convicted.
There was a wealth of facts about the actions of the victim and those around her, available both to the police themselves and to us, the general public, which could have narrowed down the killer, by analysing their most probable motive, but this has been taboo. I have never understood the motives of those who want to let the real killer go free, to spare her family from being plagued by speculation about the improbable guilt of the man actually convicted.
-
As for motive Dr Vincent Tabak has none..... And as I personally believe he is innocent, he doesn't come under scrutiny...
But there are different ways to look at an attack that was not sexually motivated..
It is more than likely someone she knew, it's more than probable that she could have quite easily have left her flat, with someone returning her keys...
Nobody really knows the clothes she wore so really it could be anything...
The possibilities are endless...
It could be a silly prankish game that went wrong, that all, simple as that, doesn't have to be anything else... there's a picture of Jo messing with a friend who has her round the neck....
Now under no circumstances am i ever suggesting anyone.. But rather the possiblity it was a prank that went wrong, especially as we don't know why she was Ill.
She could quite simply have been play fighting and it ended up in disaster....
Alternatively it could be someone who was angry with her.. it's just as possible...
whatever you say, she needed to be comfortable to let someone in her flat... failing that she left with them...
Man or woman...
Edit:.... 43 injuries added to what they decided later makes it sound like some kind of fight for her life with an unknown.. But DCI Phil Jones originally said that there were NO Significant Injuries...
Theres also the possibility that she bruised easily.. My daughters Frenchie Dog jumps up at my leg and I have bruises galore.. I have always bruised easily...
So play fighing for instance could make sense to her wrists being grabbed and any bruises she may have received, even the cut to her nose could have happened in such a way...
-
Why were the 43 injuries kept secret for so long?
I am assuming there never was a "sobbing girl".
Does anyone think VT's arrest was planned for a particular date to stop the Crimewatch programme being aired?
No sobbing girl mrswah... And as far as the Crimewatch Program, it would coincide with the scenario they had , that it was Saturday someone went over Clifton Suspension Bridge and Saturday was the day they always related evidence too...
That is the reason DC Karen Thomas's interview about Holland doesn't make sense... She means Dr Vincent Tabak saw the car move on the Friday... But she ends up saying the night before Jo went missing.. and with them saying it was Friday Jo went missing. because it was the only time Dr Vincent Tabak was on his own.... then logic dictates the car moved on the Thursday...
I believe that was more than likely what Crimewatch would have concentrated on... things happening on the Saturday... So once they had arrested him they couldn't screen it... the events wouldn't tally...
You would have thought that they would have screened it anyway for info from the general public... But if the content is wrong then it would show up their errors...
-
I will tell you what one of my Biggest Bug Bare is: No TimeStamp on the ASDA CCTV!!!
WHY??????????????????????
-
...
Nobody really knows the clothes she wore so really it could be anything...
...
it could be someone who was angry with her
...
43 injuries added to what they decided later makes it sound like some kind of fight for her life
... But DCI ... originally said that there were NO Significant Injuries
...
The police CERTAINLY knew the clothes she wore in the pub and the clothes found on her body. Removing the colour component from the CCTV clips in the RAM pub suggests strongly that the police did not want us to discover that she had changed her clothes in between. We are also looking at the police's motives for acting the way they did.
There are certain factors that any pathologist would look for when examining any young woman's body, but some of these factors were never mentioned in this trial. So neither of the two pathologists told "the WHOLE truth" in court. On the other hand, these were the most trustworthy of all the witnesses who testified, so I am sure that they told the truth when they described her injuries.
The DCI was therefore lying. It can hardly have been due to absent-mindedness, as the inquest was also kept secret somehow or other. The inquest would have revealed not just the extent of her injuries, but also the exact location where the body was found and an explanation of why four pumping appliances and a crane capable of lifting a medium-sized car out of a pond were needed before the HM pathologist could get near the body.
[One of her colleagues], a landscape architect, would tell the jury that [she] had bought him a pint that evening. He had asked her what she had planned for the weekend, and gathered that she was going to bake some cakes and bread “because [her boyfriend] was away”. She had joked and said she was going to bring them in to the office on the Monday morning.
In court, her boyfriend was asked: “What had her plans for the weekend been?” He replied that she had said she would finish her Christmas shopping and do some baking in preparation for the get-together they had planned. “I think she wanted to do that and relax.” Later he told the court how he felt on finding the flat empty: “I was quite annoyed that I had not been told what her plans were and she had not got back to me.”
-
In my opinion she could not have been wearing the floral patterned blouse seen at the Ram pub when she went into the shops, as the CCTV clips from the latter expose too much of her throat.
-
Why were the 43 injuries kept secret for so long?
I am assuming there never was a "sobbing girl".
Does anyone think VT's arrest was planned for a particular date to stop the Crimewatch programme being aired?
It is standard police procedure to withhold certain facts from the public so that when questioning a suspect they can ask questions of him/her which they won't know the answer to if innocent. If VT were to mention the multiple injuries while being questioned the police would know he wasn't innocent. Same goes for what she was wearing, only her killer would know what colour top or trousers she had on. No wonder the CCTV was screened in B&W. It isn't rocket science guys.
-
I am sorry to post at some length, but the question of MOTIVE has bedevilled both the reporting and the discussion of this case. Only a sociopath would kill without a motive. From the day her body was discovered, to the very end of this case, the police and the lawyers have wriggled out of any serious public analysis of what motive the killer of this particular victim, in her particular circumstances, might have had. The Chief Investigating Officer lost no opportunity to twist the facts to make it into an unmotivated sex-related attack, with the unbelievably bizarre resulting conflict with the known character of the person who was eventually convicted.
There was a wealth of facts about the actions of the victim and those around her, available both to the police themselves and to us, the general public, which could have narrowed down the killer, by analysing their most probable motive, but this has been taboo. I have never understood the motives of those who want to let the real killer go free, to spare her family from being plagued by speculation about the improbable guilt of the man actually convicted.
I would say the only motive for killing her was to shut her up. I don't know if this was mentioned at trial but he had probably been watching and fantasising over Joanna for a while and for some reason decided to take things further that Friday night. Didn't Joanna text some friends saying she was bored? Maybe she invited Tabak in for a sip of cider but he misinterpreted her kindness and things got out of hand?
As for lifting her, no problem whatsoever. In fact, after killing her VT would be on adrenaline. Its called Hysterical strength, or superhuman strength.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysterical_strength
-
It is standard police procedure to withhold certain facts from the public so that when questioning a suspect they can ask questions of him/her which they won't know the answer to if innocent. If VT were to mention the multiple injuries while being questioned the police would know he wasn't innocent. Same goes for what she was wearing, only her killer would know what colour top or trousers she had on. No wonder the CCTV was screened in B&W. It isn't rocket science guys.
I agree that the police must withhold facts from the public for the reasons you suggest, however, the 43 injuries were kept secret until the trial in October. By the previous May, the police had their suspect in custody, and he had pleaded guilty to manslaughter. There was no mention of injuries in his enhanced statement (as far as we know, from what he said in court). Keeping the injuries quiet helped the prosecution counsel no end, as it portrayed VT as a violent brute, and probably turned the jury against him.
The matter of what Jo was wearing when her body was found is very important, as it gives a clue to when she died. If she was found wearing the same clothes as she had been wearing in the Ram pub, it points to her having been killed soon after arriving home (as, I believe, was the prosecution's case). If she was wearing different clothes, she either died later that night (having got changed, possibly to go out), or on the Saturday or the Sunday.
That isn't rocket science, either !!!!!
-
I would say the only motive for killing her was to shut her up. I don't know if this was mentioned at trial but he had probably been watching and fantasising over Joanna for a while and for some reason decided to take things further that Friday night. Didn't Joanna text some friends saying she was bored? Maybe she invited Tabak in for a sip of cider but he misinterpreted her kindness and things got out of hand?
As for lifting her, no problem whatsoever. In fact, after killing her VT would be on adrenaline. Its called Hysterical strength, or superhuman strength.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysterical_strength
OK, but, if this was the case, why couldn't he lift the body over the wall in Longwood Lane?
I don't think VT had all that much time to fantasise over Joanna/become obsessed with her. Jo and Greg had moved into their flat very shortly before VT went abroad to work for six weeks.He arrived back just a few days before Jo was killed.
Unless he had known her previously (he denied it, and in court, nobody suggested that he was lying about this), I cant see that he had much time to get a fantasy /obsession going.
-
I agree that the police must withhold facts from the public for the reasons you suggest, however, the 43 injuries were kept secret until the trial in October. By the previous May, the police had their suspect in custody, and he had pleaded guilty to manslaughter. There was no mention of injuries in his enhanced statement (as far as we know, from what he said in court). Keeping the injuries quiet helped the prosecution counsel no end, as it portrayed VT as a violent brute, and probably turned the jury against him.
The matter of what Jo was wearing when her body was found is very important, as it gives a clue to when she died. If she was found wearing the same clothes as she had been wearing in the Ram pub, it points to her having been killed soon after arriving home (as, I believe, was the prosecution's case). If she was wearing different clothes, she either died later that night (having got changed, possibly to go out), or on the Saturday or the Sunday.
That isn't rocket science, either !!!!!
Most people change out of their day clothes when they retire for the evening. Could she have been wearing her night slumberwear?
-
OK, but, if this was the case, why couldn't he lift the body over the wall in Longwood Lane?
I don't think VT had all that much time to fantasise over Joanna/become obsessed with her. Jo and Greg had moved into their flat very shortly before VT went abroad to work for six weeks.He arrived back just a few days before Jo was killed.
Unless he had known her previously (he denied it, and in court, nobody suggested that he was lying about this), I cant see that he had much time to get a fantasy /obsession going.
I was amazed when Joanna's body was discovered that it was found in such a public place with no effort being made to hide it. Is it possible that her body was initially hidden somewhere but later moved to where she was found. Would this tie in with the bridge CCTV?
-
OK, but, if this was the case, why couldn't he lift the body over the wall in Longwood Lane?
I don't think VT had all that much time to fantasise over Joanna/become obsessed with her. Jo and Greg had moved into their flat very shortly before VT went abroad to work for six weeks.He arrived back just a few days before Jo was killed.
Unless he had known her previously (he denied it, and in court, nobody suggested that he was lying about this), I cant see that he had much time to get a fantasy /obsession going.
That's interesting and thanx for that info. What was the result of any psychological tests done on VT?
-
Most people change out of their day clothes when they retire for the evening. Could she have been wearing her night slumberwear?
I don't think so john... The court artist portrays her wearing Blue Jeans and we know on Friday the 17th December 2010 that she was wearing Grey/Black Jeans.
I do believe she changed her clothes.. she could have easily have left the house with someone..
And a change of clothing equals a different Timeline!!!
-
It is standard police procedure to withhold certain facts from the public so that when questioning a suspect they can ask questions of him/her which they won't know the answer to if innocent. If VT were to mention the multiple injuries while being questioned the police would know he wasn't innocent. Same goes for what she was wearing, only her killer would know what colour top or trousers she had on. No wonder the CCTV was screened in B&W. It isn't rocket science guys.
It's not that the CCTV was screened in Black and White, that is an issue... It the original description that is lacking of what she was wearing the last time she was seen.. Originally it was a missing persons enquiry!
So not to have a full description of the clothes she was last seen wearing is odd...
The only reason not to give a description is if her clothes she had on friday night, were at home.. so therefore they didn't know what she was actually wearing ...
-
I was amazed when Joanna's body was discovered that it was found in such a public place with no effort being made to hide it. Is it possible that her body was initially hidden somewhere but later moved to where she was found. Would this tie in with the bridge CCTV?
A number of people who know Longwood Lane (I don't), and who have written on forums, have said that they cannot believe Jo's body was there for a whole week, snow or no snow. Apparently, Longwood Lane is very popular with dog walkers, and these people feel sure that somebody or somebody's dog would have discovered it before the 25th, had it been there all the time.
Personally, I believe Jo's body was actually found in a much more inaccessible place, as a number of fire and rescue appliances were called to recover it. I know it was frozen to the ground, but it still seems that a good many personnel and a lot of equipment was used (I have put details of this on the thread: result of a FOI request---will find the correct page for you).
As far as the bridge CCTV is concerned, I believe that neither a car nor a driver was ever identified from it, as the images were not clear enough:
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-police-in-cctv-103261
-
That's interesting and thanx for that info. What was the result of any psychological tests done on VT?
We never heard of any psychological tests having been done on VT while he was in custody.
BTW, John, the document re the fire and rescue appliances is on page 26 of this thread.
-
I was amazed when Joanna's body was discovered that it was found in such a public place with no effort being made to hide it. Is it possible that her body was initially hidden somewhere but later moved to where she was found. Would this tie in with the bridge CCTV?
I think it's an impossibility for her to lain on Longwood Lane for so long without being discovered.. I also cannot see there being enough leaf litter to hide her.. Someone would have needed quite a bit of time to cover her in leaf litter..
And SNOW.... Dr Vincent Tabak could not have covered her in snow as it didn't snow until the Saturday!!!!
So that she wasn't visible..
If there was no snow and hardly any leaf litter it only goes to prove she cannot be there on the Friday... as all the party goers would have noticed something on the lane when returning home.
I believe it was the Saturday that they truly believe she was put there which would tie in with the CCTV they use in the video when Dr Vincent Tabak is on Park Street..
That has the date of 18th December 2010.. the presenter explains that Dr Vincent tabak is driving around looking for somewhere to dump Jo... (But we know he's on park street to pickup Tanja)...
And in virtually every interview the police allude it's Saturday 18th Decemeber 2010
It's a narrow lane with narrow verges i'm sure she would be found sooner..
Also she was thawing out... She may have been moved there later.. or as people have suggested , she was elsewhere.
The Car and the CCTV I believe they saw someone going across it on Saturday 18th December 2010 who lived at Canygne Road..
Ah..... Snow has to be underneath her body if they believed that it was the Saturday or after it had snowed that she was put there..
And I believe that must be the case.... They would know what was underneath her when they removed her.. Which would give more reason for them to think it was CJ....
And if snow is underneath her body on Longwood Lane.. Dr Vincent Tabak could not have put her there, as it did not snow on Friday 17th Decemeber 2010
Another point as to the leaf litter... if it was freezing and icy as they say on the Friday... surely the leaf litter would have been clumped together.. That too would make it difficult to cover a body up easily...
When they ever say anything about him being on Longwood Lane, they make it appear he gets rid of her in a matter of minutes...
Now he apparently has spent an inordinate amount of time to put her in a bicycle bag/ cover to stop him getting anything in his car... which didn't bother him when he moved her about his flat...
And... Then just dumps her on Longwood lane... I cannot see that for a meticulous person... You are going to need a substancal amount of leaf litter in the first place to cover her with the lack of snow on the Friday night...
He would have to go up and down Longwood Lane .. collecting more leaf litter and de-clumping it for it to cover her and alot more time to hid her....
Don't believe it is possible for him to do this...
EDIT:....
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.
This is why people believe it snowed on the Friday.... It didn't... you can clearly see when she walks past waitrose that there is NO Snow!!!!!!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-case-vincent-tabak
-
It is standard police procedure to withhold certain facts from the public so that when questioning a suspect they can ask questions of him/her which they won't know the answer to if innocent. If VT were to mention the multiple injuries while being questioned the police would know he wasn't innocent. Same goes for what she was wearing, only her killer would know what colour top or trousers she had on. No wonder the CCTV was screened in B&W. It isn't rocket science guys.
Holding an inquest is also obligatory in every case of a suspicious death. There is a conflict of interest between this obligation, and the need of the police to withhold certain facts from the public. I don't know how this conflict is reconciled in other cases. However, in this case the Chief Investigating Officer went way over the top. He gave evasive answers to most of the questions that the very eager journalists put to him at his first press conference, and told three important lies, when he could have been evasive instead.
The inquest was opened on 29th December 2010 - the very day when the angry landlord was doorstepped by journalists - and adjourned the same day. It was closed on 28th March 2011 - three days before the deadline for the CPS to present the case against Vincent Tabak. None of the media even mentioned that an inquest had been held, despite the obvious eagerness of the journalists. This proves that they must have entered into an off-the-record agreement with the police or the coroner.
VT couldn't possibly have known about the victim's injuries, nor what she was wearing, when he was arrested, for the simple reason that the evidence that the police claim that they had putting him at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed is negligible beside the huge amount of evidence that it was they who "stitched him up" to protect someone else.
-
Holding an inquest is also obligatory in every case of a suspicious death. There is a conflict of interest between this obligation, and the need of the police to withhold certain facts from the public. I don't know how this conflict is reconciled in other cases. However, in this case the Chief Investigating Officer went way over the top. He gave evasive answers to most of the questions that the very eager journalists put to him at his first press conference, and told three important lies, when he could have been evasive instead.
The inquest was opened on 29th December 2010 - the very day when the angry landlord was doorstepped by journalists - and adjourned the same day. It was closed on 28th March 2011 - three days before the deadline for the CPS to present the case against Vincent Tabak. None of the media even mentioned that an inquest had been held, despite the obvious eagerness of the journalists. This proves that they must have entered into an off-the-record agreement with the police or the coroner.
VT couldn't possibly have known about the victim's injuries, nor what she was wearing, when he was arrested, for the simple reason that the evidence that the police claim that they had putting him at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed is negligible beside the huge amount of evidence that it was they who "stitched him up" to protect someone else.
Leonora.. I didn't even know an Inquest had taken place... has anybody got a copy of this inquests finding???
Anyone have info regards the Inquest?????
-
Dutchman Tabak yesterday appeared for a bail hearing at Bristol Crown Court where he learnt he would be remanded in custody until July 25.
Can anyone explain this???? I presume he was supposed to have his plea hearing in Bristol on this date!
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/jo-s-landlord-bail-suspect/story-11282037-detail/story.html#5h8rhd3F7CYHkJVh.99
Ms Reddrop explained the Crown's objections to bail being granted, and added: "In fairness to the defendant he is a man of good character in this country and also, as far as I am aware, in Holland."
So why?????
Which begs another question..... if she knows he is of good character.... why did They demonise him???
I'm positive within the 4 days of him being detained they would have looked at his computer and internet history...
Even scanning over it, they would have seen if he was an avid Porn watcher... So when did the Porn come to bare???
She doesn't need to even say he is of good character..... Oopsie... think she slipped up there!!!!!!
-
I would say the only motive for killing her was to shut her up. I don't know if this was mentioned at trial but he had probably been watching and fantasising over Joanna for a while and for some reason decided to take things further that Friday night. Didn't Joanna text some friends saying she was bored? Maybe she invited Tabak in for a sip of cider but he misinterpreted her kindness and things got out of hand?
The belief in Vincent Tabak's guilt that you share with the jury is based overwhelmingly on his own testimony, which the judge, the lady from the CPS, you, and we, all agree was a pack of lies. In my opinion you are hoist by your own petard!
Are you seriously suggesting that he believed she would go round and tell his girlfriend - whom Joanna did not know - that VT had just tried to steal a kiss from her? No one behaves like that, and it is disrespectful to suggest she would have done so. Nor would she have reacted to a pass by screaming - she would have deflty made it clear that kissing wasn't on her agenda, and any man with VT's background and upbringing would have blushed and apologised.
VT was cross-examined first by his own defence counsel and then counsel for the prosecution - both of them men of the world, with great experience of getting the truth out of a witness. Both knew the importance of assessing "probable behaviour" in a criminal case. Yet they both failed conspicuously to put questions built on the obvious absurdities about his scenario.
It was VT who texted his girlfriend that he was "bored", though no witness testified to the authenticity of this text. The texts Joanna is said to have exchanged with three male friends are also hearsay, though she never used the word "bored".
-
VT was cross-examined first by his own defence counsel and then counsel for the prosecution - both of them men of the world, with great experience of getting the truth out of a witness. Both knew the importance of assessing "probable behaviour" in a criminal case. Yet they both failed conspicuously to put questions built on the obvious absurdities about his scenario.
It was VT who texted his girlfriend that he was "bored", though no witness testified to the authenticity of this text. The texts Joanna is said to have exchanged with three male friends are also hearsay, though she never used the word "bored".
Now pardon me if i'm unsure of proceeding.... But why is he cross examined by his Defence council first??????
I thought the Prosecution laid their case in front of the Jury first and the defence then came in to rebut any claims made by the prosecution.....
Hang on a minute.. does that mean he has a right to a retrial, if proper procedure hasn't been followed?????
Can someone write a timeline of the court proceedings please....
I know how the Sally Ramage paper reads....And it does read as if the Defence spoke to Dr Vincent Tabak first!!
-
Whilst trying to find info for the above post I came across this......
On the floors there was underlay but no carpets, a poignant reminder that Jo and boyfriend Greg Reardon, 28, had moved into the Bristol flat just seven weeks earlier.
I believe that is untrue.....
When it was rented it clearly shows it has carpets...
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-27696067.html
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/215525/Inside-Jo-Yeates-horror-flat
-
A number of people who know Longwood Lane (I don't), and who have written on forums, have said that they cannot believe Jo's body was there for a whole week, snow or no snow. Apparently, Longwood Lane is very popular with dog walkers, and these people feel sure that somebody or somebody's dog would have discovered it before the 25th, had it been there all the time.
Personally, I believe Jo's body was actually found in a much more inaccessible place, as a number of fire and rescue appliances were called to recover it. I know it was frozen to the ground, but it still seems that a good many personnel and a lot of equipment was used (I have put details of this on the thread: result of a FOI request---will find the correct page for you).
...
Well I visited Longwood Lane 1½ years ago, and I can tell you that it is extremely well provided with a variety of places where a body could be deposited without any need to try to heave it over a wall. What is special about the spot where we were told she was dumped is that it is directly above a tunnel leading from one part of the quarry to the other. It also marks a change of gradient, beyond which the lane slopes gradually.
Was I nervous? You bet I was. Every time I heard a 4x4 approaching, I stepped aside as far as I could, for fear of being the victim of a hit & run. I felt sure that my clothes, the serious-looking camera I was carrying, and my rucksack (with built-in folding stool) signalled "conspiracy theorist" to all those respectable county people who believe everything they read in the newspapers.
-
I can see clearly now.......
Quote
Ms Reddrop explained the Crown's objections to bail being granted, and added: "In fairness to the defendant he is a man of good character in this country and also, as far as I am aware, in Holland."
She scuppered herself.... After admitting that Dr Vincent Tabak was of Good Character, early in the court proceedings when they were trying to stop him getting bail...
When it came to trial they needed something to stop Good Character being introduced... So they came up with some rubbish about porn which apparently was for the law on bad character...
And they knew it would be thrown out... hence any Good Character statements Relating to Dr Vincent Tabak would not be heard by the jury......
what the hell went on in this trial??????
-
Leonora.. I didn't even know an Inquest had taken place... has anybody got a copy of this inquests finding???
Anyone have info regards the Inquest?????
Some time ago, a fellow sceptic (whose name is known to me) undertook to put a Freedom of Information request to Avon & Somerset Coroner's Court, located at that hive of bustling activity, Flax Bourton. In return, my contact urged me to apply for her death certificate. The Court would tell him only that, yes, an inquest was indeed opened, and adjourned, on 29th December 2010, and held on 28th March 2011. On being asked who attended, and whether this included the victim's parents, the Court would only concede that a representative of Avon & Somerset Constabulary had been present.
The Government Record Office must have been on the ball, because they had no difficulty in responding to my application for a certificate of a death on 17th December 2010 in Bristol, even though the certificate stated that the Assistant Deputy Coroner had found that she had died on 25th December 2010 in Longwood Lane, Failand.
After the trial, her parents gave the impression that they learnt of her injuries only during the trial. In my opinion this is unlikely. After Vincent Tabak was remanded in custody, his lawyers ordered an independent post-mortem by an accredited pathologist. I find it hard to believe that his lawyers didn't notify him of this pathologist's findings, including the 43 injuries.
-
I agree Leonora, her parents would have attended the inquest, they would not have stayed away from it.. maybe that being the reason on the Friday, when the mortuary photographs were shown to the jury. they had seen such evidence at the inquest and didn't want to witness it again. so stayed away on the Friday of the court proceeding.
-
Some time ago, a fellow sceptic (whose name is known to me) undertook to put a Freedom of Information request to Avon & Somerset Coroner's Court, located at that hive of bustling activity, Flax Bourton. In return, my contact urged me to apply for her death certificate. The Court would tell him only that, yes, an inquest was indeed opened, and adjourned, on 29th December 2010, and held on 28th March 2011. On being asked who attended, and whether this included the victim's parents, the Court would only concede that a representative of Avon & Somerset Constabulary had been present.
Found an issue Leonora....
If police charge someone with causing the death, the inquest will not be resumed and the next of kin will be informed of the arrangements made to register the death. This is to avoid two different courts examining the same evidence.
So why was an inquest held before the Trial had taken place???????????
There are more acts of impropriety in this case than anything!!!!!
If proceedure hasn't been followed to the letter of the law... does this mean that Dr Vincent Tabak should get a re-trial????
https://bereavementadvice.org/topics/death-certificate-and-coroners-inquest/coroners-inquests
-
I can see clearly now.......
She scuppered herself.... After admitting that Dr Vincent Tabak was of Good Character, early in the court proceedings when they were trying to stop him getting bail...
When it came to trial they needed something to stop Good Character being introduced... So they came up with some rubbish about porn which apparently was for the law on bad character...
And they knew it would be thrown out... hence any Good Character statements Relating to Dr Vincent Tabak would not be heard by the jury......
what the hell went on in this trial??????
This CPS lady was not the self-scuppering kind! In my opinion, on the other hand, she is to be feared, especially by all foreign engineers and architects who have been head-hunted to work for UK companies. When she stated that the accused was of "good character", both in the UK and in his country of origin, all she meant is that he had no criminal record - not even a parking ticket. This didn't mean that he had no history of stalking attractive girls, making unsolicited passes at them, leaving his car in the director's parking space, or obtaining his PhD by "deceit and manipulation" (her own words, spoken after the trial).
In my opinion he was guilty of none of these things, as anyone who reads his PhD thesis will soon be obliged to endorse:
http://alexandria.tue.nl/extra2/200910371.pdf
Why did his Defence Counsel not encourage the jury to read the Preface as evidence of his good character? This is the only source I can find for why the CPS lady opposed bail:
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/173666/Joanna-Yeates-suspect-has-a-clean-rap-sheet
“The grounds for applying for a remand in custody are failing to surrender and interfering with the course of justice.’’
-
[
http://alexandria.tue.nl/extra2/200910371.pdf
[/quote]
VT names a lot of people in this preface, and many of them would have known him well.
I wonder how many of them think he is guilty, and why nobody seems to have spoken up for him?
-
5. Clause 10 is linked to clause 5 in that it governs the outcome of investigations. The requirement under clause 10(1)(a) that the senior coroner (or jury where there is one) make a 'determination' as to the factors listed in clause 5(1) is broadly similar to the current rule in the 1988 Act. Liberty welcomes the addition that the determination must include the circumstances of the death in Article 2 investigations. We do, however, believe that clause 10 could go further. Clause 10(1)(b) requires the coroner or the jury to make a 'finding' at the end of an inquest as to the particulars to be registered under the 1953 Act.[7] This continues the current system allowing for short verdicts (such as 'unlawful killing' or 'misadventure') in non-article 2 cases which can become an additional source of distress to the bereaved. Short verdicts give an inadequate explanation of the circumstances of death and can be applied inconsistently. Liberty believes the extension of narrative verdicts to all inquests would provide better answers to questions the bereaved have about the circumstances of the death as well as prevent further fatalities.
How is it possible to have an Inquest into the Death of an Individual who has died at the hands of another, if all the evidence from the trial has not been brought to bare...
The Inquest would be incomplete!!!! Not having all the relevant information available to make an informed decision with the actual cause of death and who is responsible for that death....
How does this stand up Legally?????
Yes a short verdict possibly, but not before a trial has commenced..... As the Coroner would not have all the known facts that contributed to the death of an individual!!!
And if this is anything to go by:13. Clause 14 and Schedule 1 make provision for the suspension and resumption of investigations. Liberty understands the policy objective of preventing simultaneous criminal investigations and inquiries, by different bodies, into the circumstances around deaths. We do, however, take this opportunity to raise concerns over the unnecessary delays to justice that can take place under the current system. A well-known and tragic example is the case of Jean Charles de Menezes who was fatally shot at Stockwell tube station on 22nd July 2005. While an inquest into the shooting was opened on 25th July 2005, the inquest was suspended after the IPCC opened its investigation in to the shooting two days later. The IPCC took over two years to release their report - well after a decision by the CPS that no criminal prosecutions would take place. As a result the inquest into the death was only resumed in September 2008. While blame for the delay in justice can be laid firmly at the door of the IPCC in this case, questions are raised about the role of the coronial system in such situations where other mechanisms of investigation and accountability fail. Delays such as these prolong the pain and suffering for the bereaved and undermine one of the primary functions of a timely inquest. We ask members to consider the relationship between the coronial service and other relevant bodies when looking at the current Bill and to consider whether time limits need to be imposed to ensure that justice is not delayed and therefore denied.
Why was Joanna Yeates inquest rushed????????
So why the secret Inquest before a trial had taken place????
Secret inquests are normally held if it has anything to do with National Security.....
This doesn't make sense!!!!!
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmpublic/coroners/memos/ucm402.htm
-
Now pardon me if i'm unsure of proceeding.... But why is he cross examined by his Defence council first??????
I thought the Prosecution laid their case in front of the Jury first and the defence then came in to rebut any claims made by the prosecution.....
Hang on a minute.. does that mean he has a right to a retrial, if proper procedure hasn't been followed?????
Can someone write a timeline of the court proceedings please....
I know how the Sally Ramage paper reads....And it does read as if the Defence spoke to Dr Vincent Tabak first!!
Vincent Tabak was "put into the witness box" by his own Defence Counsel. His testimony was given in response to a succession of questions put to him by his own Counsel. Then it was the turn of Counsel for the Prosecution to cross-examine him. As far as I can make out, his own QC questioned him for a second time, after he had been reduced to a "snivelling wretch" by Counsel for the Prosecution.
In my opinion these alone are not grounds for claiming a mistrial. The judge's repeated failure to intervene when he should have done, on the other hand, are, in my opinion, grounds for claiming a mistrial. Misleading the jury about the recovery of the body was grounds for a criminal prosecution.
A timeline of the court proceedings is rather a tall order, as there were SO MANY witnesses, and SO MANY witness statements were read out. It would lead to a very long post.
-
Just going back to the inquest regarding, inquests that are held in secrecy because of national Sercurity...
If this is the reason Joanna Yeates Inquest is shrouded in secrecy, then in turn it means that Dr Vincent Tabak could not be responsible.
And is Innocent as I have always claimed!!!!
Leonora... I believe there are plenty of reasons that this is a Mis-Trial!!!!!!
EDIT:......
Another problem with the Inquest being held in March 2011.... Dr Vincent Tabak had not even entered a plea at this time... And the only indication of his guilt is the ramblings of a person pretending to be a Chaplain....
So how did they determine at the inquest...
(a): The cause of death
(b): At who's hands...... ???????? Especially as Dr Vincent Tabak was in custody charged with her Murder!!!!!!!
Double EDIT:..... They wouldn't have even had the ramblings of the Chaplain as this information was not produced until trial.....
So how did the inquest make it's findings?????
-
How is it possible to have an Inquest into the Death of an Individual who has died at the hands of another, if all the evidence from the trial has not been brought to bare...
The Inquest would be incomplete!!!! Not having all the relevant information available to make an informed decision with the actual cause of death and who is responsible for that death....
How does this stand up Legally?????
Yes a short verdict possibly, but not before a trial has commenced..... As the Coroner would not have all the known facts that contributed to the death of an individual!!!
And if this is anything to go by:
Why was Joanna Yeates inquest rushed????????
So why the secret Inquest before a trial had taken place????
Secret inquests are normally held if it has anything to do with National Security.....
This doesn't make sense!!!!!
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmpublic/coroners/memos/ucm402.htm
Thank you for that link, and the pertinent quotations. I note that the paper by Liberty refers to the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, who was a foreign electronics technician working legally in the UK, and who may have known too much about National Security when he was gunned down by security officers in a London underground train.
This Vincent Tabak case stinks to high heaven of cover-up, and I include National Security as one of the possible explanations. Even the serious media behaved with striking meekness, especially with regard to the porn and prostitutes. Yet there is only the scantiest of evidence of any link to National Security - and that is the mark of a good cover-up!
I have wondered whether it was Vincent Tabak himself who was the intended victim, while "the young lady from Bristol" has been given a new identity. But two pathologists would not perjure themselves, would they? A fellow sceptic suggested that Vincent Tabak had worked on the movement of people in the Millennium Stadium, and became party to knowledge of anti-terror measures that made him a risk to National Security. On the day his neighbour went to the Ram pub he was working on a Saudi Binladin Group project for the Grand Mosque in Mecca, for which his employer was tendering.
However, there is precious little evidence for the National Security angle, apart from the identities of some of the expert witnesses, whose public credentials are minimal. One of them seems to be connected to the Royal Military College of Science. In this connection, this thread should be aware that the Coroner for Avon & Somerset was under suspension at the time of Joanna's death. He challenged this suspension in the High Court, but lost.
-
The Court would tell him only that, yes, an inquest was indeed opened, and adjourned, on 29th December 2010, and held on 28th March 2011.
Has he got this Information in writing Leonora????? Is it possible to see it?????
-
One of them seems to be connected to the Royal Military College of Science. In this connection, this thread should be aware that the Coroner for Avon & Somerset was under suspension at the time of Joanna's death. He challenged this suspension in the High Court, but lost.
Have you any links to this info Leonora???
-
Leonora... I believe there are plenty of reasons that this is a Mis-Trial!!!!!!
... They wouldn't have even had the ramblings of the Chaplain as this information was not produced until trial.....
So how did the inquest make it's findings?????
Correction: The chaplain didn't ramble, nor was he first and foremost a chaplain, but, as you have so inimicably discovered, a senior prison officer. His failure to tell the jury that fact alone is probably grounds for claiming a mistrial!
As I have tried to demonstrate, but apparently no one is listening, the conversations between the chaplain and the prisoner were edited to make them sound like a confession. They also made them sound like the ramblings of a vague old man. The incriminating words were spoken not by the witness, but by none other than Counsel for the Defence, pretending to discredit him. It was a conjuring trick that fooled everyone. And the judge, trained to spot that sort of trick where normal mortals would be taken in, was silent.
-
Correction: The chaplain didn't ramble, nor was he first and foremost a chaplain, but, as you have so inimicably discovered, a senior prison officer. His failure to tell the jury that fact alone is probably grounds for claiming a mistrial!
As I have tried to demonstrate, but apparently no one is listening, the conversations between the chaplain and the prisoner were edited to make them sound like a confession. They also made them sound like the ramblings of a vague old man. The incriminating words were spoken not by the witness, but by none other than Counsel for the Defence, pretending to discredit him. It was a conjuring trick that fooled everyone. And the judge, trained to spot that sort of trick where normal mortals would be taken in, was silent.
I know there was NO Confession Leonora... I worked that out long ago..... Dr Vincent Tabak never ever confesses to anything of the sort at anytime even at Trial!!!!!!
-
Have you any links to this info Leonora???
https://www.pubfacts.com/author/Tania+Nickson
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/C_Knock/publications
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225066071_Interpreting_the_formation_of_bloodstains_on_selected_apparel_fabrics
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/coroner-dismissed-investigation/story-11269944-detail/story.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-12357267
-
Please someone explain how you can have an inquest before a murder trial takes place?
(Or close before a murder trial takes place)??????
-
Please someone explain how you can have an inquest before a murder trial takes place?
(Or close before a murder trial takes place)??????
I don't know where you are going with this question. There would be no point in holding the inquest after the murder trial had taken place, and, as you yourself have discovered, the rules seem to permit the Coroner to close an inquest after a suspect has been charged.
By the way, Joanna kept a diary. Teresa Yeates said that her daughter had been busily preparing for Christmas and had been planning to make mince pies at the weekend, printing out a recipe from the internet and tucking it into her diary. If I had been Mrs Yeates, I would have made sure I got a good look at the diary entries for the preceding month before handing it over to the police - whereupon, sadly, it was never heard of again in public.
In 2006 the body of a 23-year-old student was found beneath the floorboards of a Glasgow church. Prior to the trial of the man charged with murdering her, her diaries were translated from Polish by an interpreter appointed by the authorities. These translations were read out in court, and seem to have been very illuminating, as they showed that the victim had led an active social life.
-
I don't know where you are going with this question. There would be no point in holding the inquest after the murder trial had taken place, and, as you yourself have discovered, the rules seem to permit the Coroner to close an inquest after a suspect has been charged.
By the way, Joanna kept a diary. Teresa Yeates said that her daughter had been busily preparing for Christmas and had been planning to make mince pies at the weekend, printing out a recipe from the internet and tucking it into her diary. If I had been Mrs Yeates, I would have made sure I got a good look at the diary entries for the preceding month before handing it over to the police - whereupon, sadly, it was never heard of again in public.
In 2006 the body of a 23-year-old student was found beneath the floorboards of a Glasgow church. Prior to the trial of the man charged with murdering her, her diaries were translated from Polish by an interpreter appointed by the authorities. These translations were read out in court, and seem to have been very illuminating, as they showed that the victim had led an active social life.
Charging a suspect and finding a suspect guilty are two different things altogether.... So asking why the inquest was closed before the trial took place does not seem an unreasonable question.
And with you disclosing the information regarding Joanna Yeates Diary.... That too would be used in an inquest...
And should have been presented at trial!!
I am familiar with the Tobin case you had glanced over... I believe the forensic scientist at the time spent 3 hours meticulously collecting any possible forensic material before any attempts to move the body from beneath the church took place.
So what were the procedure followed with regards Joanna Yeates removal from Longwood Lane???? And are there any timings in relation to the collection of forensic material????
-
leonora... How is it that this springs to mind: Jonny Nash
There are more questions than answers
Pictures in my mind that will not show
There are more questions than answers
And the more I find out the less I know
Yeah, the more I find out the less I know
I started with a few queries.... And the Hundred questions should be doubled!!!!
This case is Mind Boggling.....
-
A timeline of the court proceedings is rather a tall order, as there were SO MANY witnesses, and SO MANY witness statements were read out. It would lead to a very long post.
I don't mind Long posts Leonora... I like to see the facts 8)--))
-
I don't know where you are going with this question. There would be no point in holding the inquest after the murder trial had taken place, and, as you yourself have discovered, the rules seem to permit the Coroner to close an inquest after a suspect has been charged.
By the way, Joanna kept a diary. Teresa Yeates said that her daughter had been busily preparing for Christmas and had been planning to make mince pies at the weekend, printing out a recipe from the internet and tucking it into her diary. If I had been Mrs Yeates, I would have made sure I got a good look at the diary entries for the preceding month before handing it over to the police - whereupon, sadly, it was never heard of again in public.
In 2006 the body of a 23-year-old student was found beneath the floorboards of a Glasgow church. Prior to the trial of the man charged with murdering her, her diaries were translated from Polish by an interpreter appointed by the authorities. These translations were read out in court, and seem to have been very illuminating, as they showed that the victim had led an active social life.
Do you know whether Joanna's diaries were handed over to the police? The police should certainly have asked for them.
-
Do you know whether Joanna's diaries were handed over to the police? The police should certainly have asked for them.
Mrs Yeates mentioned only one "diary", and that was at their second public appeal on TV, while Joanna was still missing, but where her parents had come to believe she had been abducted. Even I would not suggest that the police would been so ineffective as to have overlooked the diary to which Mrs Yeates would have drawn their attention. The police apparently knew enough to eliminate her boyfriend (very unobtrusively) by the Wednesday evening of the week in which she was reported missing. But whether it was the diary that gave them leads, or, as I feel is much more likely, the 2nd witness statement that the landlord had signed earlier that day, is something we are not being allowed to know.
-
Vincent Tabak was "put into the witness box" by his own Defence Counsel. His testimony was given in response to a succession of questions put to him by his own Counsel. Then it was the turn of Counsel for the Prosecution to cross-examine him. As far as I can make out, his own QC questioned him for a second time, after he had been reduced to a "snivelling wretch" by Counsel for the Prosecution.
The Defence Council does not appear to have helped their client, I couldn't get over the insults they threw about!!!
It's like a Tag Team....
I believe Dr Vincent Tabak was badgered on the witness stand and that is one reason he fell apart, I believe the other reason was he possibly believed the evidence, if presented to it's fullest.. Would show that he was innocent of these charges... whether or not he pled guilty to Manslaughter.
-
Mrs Yeates mentioned only one "diary", and that was at their second public appeal on TV, while Joanna was still missing, but where her parents had come to believe she had been abducted. Even I would not suggest that the police would been so ineffective as to have overlooked the diary to which Mrs Yeates would have drawn their attention. The police apparently knew enough to eliminate her boyfriend (very unobtrusively) by the Wednesday evening of the week in which she was reported missing. But whether it was the diary that gave them leads, or, as I feel is much more likely, the 2nd witness statement that the landlord had signed earlier that day, is something we are not being allowed to know.
You might like to chew over the artist's impression of Joanna's body in this link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2053178/Joanna-Yeates-trial-verdict-Vincent-Tabak-guilty-murder.html
I don't want to post it on the thread as we will all be accused of showing disrespect for her and her family if I did.
Regards, LLLLLL
That's the artist's impression I have been referring to, which shows she is wearing Blue Jeans and not Grey/Black Jeans, which she is seen wearing on the Friday evening.
That post look like it was supposed to be a message????
-
I'm sat here pondering as to how the initial advice given to Dr vincent Tabak, didn't help him...
Now I am slightly confused as to what statements and what vows of silence Dr Vincent Tabak made...
I have virtually come to believe he makes no comment... but that cannot be the case surely?
Why didn't his first solicitor advise him to make a statement of the facts on Friday 17th December 2010?
If Dr Vincent Tabak has said "No Comment".. throughout his interrogation, that would not help him in the slightest, it would only add to him appearing guilty.
When did Dr Vincent Tabak speak to the Police to give his Timeline for the Friday?? why would his Solicitor then and when he changed solictors tell him to say No comment..???
Did Dr Vincent Tabak just sit with his solicitor and just saying No comment?????
If that is the case then he did not defend him... he should have had him out of custody and on bail... The only people you imagine languishing in a prison cell are those caught red handed,.
Can anyone expand on this?????
-
this isn't clear...
The jury was told the 33-year-old Dutch engineer went to the Asda store twice and did his shopping on the second visit.
We are aware he goes into Asda Twice.... what are the time gaps between the two visits????
Did he drive off and come back sometime later???
Did he walk out and walk back in.....
When he says he went TWICE to Asda in Bedminster, that sound like two separate visits.....
What time were these visits ???? Did he go earlier like he said he intended to go, then again near 10:30pm ????
This is why we need the TimeStamps on the ASDA video....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-15240284
-
There we have it...........
Tabak and his girlfriend spent the New Year in Holland, where Miss Morson contacted police with information about their landlord Christopher Jefferies - who was arrested and later cleared.
But when detectives flew to the Netherlands to take a statement from the couple, Tabak appeared to offer an inconsistent version of events, the jury was told.
Mr Lickley said: "They asked Tabak to provide a DNA mouth-swab and fingerprint... He would have to be eliminated from inquiries."
See..... TANJA contacted the police about CJ's car.... NOT Dr Vincent Tabak!!!!! So why fly to Holland to interview Tanja... and why spend all that time interviewing Dr Vincent Tabak?????
Version of events???? what are they talking about... If that weekend has No particular meaning to you, why would you remember what happened on that weekend...
I forget things all the time...
Ask me what i did last weekend and I couldn't tell you... I'd really have to think about it and probably forget a few things..
Does that mean if I remember and the events have changed , because I thought about it a little more... that I could be arrested?????
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-15240284
-
In January 2011, at Line 10 of the prosecution chart
Tabak Googled news about Joanna Yeates and a label and letter sent to a public house.
He Googled the words
‘Jo Yeates’
‘Jo Yeates murder’
This has to be the 7th January because after this date I cannot see him searching for Joanna Yeates..
On the morning of January 7 2011, shortly after Tabak had returned from holiday and weeks after Yeates body had been found, the Dutch international searched online for "Jo Yeates". He then began watching pornography:
How can he search for the Pizza and note 3 days before it was revealed it had been sent to the pub????
This next quote is almost laughable.
On Friday 3 December, two weeks before he killed Yeates, Tabak made telephone contact with "Mimi", Lickley told the judge. The call was returned and almost immediately Tabak made two cash withdrawals of $100 each.
On 5 December Tabak left the hotel his company had paid for and checked in under a false name, Francis Tabak, at the Peach Tree Inn in San Luis Obispo, 150 miles from Los Angeles. The prosecution believes the withdrawal of cash and the checking into a hotel under a false name could be evidence of him paying for sexual services.
So on the 3rd December 2010 he's happy to see a lady of the night in his hotel room:
She met Tabak – who was sentenced to a minimum of 20 years in jail - at his hotel in downtown Los Angeles while he was in the U.S. on a business trip for his engineering firm Buro Happold last November.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055281/Joanna-Yeates-murderer-Vincent-Tabak-slept-LA-prostitute-Princess-Butterfly.html#ixzz4Ye0YjVdW
Yet... he manages to drive 150 miles away to meet 2 other prostitutes...... *&*%£
Well it's further!!! 3 hour drive to a destination he knows nothing about to meet a lady of the night.... I don't think so!!!! (attached map and distance)...
Are they off their heads!!!!
why would he drive 150 miles if on the 3rd he was happy for one to come to his hotel room (allegedly)
The Dutchman murdered Jo Yeates just 15 days after visiting Ms Butterfly and paying her $200 (£125) for sex.
So did he pay Mimi $200 or Princess Butterfly $200 ??? They only ever said he withdrew two cash amount of $100 each.. And I am positive that these encounters who be CASH only!!!!!
A website - called Rebecca Devine Escort Site - has emerged featuring pictures of Miss Devine in a number of revealing and provocative poses.
Now I did my usual and did a range of dates and could not find this website!!!!
The whole thing is made up nonsense to try and imply that Dr Vincent Tabak has some sort of sexual perversion...
This about the prostitutes is absolute tosh!!!
Again.... just like the porn... they would not expect anyone to check it out... so can say whatever they like.... Doesn't mean it is TRUE.......
Did his Defence Council ever check this information????????
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/vincent-tabak-enjoyed-violent-sexual-images-women-239655
-
I just had a thought.......... In the early part of the investigation,it was reported that CJ liked Film Noir...
Which made me think.... Did the Police possibly see Tabak's name on CJ's computer???
https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=http://www.vpro.nl/cinema/films/film~542031~short-story-cinema-the-investigator~.html&prev=search
Short Story Cinema: The Investigator
1994 Matthew Tabak, 25 minutes
You are here:
cinema
movies
USA 1994. Film noir of Matthew Tabak. With ao Vincent D'Onofrio, Anne Heche, Dayton Callie, Frank Collison and Claude File.
VPRO Cinema
You have the names Vincent and Tabak there!!!!!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0228435/
Edit:..... it may sound a little far fetched... But... I do not understand why the Police would think that Dr Vincent Tabak had helped CJ!!! and visa versa...
Why would the landlord and his tenant engage in such an act together.... which one would benefit from this action????
Neither!!!!!! (IMO)
-
The Defence Council does not appear to have helped their client, I couldn't get over the insults they threw about!!!
It's like a Tag Team....
I believe Dr Vincent Tabak was badgered on the witness stand and that is one reason he fell apart, I believe the other reason was he possibly believed the evidence, if presented to it's fullest.. Would show that he was innocent of these charges... whether or not he pled guilty to Manslaughter.
Sorry I hit the wrong key yesterday. I don't believe for one moment that VT "fell apart". All the signs are that he played the role of scapegoat by prior agreement, and we can only speculate how it came to that.
You have previously posted that killers "normally" walk their victim to the place where they are to be killed. If VT really had been the killer, then moving the body would certainly have been the actions of "a crazy detached person", not an engineer with a PhD in modelling the movement of people. The unnamed detectives in this article seem to agree:
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/171886/Jo-Yeates-murdered-at-home-say-cops
In my opinion crime journalist Jerry Lawton was being groomed to make the public receptive to VT as the killer. The dumping of the body suggests (1) she was killed in a place where the killer could not allow her to remain, (2) she was not killed by VT, (3) she may have been killed in her flat by someone who was known to visit it, including friends and her boyfriend.
The absence of evidence of DNA in the flat is not evidence of the absence of DNA in the flat. It could be that there was no forensic evidence in her flat at all, but in my opinion it is much more likely that DNA was found that the prosecution don't want us to know about. It could be that the use hazardous chemicals and the stains in the bathroom reveal that the scientists were called in deliberately to cleanse the place permanently of DNA and fingerprints from persons whose presence an outside police force could not be allowed to detect:
http://swns.com/news/jo-yeates-murder-forensic-experts-continue-to-examine-canynge-road-properties-12949/
-
I'm sat here pondering as to how the initial advice given to Dr vincent Tabak, didn't help him...
Now I am slightly confused as to what statements and what vows of silence Dr Vincent Tabak made...
I have virtually come to believe he makes no comment... but that cannot be the case surely?
Why didn't his first solicitor advise him to make a statement of the facts on Friday 17th December 2010?
If Dr Vincent Tabak has said "No Comment".. throughout his interrogation, that would not help him in the slightest, it would only add to him appearing guilty.
When did Dr Vincent Tabak speak to the Police to give his Timeline for the Friday?? why would his Solicitor then and when he changed solictors tell him to say No comment..???
Did Dr Vincent Tabak just sit with his solicitor and just saying No comment?????
If that is the case then he did not defend him... he should have had him out of custody and on bail... The only people you imagine languishing in a prison cell are those caught red handed,.
Can anyone expand on this?????
It wasn't like that. He had previously given at least two statements to the police describing his movements on the evening in question. Some of the eighty questions to which he answered "No comment" are listed in this article, though I have seen a longer list somewhere:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-trial-vincent-275169
The duty solicitor was from a firm in Radstock. Her identity has never been made public. In the course of two days of questioning she prepared three statements for him to sign - Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
In my opinion she acted properly but both her firm and the Bristol barristers whom it instructed were well and truly deceived by the mastermind at the CPS.
-
This has to be the 7th January because after this date I cannot see him searching for Joanna Yeates..
How can he search for the Pizza and note 3 days before it was revealed it had been sent to the pub????
This next quote is almost laughable.
So on the 3rd December 2010 he's happy to see a lady of the night in his hotel room:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055281/Joanna-Yeates-murderer-Vincent-Tabak-slept-LA-prostitute-Princess-Butterfly.html#ixzz4Ye0YjVdW
Yet... he manages to drive 150 miles away to meet 2 other prostitutes...... *&*%£
Well it's further!!! 3 hour drive to a destination he knows nothing about to meet a lady of the night.... I don't think so!!!! (attached map and distance)...
Are they off their heads!!!!
why would he drive 150 miles if on the 3rd he was happy for one to come to his hotel room (allegedly)
So did he pay Mimi $200 or Princess Butterfly $200 ??? They only ever said he withdrew two cash amount of $100 each.. And I am positive that these encounters who be CASH only!!!!!
Now I did my usual and did a range of dates and could not find this website!!!!
The whole thing is made up nonsense to try and imply that Dr Vincent Tabak has some sort of sexual perversion...
This about the prostitutes is absolute tosh!!!
Again.... just like the porn... they would not expect anyone to check it out... so can say whatever they like.... Doesn't mean it is TRUE.......
Did his Defence Council ever check this information????????
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/vincent-tabak-enjoyed-violent-sexual-images-women-239655
St Luis O'Bispo is the oldest community in the neighbourhood, and just the sort of tourist place where someone like VT, all on his own in a foreign country, would go for his weekend relaxation. He probably used the cash he allegedly withdrew to hire a mountain bike.
You can see that it was tosh. I can see that it was tosh. Why couldn't the serious journalists at The Guardian and the BBC not work out for themselves that it was tosh? There is something very sinister about the way they turned their brains off when reporting what Counsel for the Prosecution said in court.
-
After posting about the Film Noir... I seriously got to thinking, WHY the Police believed that CJ and Dr Vincent Tabak had colluded????
Think about it... there is no possible reason for them to come to that conclusion...
Dr Vincent Tabak and CJ did not socialise, they had no relationship other than tenant and Landlord...
Firstly why would CJ engage the help from a tenant whom he didn't know in any capacity that would make him think he could trust him with such a venture..
It would be more prudent for CJ to have someone he actually knew help him....
So we are back to why???
And there is ONLY ONE possible reason why.....
That is because they needed someone to let Dr Vincent Tabak into Joanna Yeates Flat!!!!!
The story that she let him in is just that..... A Story!!!!
If Dr Vincent Tabak had not revealed how he got into Joanna Yeates flat until September when he signed his statement, then a story needed concocting to state how he managed the task.... ( he might not have even mentioned that in his signed statement!!)
The Chaplain tripe about him confessing, never mentions how Dr Vincent Tabak gained access to Joanna Yeates Flat, and in March by all acounts Dr Vncent Tabak does not divulge anything in regards to the crime.
So who devised the access angle??? If up until March they decided that CJ had colluded????????
-
After posting about the Film Noir... I seriously got to thinking, WHY the Police believed that CJ and Dr Vincent Tabak had colluded????
Think about it... there is no possible reason for them to come to that conclusion...
Dr Vincent Tabak and CJ did not socialise, they had no relationship other than tenant and Landlord...
Firstly why would CJ engage the help from a tenant whom he didn't know in any capacity that would make him think he could trust him with such a venture..
It would be more prudent for CJ to have someone he actually knew help him....
So we are back to why???
And there is ONLY ONE possible reason why.....
That is because they needed someone to let Dr Vincent Tabak into Joanna Yeates Flat!!!!!
The story that she let him in is just that..... A Story!!!!
If Dr Vincent Tabak had not revealed how he got into Joanna Yeates flat until September when he signed his statement, then a story needed concocting to state how he managed the task.... ( he might not have even mentioned that in his signed statement!!)
The Chaplain tripe about him confessing, never mentions how Dr Vincent Tabak gained access to Joanna Yeates Flat, and in March by all acounts Dr Vncent Tabak does not divulge anything in regards to the crime.
So who devised the access angle??? If up until March they decided that CJ had colluded????????
It had never crossed my mind that anyone would attribute the prolonged bail of CJ to a suspicion by the police that he and VT had colluded. Both the chief constable and the chief investigating officer produced explanations for CJ's bail at Leveson, on which I do not wish to waste any time. My objection to your theory is that even the police would never believe that a "crazy detached person" would collude with another to commit a crime. That implies a serious MOTIVE. Throughout this case we have been told that the victim's character was irreproachible and therefore no one could have had a motive to kill her.
But it is true that the powers that be got everyone believing the most ridiculous tosh about this case, so who better that Avon & Somerset's own mistress of tosh to contrive the tall story that CJ let VT into Jo's flat so that he could lie in wait and pounce on her?
I am quite sure that the purpose of the long bail of CJ was to keep him underground to prevent him from revealing the true contents of his 2nd witness statement, about his sightings at 44 Canynge Road. He knew this already when he was doorstepped by journalists. He was set up to LOOK like a "crazy detached person". And who set him up?
-
It had never crossed my mind that anyone would attribute the prolonged bail of CJ to a suspicion by the police that he and VT had colluded. Both the chief constable and the chief investigating officer produced explanations for CJ's bail at Leveson, on which I do not wish to waste any time. My objection to your theory is that even the police would never believe that a "crazy detached person" would collude with another to commit a crime. That implies a serious MOTIVE. Throughout this case we have been told that the victim's character was irreproachible and therefore no one could have had a motive to kill her.
But it is true that the powers that be got everyone believing the most ridiculous tosh about this case, so who better that Avon & Somerset's own mistress of tosh to contrive the tall story that CJ let VT into Jo's flat so that he could lie in wait and pounce on her?
I am quite sure that the purpose of the long bail of CJ was to keep him underground to prevent him from revealing the true contents of his 2nd witness statement, about his sightings at 44 Canynge Road. He knew this already when he was doorstepped by journalists. He was set up to LOOK like a "crazy detached person". And who set him up?
leonora... I have posted a transcribed Video of CJ saying that the police thought that him and Dr Vincent Tabak had colluded!
Under Suspicion.. Now I gather that one of the reasons for the delay was that Vincent Tabak when he was arreated.... refused to say anything...And therefore the police continued to entertain the suspicion that possibly there had been some sort of collusion... Between myself and Vincent Tabak
This is from the mouth of CJ......
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg368738#msg368738
i've put the correct link now... it is from the video!!!!
-
It wasn't like that. He had previously given at least two statements to the police describing his movements on the evening in question. Some of the eighty questions to which he answered "No comment" are listed in this article, though I have seen a longer list somewhere:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-trial-vincent-275169
The duty solicitor was from a firm in Radstock. Her identity has never been made public. In the course of two days of questioning she prepared three statements for him to sign - Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
In my opinion she acted properly but both her firm and the Bristol barristers whom it instructed were well and truly deceived by the mastermind at the CPS.
I a love list Leonora ?{)(**
:: Whether he had done anything to stop her screaming.
Odd... screaming mentioned in the questioning
:: Whether he had strangled her from the front or behind.
They must know where the finger impressions are... sounds like they don't!
:: Whether he had attempted to revive her.
So she had to be unconcious
:: Why he needed to put his hands around her throat.
Oh Yes.... to stop her screaming
:: Where the strangulation took place.
Kitchen apparently
:: Whether he had a conversation with her.
Yes in the kitchen apparently
:: Whether he went into the bedroom or lounge.
Needed to establish ear-ring in bed!
:: Whether she had done anything to lead him on.
flirty remark about cat... apparently..
:: Was she dead when he put her in the boot of the Renault Megane.
Yes two attempts
:: When did he take her to Longwood Lane.
Needed to be Friday to fit with the only time he was on his own..
:: Whether his drinking had increased following her death.
Apparently it did!!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-trial-vincent-275169
If these where the questions he was asked when he was first arrested... isn't it coincidental that they coincide with the eventual story Dr Vincent Tabak regurgitated.
-
leonora... I have posted a transcribed Video of CJ saying that the police thought that him and Dr Vincent Tabak had colluded!
This is from the mouth of CJ......
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg368738#msg368738
i've put the correct link now... it is from the video!!!!
Thank you so patiently including that link, which I would never have found for myself.
Of course the landlord would say that sort of thing, wouldn't he? That is inevitable for someone who has chosen to go on accepting the limelight in connection with a very big and sinister cover-up. I am sure he is just as creative as the mastermind behind the case, but his story just doesn't hold water.
It is very telling that he was "wrongly" described as "a witness". Of course he was a WITNESS!!! That is why he was arrested and then bailed - to keep his witness testimony from giving the game away. If the police really wanted to arrest someone for the murder in great haste, either out of panic, or just to show the public that they were being energetic (which is what the public believes to this day about CJ's arrest), they would have arrested the boyfriend instead. 9 times out of 10, it does turn out to be the boyfriend/husband. Instead, they did the opposite - they declared that the boyfriend was a witness, despite having no "known" grounds to eliminate him.
If the landlord were telling the truth, he would make public the actual contents of his 2nd witness statement - not least to the nice makers of such a complimentary film about him. The continued secrecy about this statement proves that he saw far more than he was telling. I cannot prove it but I am very confident that he saw signs of activity inside and outside the flat on the Saturday and Sunday - and that he told VT and his girlfriend what he had seen. They in turn told him that they too had seen signs of activity during the weekend.
-
If the landlord were telling the truth, he would make public the actual contents of his 2nd witness statement - not least to the nice makers of such a complimentary film about him. The continued secrecy about this statement proves that he saw far more than he was telling. I cannot prove it but I am very confident that he saw signs of activity inside and outside the flat on the Saturday and Sunday - and that he told VT and his girlfriend what he had seen. They in turn told him that they too had seen signs of activity during the weekend.
Leonora, we can't just guess at what happened at the time of the weekend unless we have something to back it up... I don't wish to sound disrespectful, but there are any amount of scenario's that could be attributed to what took place....
There's evidence to question various aspects of the case... Her different attire for instance.. would suggest she was at home long enough to at least change her clothes..
The Piece of CONSOLE.... now that's the one that beggar's me... what happened to the Console???? who did it belong to... Had someone come round and they played computer games?????
I agree that GR behaviour was most peculiar and his statements do not add up... But I can't point the finger because of it....
You would need her diary to gather info as to how her life was....
Maybe GR and JY life wasn't as rosie as has been said.... maybe he was covering something up... Maybe it's his lack of being at home with her that weekend... It could be all put down to guilt unless you have evidence on the contrary to prove otherwise.
All I am here for is to try and prove that it wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak... And look at aspects of the case that do not add up...
Personally I would rather not speculate, but find information that would get Dr Vincent Tabak a re-trial.. or at least have other people changing there opinion that he committed this crime.
Edit:.... I will add... There are some interesting blogs and information on the internet with regards this case, and alot of research has obviously gone into producing them... Some good solid info...
But.. when every you ask people what they think they just say that people are off their heads... Now I believe the possible reason for this, is when speculation has diverted from fact....
Having people look at the information is difficult enough, because they think only crazy people believe Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent.. So add speculation to that and they will probably not bother reading any further.
Then the opportunity is missed on informing the public to the evidence in this case and what happened to the Dutchman..
-
just had a quick catch up on the posts and I have to fully agree with your last post Nine ?{)(**
facts as they appear online in blogs or elsewhere cant be picked over for the good stuff that back up different theories while other info is dismissed because it doesnt
We agree, well I never
-
Leonora, we can't just guess at what happened at the time of the weekend unless we have something to back it up... I don't wish to sound disrespectful, but there are any amount of scenario's that could be attributed to what took place....
There's evidence to question various aspects of the case... Her different attire for instance.. would suggest she was at home long enough to at least change her clothes..
The Piece of CONSOLE.... now that's the one that beggar's me... what happened to the Console???? who did it belong to... Had someone come round and they played computer games?????
I agree that GR behaviour was most peculiar and his statements do not add up... But I can't point the finger because of it....
You would need her diary to gather info as to how her life was....
Maybe GR and JY life wasn't as rosie as has been said.... maybe he was covering something up... Maybe it's his lack of being at home with her that weekend... It could be all put down to guilt unless you have evidence on the contrary to prove otherwise.
All I am here for is to try and prove that it wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak... And look at aspects of the case that do not add up...
Personally I would rather not speculate, but find information that would get Dr Vincent Tabak a re-trial.. or at least have other people changing there opinion that he committed this crime.
Edit:.... I will add... There are some interesting blogs and information on the internet with regards this case, and alot of research has obviously gone into producing them... Some good solid info...
But.. when every you ask people what they think they just say that people are off their heads... Now I believe the possible reason for this, is when speculation has diverted from fact....
Having people look at the information is difficult enough, because they think only crazy people believe Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent.. So add speculation to that and they will probably not bother reading any further.
Then the opportunity is missed on informing the public to the evidence in this case and what happened to the Dutchman..
I agree that guesswork does not necessarily deserve respect, but I would hope that you take inference and probability seriously. There are only a limited number of scenarios that can be inferred for that weekend, since each of them has to result in the victim's death, and none of them should be based on "tosh". I don't know when she died, though it is a relief to be in discussion with someone else who accepts that it may not have happened on the Friday. If the police thought her boyfriend was implicated, then it would have had to take place in the six or seven hours on the Sunday evening when he had no alibi.
On the role of the landlord, I am on much surer ground than you give me credit for. The very least that we know with certainty about his 2nd witness statement, from his Leveson testimony, is that he told the police that he saw and heard two or three persons on her front path. That is quite sufficient to PROVE that he was witness to something and someone that the police already on the Wednesday wanted to conceal for ever. At the very least, the police would have made a public appeal for the persons seen by the landlord. If the police already knew who the persons were, they would have eliminated them, and this would have been revealed, either publicly at the time, or eventually in the many documentaries about the case.
I cannot for the life of me understand what importance you attribute to the piece of console.
I don't find the behaviour of the boyfriend especially peculiar nor inconsistent. Since you found that priceless video of the CIO's first press conference, and we learnt about all the questions that he evaded, and were therefore not even reported by the journalists who posed them, we can infer that journalists would have asked repeatedly why she did not accompany her boyfriend to Sheffield - and that no answer was received. I find this very surprising, as I can think of several innocent excuses that could have been brought forward.
However, it is fact that the police DID arrest the landlord, yet did not even suspect the much more obvious person, who, statistically, ought to have been the starting point for their investigation. This is solid evidence on which we can build a case about the motives and actions of the police, not guesswork to be ignored.
In my opinion, you are on a fool's errand that is totally out of character, when you posted that all you want to do is prove Vincent Tabak innocent. This is because everything you need for that is interconnected. What the police did before the body was found is interconnected. Newspaper articles published before VT was arrested are interconnected.
Believe me, the press-conference called by the "pizza cop" on the Thursday is the first sign that VT had been marked down as the scapegoat. This is because it made a mystery where there was none. Obviously, she bought that pizza because she was hungry. However, they couldn't take the risk that the pizza would reveal that she had died after Friday evening, when VT had no alibi.
On the contrary, only crazy people could believe Vincent Tabak guilty of THIS murder. As you say, it is tosh.
-
just had a quick catch up on the posts and I have to fully agree with your last post Nine ?{)(**
facts as they appear online in blogs or elsewhere cant be picked over for the good stuff that back up different theories while other info is dismissed because it doesnt
We agree, well I never
Why not read the posts in a little more depth than just "a quick catch up", and then contribute to the discussion on the thread?
-
I do take things seriously, or I would not have arrived at this juncture.. of course people have idea's as to the possibilities that could lead to Joanna Yeates demise.
many scenario's being possible, and as you have said previously, when all probabilities are ruled out then there is only one possibility.
The main issue is trying to establish where she was.... Home being the most common answer..
But is it the most probable? Changing clothes suggest a different activity is to take place, other than that she would probably have just wrapped her dressing gown around her clothing for a night in when it was cold.
Change of clothing would suggest... either plans made to meet someone Or someone came round...
This is where the console could play a part.... as a friend male or female, may have visited for a night in on a computer console, with pizza and cider..
More likely she was planning to go out if a change of clothing took place Or.... she went missing on a different day...
There is plenty of evidence from greg and her mother that Joanna didn't always get back to people or answer her phone...
With that in mind.. she could have simply left with somebody she knew on any given day...
I'm not trying to be dismissive... I think.....No... I know... I want to see that 1300 page document... and within that all the answers would be revealed.... The impossibilities and the probabilities!!!
"Anyone got a copy they'd like to share??"
So first and foremost, what day is needed to be established.... I would go later than Friday, simply because I cannot see her mobile phone still being functional on the Sunday at 9:00pm..
If you count she left with someone and they returned with her possesions, they could have simple turned the phone off and then back on again when they returned it to the flat.... alternatively she charged it when she came home...
I also say this because Greg said he found all her belongings in her Rucksack... we know from the Bargain Booze video her purse was in her shoulder bag which was underneath her coat, she goes into it to get the money to pay for the cider.
So... therefore there is No need for her purse to be in her rucksack... As the rucksack was on the dining room table, anyone who returned her possesions would probably put her things inside it..
You still have the issue of her mother thinking she was abducted!! What would bring her to that conclusion??
Not only abducted, but recently abducted.. meaning nearer to the Sunday.. Because she was busy checking over Garden Walls and banging on car boots.. So again what made her mother decide she had been abducted??
Her friend Rebecca said something similar also.. And she was not in Bristol when they were looking for Joanna. How did she come to that conclusion?? I'm sure anything to do with the investigation the family and Greg would have to keep it very close to their chests and not reveal anything to anyone... The Police would have told them that at least.
Abducted suggest forcibly removed from her flat... What evidence could her mother glean from the flat to believe her daughter had been forcibly removed??? It is an Odd thing for her to say!!
I also remember she thought that Joanna was being held somewhere... which if true, may go somewhere to explaining her not being on Longwood Lane for as many days as they say...
So abduction not likely...
Next door neighbour suddenly deciding to kill the girl next door....not likely
Landlord letting himself in... not likely
Opening the door to a stranger ...not likely
So the likelyhood is whoever came into contact with her Knew her.. knew her well enough for her to open the door and invite them in.. Or knew them well enough to leave with them..
One thing that I noticed was the Intercom.. It is never mentioned, if she phoned someone when she arrived home or was expecting someone when she arrived home, surley they would press the Intercom and she would talk to who ever is at the door... either letting them in or leaving immediatly with them... She could have simply took the Pizza with her to someone elses house after she had a swig from the cider bottle... Which would explain why it still had contents in it when Greg returned...
I do not understand why the plate front of the Intercom, on the outside of the house was removed,... But never mentioned!!!!!!!
At court or in any Evidence!!!!
-
Why not read the posts in a little more depth than just "a quick catch up", and then contribute to the discussion on the thread?
How do you know I have not already read everything that as been posted... it was a figure of speech as in read the stuff I havent due to not being on the forum.
I have contributed plenty already. My points maybe different to the ones posted by Nine and Mrswah and that was the reason I posted today!
It would be unfair to jump in to disagree and not mention when I actually agree
-
Thank you so patiently including that link, which I would never have found for myself.
Of course the landlord would say that sort of thing, wouldn't he? That is inevitable for someone who has chosen to go on accepting the limelight in connection with a very big and sinister cover-up. I am sure he is just as creative as the mastermind behind the case, but his story just doesn't hold water.
It is very telling that he was "wrongly" described as "a witness". Of course he was a WITNESS!!! That is why he was arrested and then bailed - to keep his witness testimony from giving the game away. If the police really wanted to arrest someone for the murder in great haste, either out of panic, or just to show the public that they were being energetic (which is what the public believes to this day about CJ's arrest), they would have arrested the boyfriend instead. 9 times out of 10, it does turn out to be the boyfriend/husband. Instead, they did the opposite - they declared that the boyfriend was a witness, despite having no "known" grounds to eliminate him.
If the landlord were telling the truth, he would make public the actual contents of his 2nd witness statement - not least to the nice makers of such a complimentary film about him. The continued secrecy about this statement proves that he saw far more than he was telling. I cannot prove it but I am very confident that he saw signs of activity inside and outside the flat on the Saturday and Sunday - and that he told VT and his girlfriend what he had seen. They in turn told him that they too had seen signs of activity during the weekend.
I couldn't comment as to whether CJ is being completely truthful or not Leonora... But one thing I will say, Is I do not remember him suing Avon and Somerset Police as he had claimed he would do!!!
Anyone know if he did???? If so what happened ???
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8500952/Jo-Yeates-landlord-sues-police-over-arrest-for-her-murder.html
-
How do you know I have not already read everything that as been posted... it was a figure of speech as in read the stuff I havent due to not being on the forum.
I have contributed plenty already. My points maybe different to the ones posted by Nine and Mrswah and that was the reason I posted today!
It would be unfair to jump in to disagree and not mention when I actually agree
I have to say what Jixy has said about reading the posts is true... I believe Jixy is one of the few people who has taken the time to acutally read the Long posts that I have written even if he/she hasn't agreed with me...
And it did make me laugh when you said you agreed with me... There had to be something at some stage that you would agree with me Jixy... At least thats a start... maybe you'll find something in my other posts that you agree with too...
-
haha second time today. how well are we doing? I have read all the posts and there have been many. Some I replied to some I ignored some I sat here laughing at too
-
It is very telling that he was "wrongly" described as "a witness". Of course he was a WITNESS!!! That is why he was arrested and then bailed - to keep his witness testimony from giving the game away. If the police really wanted to arrest someone for the murder in great haste, either out of panic, or just to show the public that they were being energetic (which is what the public believes to this day about CJ's arrest), they would have arrested the boyfriend instead. 9 times out of 10, it does turn out to be the boyfriend/husband. Instead, they did the opposite - they declared that the boyfriend was a witness, despite having no "known" grounds to eliminate him.
After removing the impossibilities the probabilities remain....
Oh course it is feasible that they withheld the information that CJ had seen her at the gate....
But that would only change the day... or the time possibly... And Police forces in the past have been known to want to clear a crime up quickly... As in the Stefan Kizco case.... that too is a possible reason for ignoring what he had said...
The only other reason was if it had been Greg he had seen... and I can't see that either, because after all this time, he wouldn't have to keep the charde up with regards Greg, he just would have to avoid those questions in relation to him,.....
For CJ to lie or not reveal the truth he would have to have something massive to compensate for that information....
And the way in which he had been treated prior, would suggest that there would be no reason for this....
As he was never called as a witness at trial, why would he divulge what he told the police.... even if we wish he would... He had already suffered at the hands of the media and since that has learnt how to get them to eat out of his hand...
I cannot see him wanting the attention from suggesting after the trial has finished, that he actually saw Joanna Yeates at the garden gate...
The implications of that piece of information alone would cause massive repercussions and I don't think CJ would want to be seen as the person who caused them......
Edit.... Leonora... Have you ever written to CJ????
-
haha second time today. how well are we doing? I have read all the posts and there have been many. Some I replied to some I ignored some I sat here laughing at too
Something must be in the air...... @)(++(*
I'd like your honest opinion on one question:....
If Dr Vincent Tabak was not at home for TWO searches that were on his Internet history as the Prosecution claim...
Then how can the searches be his?????
Or do you need to take the fifth amendment????
-
This is where the console could play a part.... as a friend male or female, may have visited for a night in on a computer console, with pizza and cider..
I have a feeling that the "console" referred to may not have been a games console at all. There was a small green table in Jo and Greg's hallway, that was broken. These kind of tables are sometimes referred to as "console tables".
-
I have a feeling that the "console" referred to may not have been a games console at all. There was a small green table in Jo and Greg's hallway, that was broken. These kind of tables are sometimes referred to as "console tables".
Ah... mrswah... thank you for that info.... I did here something about a green pedestal.... where none of these objects brought in to court as evidence???
-
haha second time today. how well are we doing? I have read all the posts and there have been many. Some I replied to some I ignored some I sat here laughing at too
If you have found anything to laugh at in this thread, it can only be either (1) because you have understood very little of what is a very serious criminal matter, or (2) because you wish to express your lack of respect for other posters on the thread.
-
Something must be in the air...... @)(++(*
I'd like your honest opinion on one question:....
If Dr Vincent Tabak was not at home for TWO searches that were on his Internet history as the Prosecution claim...
Then how can the searches be his?????
Or do you need to take the fifth amendment????
I dont know the answer to that question. Im not a computer whizz. Were they definitely done on his computer and not his phone? I know when im signed into to google on my phone then look on my laptop it looks for all the world that ive searched it there.
Was it a blip or as you would say, he didnt do it. I really dont know
-
Ah... mrswah... thank you for that info.... I did here something about a green pedestal.... where none of these objects brought in to court as evidence???
When you have mentioned this before I always presumed it was based on something you had seen in a picture
-
When you have mentioned this before I always presumed it was based on something you had seen in a picture
No.... that information about the console was in the Sally Ramage papers... the papers she produced more than once... It was in a particular one that had over 80 pages and I believe if memory serves me correctly thatit was on page 84...
Shhards of console- did you do that?
I don’t know.
EDIT....... Now with regards as to what mrswah said about it being a table type of item, you think if that was the case he would have mentioned it being in the hallway when he hung up his coat???
See.... I still see computer console in my head!!!!!
https://philpapers.org/archive/RAMTMT-4.pdf
-
I dont know the answer to that question. Im not a computer whizz. Were they definitely done on his computer and not his phone? I know when im signed into to google on my phone then look on my laptop it looks for all the world that ive searched it there.
Was it a blip or as you would say, he didnt do it. I really dont know
Yes... the searches are supposed to come from his laptop... they never mention phone searches... The phone is only ever used in relation to text messages, phone call....
I myself would have thought if he was being so secretive he would have googled... firstly in Dutch and on his phone, so no-one could see!!!!
-
I do take things seriously, or I would not have arrived at this juncture.. of course people have idea's as to the possibilities that could lead to Joanna Yeates demise.
many scenario's being possible, and as you have said previously, when all probabilities are ruled out then there is only one possibility.
The main issue is trying to establish where she was.... Home being the most common answer..
But is it the most probable? Changing clothes suggest a different activity is to take place, other than that she would probably have just wrapped her dressing gown around her clothing for a night in when it was cold.
Change of clothing would suggest... either plans made to meet someone Or someone came round...
This is where the console could play a part.... as a friend male or female, may have visited for a night in on a computer console, with pizza and cider..
More likely she was planning to go out if a change of clothing took place Or.... she went missing on a different day...
There is plenty of evidence from greg and her mother that Joanna didn't always get back to people or answer her phone...
With that in mind.. she could have simply left with somebody she knew on any given day...
...
Yes, but this evidence was produced only after the particular weekend when she had been murdered, so it is not as convincing as it sounds. It is possible that her boyfriend wasn't being truthful about all the attempts he claimed he made to contact her, but the police could easily have checked up on his calls records. If she had company, it is also possible that she didn't want to be contacted, and switched off her mobile or disabled the landline. The absence of the pizza packaging could so easily be explained away by her eating it together at the home of a fourth friend living nearby whom she contacted while she was shopping in Bargain Booze - and whom the "pizza cop" omitted from the timeline.
The evidence does indicate that she changed her clothes, and that is something the police were keeping to themselves EVEN WHILE SHE WAS A MISSING PERSON. In my opinion, no one should be discouraged from speculation on the basis of the known facts, merely to avoid attracting hasty comments from posters who haven't followed their line of reasoning.
-
The absence of evidence of DNA in the flat is not evidence of the absence of DNA in the flat. It could be that there was no forensic evidence in her flat at all,
There would have been plenty of DNA in the flat: it's just that we don't know whose. If the forensic team had found anything connecting VT with the flat, we would have heard about it , so I assume they didn't. However, apart from there being DNA connected with Jo and Greg , and quite likely CJ too, since it was his flat, and he would have gone in there from time to time, checking up, showing prospective tenants around, supervising workmen, etc etc, we know that Jo and Greg were sociable people who would have had a lot of visits from family and friends.
-
Ah... mrswah... thank you for that info.... I did here something about a green pedestal.... where none of these objects brought in to court as evidence???
Not as far as I'm aware, but the jury did visit the flat, so they would have seen it there------presumably.
-
she didnt eat the pizza..
-
Leonora... What we need to establish is at what Time/Date did the CPS lady start the planned arrest of Dr Vincent Tabak???
Once we establish this... evidence brought to the forefront can then possibly be dismissed.... As you don't need to inform the public anymore in relation to what Joanna Yeates did or didn't do!!!
So for instance if it was soon after he returned from Holland say... 3rd January 2011... The sock was then just a distraction... Because the Policeman had always said before he revealed information about the sock, that Joanna Yeates was Fully Clothed..
Even when one member of the press ask if she was missing anything at all... they suggested a shoe....
No replied the Policeman...she was Fully Clothed!!!
-
she didnt eat the pizza..
Maybe she didn't.... doesn't mean that she had taken it else where for someone else to eat...
-
no but I thought we were sticking to the facts we know to be true not making up scenarios with no proof
-
Not as far as I'm aware, but the jury did visit the flat, so they would have seen it there------presumably.
That cannot be so mrswah.... The media went straight in afterwards and the console would have been in the hallway when they took photo's and video's....
It wasn't visible in any other room either....
-
no but I thought we were sticking to the facts we know to be true not making up scenarios with no proof
What did the contents of her stomach show????
Wasn't making scenario's with no proof, just a mere suggestion....
-
You still have the issue of her mother thinking she was abducted!! What would bring her to that conclusion??
Not only abducted, but recently abducted.. meaning nearer to the Sunday.. Because she was busy checking over Garden Walls and banging on car boots.. So again what made her mother decide she had been abducted??
Her friend Rebecca said something similar also.. And she was not in Bristol when they were looking for Joanna. How did she come to that conclusion?? I'm sure anything to do with the investigation the family and Greg would have to keep it very close to their chests and not reveal anything to anyone... The Police would have told them that at least.
Abducted suggest forcibly removed from her flat... What evidence could her mother glean from the flat to believe her daughter had been forcibly removed??? It is an Odd thing for her to say!!
Her boyfriend testified that he had found a number of "strange movements" in the flat, which he tidied up before anyone could have seen them. The court was shown a sketch he made for the police detailing these signs of a struggle. None of this was reported at the time, so it may have been invented in order to help convict Vincent Tabak. If, on the other hand, he was telling the truth, then neither he nor the police seem to have told her parents until after the first of their televised appeals.
However, the statements that her parents made to the press contain a number of inconsistencies. After her body was found, her father declared that they had realised within 30 minutes of their arrival at the flat that she had not left of her own accord - and that this realisation had nothing to do with anything her boyfriend said.
I don't believe that tale about banging on car boots, because it was linked restrospectively to an alleged encounter outside the house with the couple next-door, used to portray Vincent Tabak as a cold unsympathetic person and his girlfriend as a warm sympathetic person. When he was first arrested, on the other hand, Joanna's father told the press that they had never met the occupants of the neighbouring flat.
-
There would have been plenty of DNA in the flat: it's just that we don't know whose. If the forensic team had found anything connecting VT with the flat, we would have heard about it , so I assume they didn't. However, apart from there being DNA connected with Jo and Greg , and quite likely CJ too, since it was his flat, and he would have gone in there from time to time, checking up, showing prospective tenants around, supervising workmen, etc etc, we know that Jo and Greg were sociable people who would have had a lot of visits from family and friends.
Indeed they did have lots of friends around mrswah... I believe they had a party there at Halloween.. Her mum had also visited...
They had a mass of people to eliminate from there enquiries before they could say who's DNA was in the flat...
DNA doesn't have a sell by date as far as I am aware!!!!
Edit:..... They also had the person or persons who came around to pick up Greg's Free Bonanza Give Away....
His Ski's.... and Ski equipment.... That would have left random DNA in the house also!!!
-
What did the contents of her stomach show????
Wasn't making scenario's with no proof, just a mere suggestion....
it wasnt your comment lol but anyway
-
it wasnt your comment lol but anyway
Ok.... ?{)(**
-
hasty comments also known as not agreeing with you Leonora ok
-
What did the contents of her stomach show????
Wasn't making scenario's with no proof, just a mere suggestion....
We don't know what the analysis of the contents of her stomach and intestines showed, because the expert witness from Glasgow who carried out the analysis did not actually tell the court. She explained that she was trying to find out when Joanna had suffered "trauma", i.e., died. She told the court that Joanna's last meal had been cheesy chips and Cola. They already knew that, because her boyfriend had already testified to the lunch Joanna had eaten that day. The expert witness did not bother to tell the court that the chips and Cola would have disappeared from the victim's digestive system long before she even left the Bristol Ram pub. The only reason the expart witness could claim that it was Joanna's "last meal" was because the court had heard Counsel for the Prosecution tell them that the defendant had killed her and stolen the uneaten pizza. Some expert witness, wouldn't you say?
There is evidence that this grisly evidence was removed from the body and submitted to the Scottish expert on 17th January, and her "findings" - that Joanna did not eat the pizza - reported without attribution in the press the day before Vincent Tabak's arrest. If Joanna had died more than 9 hours after eating the pizza, of course, it would be impossible to tell from an analysis of her digestive system. In my opinion this unhelpful gastroarcheologist was engaged to prevent the independent pathologist who would be hired by Vincent Tabak's first set of lawyers from being able to perform his own analysis and identifying traces of pizza, or even unexpected delights such as bacon and egg, champagne and caviar.
-
Why is it that your opinions are valued but other peoples opinions are simply dismissed , the post mortem results prove she didn't eat the pizza and nothing else matters VT did as he said so himself .
-
We don't know what the analysis of the contents of her stomach and intestines showed, because the expert witness from Glasgow who carried out the analysis did not actually tell the court. She explained that she was trying to find out when Joanna had suffered "trauma", i.e., died. She told the court that Joanna's last meal had been cheesy chips and Cola. They already knew that, because her boyfriend had already testified to the lunch Joanna had eaten that day. The expert witness did not bother to tell the court that the chips and Cola would have disappeared from the victim's digestive system long before she even left the Bristol Ram pub. The only reason the expart witness could claim that it was Joanna's "last meal" was because the court had heard Counsel for the Prosecution tell them that the defendant had killed her and stolen the uneaten pizza. Some expert witness, wouldn't you say?
There is evidence that this grisly evidence was removed from the body and submitted to the Scottish expert on 17th January, and her "findings" - that Joanna did not eat the pizza - reported without attribution in the press the day before Vincent Tabak's arrest. If Joanna had died more than 9 hours after eating the pizza, of course, it would be impossible to tell from an analysis of her digestive system. In my opinion this unhelpful gastroarcheologist was engaged to prevent the independent pathologist who would be hired by Vincent Tabak's first set of lawyers from being able to perform his own analysis and identifying traces of pizza, or even unexpected delights such as bacon and egg, champagne and caviar.
50% of stomach contents emptied 2.5 to 3 hours
Total emptying of the stomach 4 to 5 hours
50% emptying of the small intestine 2.5 to 3 hours
Transit through the colon 30 to 40 hours
Agreed .... cheesy chips could not have been in her stomach....
And if Body fluids have never been mentioned in regards to the Autopsy... would that suggest:
(A):... She was alive longer ...
(B):.. Someone cleaned her and then re-dressed her?????
-
Why is it that your opinions are valued but other peoples opinions are simply dismissed , the post mortem results prove she didn't eat the pizza and nothing else matters VT did as he said so himself .
And so did Greg.... he had one from the freezer, which begs the question why did she purchase one??
-
Maybe she purchased it for the day after or simply because she fancied a pizza , an impulse buy or even as a treat but what does it matter why she bought a pizza ?
-
VT said that he had pizza for supper. He didn't say he ate the one Jo bought; in fact, he said in court that he disposed of it.
And, yes, Greg also had pizza for supper-----but not the one Jo bought either.
What does this prove? Absolutely nothing, except that some young men , after a long day, can't be bothered to cook!!
On a more serious note, I, too am puzzled as to why Jo's stomach contents were sent to Glasgow.
-
Maybe she purchased it for the day after or simply because she fancied a pizza , an impulse buy or even as a treat but what does it matter why she bought a pizza ?
Simply because it seems to play a big part in this crime... Having Pizza in the house already, just made me wonder why she would purchase another one...
-
If Joanna had died more than 9 hours after eating the pizza, of course, it would be impossible to tell from an analysis of her digestive system.
Absolutely. For example:
She could have eaten the pizza on the Friday night, and died nine hours later. The test results would have been the same.
-
VT said that he had pizza for supper. He didn't say he ate the one Jo bought; in fact, he said in court that he disposed of it.
And, yes, Greg also had pizza for supper-----but not the one Jo bought either.
What does this prove? Absolutely nothing, except that some young men , after a long day, can't be bothered to cook!!
On a more serious note, I, too am puzzled as to why Jo's stomach contents were sent to Glasgow.
The only reason I can think of if Glasgow has some sort of specialist centre...
Joanna Yeates was off work before she was killed... we still do not know the reason why!!
what was the person called who did the tests on her stomach contents??
-
hasty comments also known as not agreeing with you Leonora ok
In the few instances where I express opinions, I have tried to preface them with the remark "In my opinion..." Most of my posts are longer than they really need to be, so that no one can accuse me of jumping to unsubstantiated or wild conclusions. I would LOVE to be able to post wild speculation, such as that Joanna was the victim of one of the delivery men who delivered her bed but turned out to be a fanatical supporter of a rival football team from the one she supported. However, since I have been VERY restrained on this thread, I can only conclude that you have some kind of AGENDA in posting such remarks as this one on this forum. I would really like you to explain your agenda. Is it because you cannot resist belittling a defenceless woman poster?
-
The only reason I can think of if Glasgow has some sort of specialist centre...
Joanna Yeates was off work before she was killed... we still do not know the reason why!!
what was the person called who did the tests on her stomach contents??
Dr. Jennifer Miller of Northlight Heritage.
The fact that there was a already pizza in the freezer at home, which her boyfriend claims he ate on the Sunday, suggests that Joanna's last-minute purchase of a Tesco pizza was part of an agreement to eat together at a friend's home, not at 44 Canynge Road. I cannot exaggerate the importance of how hungry she would have been by this time, and how much this obvious factor was disregarded in the accounts of her Friday evening.
It would certainly help to have reliable medical information about why Joanna had been off work and why she suffered from bad headaches.
-
Leonora... What we need to establish is at what Time/Date did the CPS lady start the planned arrest of Dr Vincent Tabak???
Once we establish this... evidence brought to the forefront can then possibly be dismissed.... As you don't need to inform the public anymore in relation to what Joanna Yeates did or didn't do!!!
So for instance if it was soon after he returned from Holland say... 3rd January 2011... The sock was then just a distraction... Because the Policeman had always said before he revealed information about the sock, that Joanna Yeates was Fully Clothed..
Even when one member of the press ask if she was missing anything at all... they suggested a shoe....
No replied the Policeman...she was Fully Clothed!!!
Dear oh dear.
The CPS lady started planning the arrest of Vincent Tabak BEFORE Christmas day. This has to be the case, because Joanna's body was alleged to be found lying beneath snow that had fallen after Vincent Tabak collected his girlfriend from the coach after her works party. We can be sure that this was untrue, since so many pumping appliances and a substantial crane were needed to recover the body - as can be seen in one of the photos in this newspaper report:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1341676/Missing-architect-Joanna-Yeates-We-assume-shes-dead--lives-gone-say-parents.html
I have no idea how early on the police knew that Joanna was dead, nor when they really learnt where she had been deposited, but there is evidence that it was on the Wednesday, when the landlord signed his 2nd witness statement and the boyfriend was said to be cleared of suspicion of involvement in her disappearence.
I don't presume to know what Joanna did or did not do, except where there is evidence to suggest it.
-
In the few instances where I express opinions, I have tried to preface them with the remark "In my opinion..." Most of my posts are longer than they really need to be, so that no one can accuse me of jumping to unsubstantiated or wild conclusions. I would LOVE to be able to post wild speculation, such as that Joanna was the victim of one of the delivery men who delivered her bed but turned out to be a fanatical supporter of a rival football team from the one she supported. However, since I have been VERY restrained on this thread, I can only conclude that you have some kind of AGENDA in posting such remarks as this one on this forum. I would really like you to explain your agenda. Is it because you cannot resist belittling a defenceless woman poster?
Firstly can I correct you on your assumptions.... I have not belittled anyone. Who is the defenceless woman you refer to?
I was polite to nine and explained my reason for replying to their post and also my reasons for not replying to others which is my right as that is MY opinion
I too have been very restrained on this thread and kept my thoughts to myself so other forum users dont get dragged in and down with any difference of opinion which we are all entitled to have but that gets forgotten
You actually jumped to conclusions about me and whether I read the threads or not which even Nine onfirmed yes I do. You chose to see my comment at catching up as an indication that I had fallen behind or perhaps not even taken part. Wrong again
So it seems to me it is you who has an agenda to insult anyone who doesnt agree with you!
I have NO agenda I just happen to believe that Tabak is guilty as the man himself says but for some reason my opinion isnt as valuable as yours
-
Why is it that your opinions are valued but other peoples opinions are simply dismissed , the post mortem results prove she didn't eat the pizza and nothing else matters VT did as he said so himself .
I don't understand the reason for this post. Most of the posts on this thread are objective, with relatively few expressions of opinion. Everyone is welcome to express their opinions, but facts are a lot more persuasive.
The post mortem results couldn't possibly have proved that Joanna didn't eat the pizza, as she might have eaten it more than 9 hours before she died. Had traces of pizza been found, then they could have proved that she did eat the pizza, but we have not been told what the analysis actually did find.
Not being clairvoyant, VT couldn't possibly have known that he had to return to steal the pizza, rather than any of the myriad of other things worth stealing in the flat, in order to fulfill the future need of the "pizza cop" to make an unnecessary mystery out of its disappearance in a TV press conference.
It is however some small comfort that you believe VT was telling the truth, because presumably you too believe that he was innocent of the murder.
-
I don't understand the reason for this post. Most of the posts on this thread are objective, with relatively few expressions of opinion. Everyone is welcome to express their opinions, but facts are a lot more persuasive.
The post mortem results couldn't possibly have proved that Joanna didn't eat the pizza, as she might have eaten it more than 9 hours before she died. Had traces of pizza been found, then they could have proved that she did eat the pizza, but we have not been told what the analysis actually did find.
Not being clairvoyant, VT couldn't possibly have known that he had to return to steal the pizza, rather than any of the myriad of other things worth stealing in the flat, in order to fulfill the future need of the "pizza cop" to make an unnecessary mystery out of its disappearance in a TV press conference.
It is however some small comfort that you believe VT was telling the truth, because presumably you too believe that he was innocent of the murder.
She may or may not have eaten the pizza it doesn't prove anything all you seem to do is make assumptions & give your opinion , all the paperwork suggests and states she didn't eat the pizza like so many of your opinions they don't come with any genuine facts they are just your own thoughts but when asked a question or to validate something you seem to get defensive and accuse people of belittling you when in fact it is you who belittle others who don't agree or see things the way you do , I believe that VT was guilty of manslaughter at best but in all truth the evidence points to him being guilty of Murder whichever it is he is responsible for the death of a young lady .
-
VT made a pass at her she rejected his advances and his ego couldn't handle the rejection and he killed her regardless of anything else he is guilty in his own words of killing her
-
After removing the impossibilities the probabilities remain....
Oh course it is feasible that they withheld the information that CJ had seen her at the gate....
But that would only change the day... or the time possibly... And Police forces in the past have been known to want to clear a crime up quickly... As in the Stefan Kizco case.... that too is a possible reason for ignoring what he had said...
The only other reason was if it had been Greg he had seen... and I can't see that either, because after all this time, he wouldn't have to keep the charde up with regards Greg, he just would have to avoid those questions in relation to him,.....
For CJ to lie or not reveal the truth he would have to have something massive to compensate for that information....
And the way in which he had been treated prior, would suggest that there would be no reason for this....
As he was never called as a witness at trial, why would he divulge what he told the police.... even if we wish he would... He had already suffered at the hands of the media and since that has learnt how to get them to eat out of his hand...
I cannot see him wanting the attention from suggesting after the trial has finished, that he actually saw Joanna Yeates at the garden gate...
The implications of that piece of information alone would cause massive repercussions and I don't think CJ would want to be seen as the person who caused them......
Edit.... Leonora... Have you ever written to CJ????
Yes, I have written to the landlord, twice altogether - but he never replied. That was long ago, long before I realised the great importance of his 2nd witness statement. I am disappointed that you are still so sceptical about this.
This police force was anxious NOT to clear this crime up - neither quickly nor at all. So it is nothing like the Stefan Kiszko case. We don't know whom he saw, nor when. It could have been Joanna's boyfriend when he was supposed to be in Sheffield, but I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt. The landlord's statement was precipitated by some discrepancy between something that was said in the first TV appeal, and what the landlord himself had seen or heard. "The Lost Honour..." actually endorses this. I would prefer not to speculate, but it is most probable that he saw evidence of activity inside and outside the flat, on the Saturday or Sunday, after the time when the family and the police stated that Joanna herself had gone off the radar.
The police's lack of a response to his statement must have puzzled him and then worried him, since it was the opposite of what he would have expected from a serious investigation. He claims that the police leaked a garbled version of his 2nd statement to a news medium. This is why he was so angry. This suited the police very well, as the public could understand why they would suspect such a bad-tempered old man. Therefore even the doorstepping was planned!
When they heard he was arrested, VT and his girlfriend were up in arms with outrage, because they knew what he had seen and heard, and it was far from "VERY VERY VERY VAGUE" as the landlord told reporters on TV. So of course they thought he was a liar, and hastened to contact the police to tell them what their landlord really had seen. They too were being set up! This is what really preoccupied the detectives who flew to Schiphol at the taxpayer's expense. They wanted 40 pages of evidence that Vincent and his girlfriend attempted to incriminate the landlord.
Of course he couldn't be called into court to testify, as his evidence would have blown the charge against Vincent Tabak. That was not his choice anyway. But for him to go on seeking the limelight and campaigning against the press - who are not the real villains in his case anyway - is not particularly to his credit, when he has the power to expose the injustice done to one of his own placid tenants.
-
VT made a pass at her she rejected his advances and his ego couldn't handle the rejection and he killed her regardless of anything else he is guilty in his own words of killing her
Now it is me who is laughing. This is just like an episode of "Fawlty Towers" or "The Goon Show". A placid, highly intelligent man spends half his life working hard to gain a high education for which he is head-hunted to the UK. One evening he is bored, so he pops next-door on a whim and strangles his neighbour. And then goes to great unnecessary trouble to transport the body far away, instead of leaving it where it is.
Most people have some difficulty in handling rejection - but only by a partner with whom they already have already been in a romantic relationship.
I don't understand why you believe this "tosh", but since you evidently DO believe the nonsense that he made a pass at her after a few minutes' conversation, then, out of respect for the rest of us, you should explain say why you DON'T believe the parts of his testimony that you choose not to believe, such as his lack of intent to kill.
-
Yes, I have written to the landlord, twice altogether - but he never replied. That was long ago, long before I realised the great importance of his 2nd witness statement. I am disappointed that you are still so sceptical about this.
This police force was anxious NOT to clear this crime up - neither quickly nor at all. So it is nothing like the Stefan Kiszko case. We don't know whom he saw, nor when. It could have been Joanna's boyfriend when he was supposed to be in Sheffield, but I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt. The landlord's statement was precipitated by some discrepancy between something that was said in the first TV appeal, and what the landlord himself had seen or heard. "The Lost Honour..." actually endorses this. I would prefer not to speculate, but it is most probable that he saw evidence of activity inside and outside the flat, on the Saturday or Sunday, after the time when the family and the police stated that Joanna herself had gone off the radar.
The police's lack of a response to his statement must have puzzled him and then worried him, since it was the opposite of what he would have expected from a serious investigation. He claims that the police leaked a garbled version of his 2nd statement to a news medium. This is why he was so angry. This suited the police very well, as the public could understand why they would suspect such a bad-tempered old man. Therefore even the doorstepping was planned!
When they heard he was arrested, VT and his girlfriend were up in arms with outrage, because they knew what he had seen and heard, and it was far from "VERY VERY VERY VAGUE" as the landlord told reporters on TV. So of course they thought he was a liar, and hastened to contact the police to tell them what their landlord really had seen. They too were being set up! This is what really preoccupied the detectives who flew to Schiphol at the taxpayer's expense. They wanted 40 pages of evidence that Vincent and his girlfriend attempted to incriminate the landlord.
Of course he couldn't be called into court to testify, as his evidence would have blown the charge against Vincent Tabak. That was not his choice anyway. But for him to go on seeking the limelight and campaigning against the press - who are not the real villains in his case anyway - is not particularly to his credit, when he has the power to expose the injustice done to one of his own placid tenants.
Leonora... it's not that I am sceptical... It's that I cut through some things that I am well aware are not accurate...
But by arguing on a forum about them may not be the most successful way forward...
CJ stated that he didn't know how the media had got hold of the info..... Everyone forgot he told Peter Stanley and he made reference to it in the papers....
-
I would really like you to explain your agenda. Is it because you cannot resist belittling a defenceless woman poster?
In the Interests of fair play, I must point out that at No point today do I feel that Jixy has belittled me... But thank you for your concern Leonora.
I would like to take this opportunity to state as I'm sure you are all well aware... I truley believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent....
But.... unless someone gives me Strong Hard Evidence to the contrary including... Timestamps on CCTV's and the 1300 page document at the very least.. I will not be changing my mind anytime soon...
-
thank you
-
Jixy 8)--))
Fair is Fair....... And that is what I like Most of All.....
-
i wonder whether there would be anything particularly enlightening to come out of CJ's second witness statement, to be honest.
He might well have seen Joanna, and he might well have said so to his neighbours. On the other hand, perhaps it was true that he was not sure if it was her or not. If he knew she had gone missing, and he knew she was the person he had seen, surely he would have said so in his first witness statement.
He probably wouldn't have known who the other two people were. IMO, if he did see Joanna, then the other people were known to her, but probably not to CJ. After all, he hadn't even known Joanna for more than a couple of months, so he wouldn't have known her acquaintances.
If one of the people had been VT, I'm sure he would have said so, and the police /prosecution counsel would have used it as evidence that he had been with Jo. VT had been his tenant for over a year, and , being an exceptionally tall man, he would have been easy for CJ to spot.
I cannot believe either of the people were Greg or Tanja-------it is known that both were elsewhere (assuming, of course, that it was the Friday night that CJ saw the people).
However, the police should certainly have investigated this sighting, as it is perfectly possible that Jo was killed away from her flat.
-
Leonora... it's not that I am sceptical... It's that I cut through some things that I am well aware are not accurate...
But by arguing on a forum about them may not be the most successful way forward...
CJ stated that he didn't know how the media had got hold of the info..... Everyone forgot he told Peter Stanley and he made reference to it in the papers....
I didn't realise we were arguing, but I agree that my post about the landlord was not very satisfactory. He has been busy explaining away his position as the victim of the press. However, the press acted as they did because of unattributed smears about his character - from a source that they trusted sufficiently to risk the libel actions that he subsequently won. This can only mean that it was the police who were that source, and that the press as well as the landlord were "victims" of the police's covert actions. So the landlord's claim to the moral high ground is questionable.
Here is the landlord's timeline:
(1) On his computer screen, the landlord watches the TV appeal by Joanna's parents and the police, and becomes aware of a discrepancy.
(2) He calls the police and signs a 2nd witness statement recounting how he saw two or three persons on Joanna's front path.
(3) He discusses what he has seen with Peter Stanley and several other neighbours, including VT and his girlfriend. VT and his girlfriend depart for Cambridge and have no further contact with their landlord.
(4) Instead of appealing for these persons to come forward, or eliminating them, as the landlord had expected, the police appeal for a pizza.
(5) Joanna is found dead.
(6) The police hold a press conference announcing that she was murdered. A late-night bulletin on Sky News or some other media reports that her landlord is believed to have told police that he might have seen her.
(7) The landlord is doorstepped by 30 journalists, whom he dismisses angrily, alleging that what he had told the police was "very very very very vague". VT and his girlfriend watch this incident on their shared laptop in astonishment.
(8) The landlord is arrested. VT and his girlfriend decide they must ring the police to tell them that the landlord had told them much more than he claimed on TV. Oh, and by the way, his car was facing the other way round.
-
www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/cops-hunting-a-white-van-man-1694868
www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/304214
I have to assume this was thoroughly investigated at the time !!
-
If one of the people had been VT, I'm sure he would have said so,why would he have said so as that would incriminate him further , The landlord is arrested. VT and his girlfriend decide they must ring the police to tell them that the landlord had told them much more than he claimed on TV. Oh, and by the way, his car was facing the other way round.Did they VT & his girlfriend go to the police to deflect the limelight away from VT which clearly failed , So many facts are not known and open to interpretations , opinions & conjecture making some of the discussions pointless , there are a lot of questions without answers but they seem trivial such as what happened to the pizza , whixh way a car was facing or way things were in a different place like the hands on the clock , the shoes on the shoe rack etc none of those point to who did or didn't murder her but the biggest thing has to be VT's admission that he killed her either by murder or accidently nobody but him can know the truth .
-
If one of the people had been VT, I'm sure he would have said so,why would he have said so as that would incriminate him further
I meant the landlord would have said so, not VT----sorry if I wasnt clear.
-
Morning All.... (arguing) figure of speech.. 8)--))
"The police had phoned us at least twice while we were there. Tanja and I discussed the business of being asked to help move his car in the icy drive on Saturday December 18.
Why were the police constantly contacting them... It appears early on they had decided that it had to be someone in that building... But why??
Paul .. alot of tiny details may be important, we just don't know...
And Dr Vincent Tabak did plead guilty.... But, the question is why??? I do not believe the story he gave on the witness stand... it just covers all the bases:......
:: Whether he had been invited into her flat.
:: Whether he had made sexual advances to her.
:: Whether he had done anything to stop her screaming.
:: Whether he had strangled her from the front or behind.
:: Whether he had attempted to revive her.
:: Why he needed to put his hands around her throat.
:: Where the strangulation took place.
:: Whether he had a conversation with her.
:: Whether he went into the bedroom or lounge.
:: Whether she had done anything to lead him on.
:: Was she dead when he put her in the boot of the Renault Megane.
:: When did he take her to Longwood Lane.
:: Whether his drinking had increased following her death.
These questions are interesting and so early on... And coincidently, Dr Vincent Tabak covered these questions in court... Too coincidently in my opinion...
He never goes beyond them.. he doesn't have an answer because he doesn't know.... he wasn't there...
Even if you believe that he put her on the bed.. he needs to understand why that is important... because her simply being laid on the bed isn't good enough.
The earring was found under the duvet... so her being placed on the bed makes no sense, and they never explained why her other earring was under a pile of clothing??
This is also the reason I do not believe he normally went past Joanna Yeates flat as a means to exit the building... It was Joanna and Gregs private area.. He and Tanja has a much easier means of exit..
If he had gone past there building as much as they make out, then probability dictates they would have seen each other more than once...
The question was she dead before he put her in the car... Is odd...
There must be something about her... Maybe stomach contents or lack of body fluids, would suggest they believed she was alive at this point..
Yet apparently he had her in his flat for an hour..... So if there's a lack of body fluids, this suggest she was killed else where.. Or that when she was found there, body fluids were present....
All I can say is I do not believe he did it!!.. where is the GPS signal putting him in Longwood Lane or following him to that destination??? Now that would be good evidence... Not a pathetic attempt to just cover each base!!!!!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-trial-vincent-275169
-
I've been away for a few days and while away I searched bus timetables on my Google Phone , low and behold my Laptop has that search on in its history so proving that VT could have made searches on his phone while not on his laptop , he could have searched for manslaughter instead of murder to fabricate his story so as to serve a lesser sentence & not a life sentence.
-
I've been away for a few days and while away I searched bus timetables on my Google Phone , low and behold my Laptop has that search on in its history so proving that VT could have made searches on his phone while not on his laptop , he could have searched for manslaughter instead of murder to fabricate his story so as to serve a lesser sentence & not a life sentence.
So your saying whilst he was driving he decided it was most important to check the weather and news.....
I don't think so.... You forgot he was lost for 2 minutes, so it is still impossible for him to do those 2 searches....
He is seen leaving at 1:38am... drives to the centre of Bristol and get lost.....
He doesn't think oww... I know I'll check the weather and news and ring Tanja at the same time.....
If he had done this on his mobile phone I'm sure the prosecution would have pounced on it, to try show he was covering his track.....
They would have corallated the information of the two devices and they never did!!!
Even if you want to take those two searches away Paul, as I can see you do..... Explain what looking for Rock Salt in the Netherlands is gonna do for him??????
Explain how on the 7th January 2011 he managed to look for the pizza and note sent to the pub,... 3 days before it was in the papers.. YET... they didn't bring the pizza and note to trial as evidence!!!!!
Explain where the Dutch text is!!!!!!!
On saying that the mobile phone could play a part in the searches.... So could Tanja's as they where both users of the same laptop.....
Maybe the two searches were Tanja's as she waited to be picked up by Dr Vincent Tabak!!!!!
Mobile phones you are deciding, that he has them attached to his computer history which has not been proven or may not be the case...
He would probably need to sync his computer and phone... Your assuming he does this... The same history would be in his mobile phone and that too would have been said if the searches had been done on his mobile phone!!!
He didn't attach his mobile phone to his work laptop... Now that is highly unlikely!!!!!
Edit...... we are talking nearly 7 years ago... I don't know if it would be possible??? And as for today.. I didn't know you could see your phone history on your laptop as part of your history searches within your laptop....
-
Is it plausible that he switched his GPS signal off ?
Was his story cover all the bases to simple make it fit and to neither confirm or deny the real reasons ,
:: Whether he had been invited into her flat.No one can possibly know that other than her & him (VT)
:: Whether he had made sexual advances to her.It was stated that he blushed or could have ?
:: Whether he had done anything to stop her screaming.In his own words he tried to stop her screaming why would she have screamed ?
:: Whether he had strangled her from the front or behind.What difference does it make strangling her from the front or from behind he still strangled her in his and now your own words ?
:: Whether he had attempted to revive her.That might have suggested it was a accident but there was no mention of this .
:: Why he needed to put his hands around her throat.he placed his hands over her mouth and in the struggle they slipped around her throat ?
:: Where the strangulation took place.VT is the only person who can know that
:: Whether he had a conversation with her.VT is the only person who can know that
:: Whether he went into the bedroom or lounge.He was looking for something to move the body
:: Whether she had done anything to lead him on.VT is the only person who can know that
:: Was she dead when he put her in the boot of the Renault Megane.VT is the only person who can know that but the fact her blood was found there must suggest she was there does it not
:: When did he take her to Longwood Lane.VT is the only person who can know that
:: Whether his drinking had increased following her death & did that leave to his relationship ending and could the fact he tried to cheat on his girlfriend with the victim & he killed her would that not be reason enough for her not to want to visit him rather than her being denied access .
-
Did he have a translating app on his phone for words he only knew it Dutch not English or was he fluent in both languages , Did he know that Maldon do Sea Salt/Rock Salt or was he using a famous Dutch Brand which he knew about .
If he used the Pizza to get her out of the flat or as a lure some other way he would know how significant the pizza is/was .
Why if it wasn't him that murdered or killed her has no one else's DNA been found or even anyone else's name been put forward , we simply don't know We can all have our own opinions but do they really count for anything not being flippant , aggressive or nasty just questioning opinions that are based on conjecture , hearsay or non factual questions worded and made to make a case that he is innocent when in fact in his own words he did it .
-
I've been away for a few days and while away I searched bus timetables on my Google Phone , low and behold my Laptop has that search on in its history so proving that VT could have made searches on his phone while not on his laptop , he could have searched for manslaughter instead of murder to fabricate his story so as to serve a lesser sentence & not a life sentence.
In 2010 when this crime occurred, not many people owned phones capable of performing Google searches. VT and his girlfriend exchanged text messages and e-mails, and he carried out his Google searches on his laptop or one of the computers at his work. Nowhere is there any suggestion that either VT or his girlfriend possessed a smart phone.
You seem to have some kind of undeclared agenda that I do not understand. It is obvious from the evidence that has been posted on this thread that the case against VT was built on absolutely nothing, and this in turn makes it extremely likely that the crime was perpetrated by another. I don't need to speculate about the means they used to get him to say the things he did in court, but without these things there would have been no case against him. So they had to get him to say them. You need to take account of the absence of hard evidence against him when basing your own posts alone on what he himself said in court under some kind of coercion. It would be more respectful to other posters if you explained why you think his own defence lawyer told the court there was probably nothing to like about his client, instead of drawing the jury's attention to the sympathetic character that emerges from the Preface to his PhD thesis, the enthusiasm with which his firm had head-hunted him to the UK, and his good character both in Holland and in the UK (as previously mentioned by the lady from the CPS).
-
Did he have a translating app on his phone for words he only knew it Dutch not English or was he fluent in both languages , Did he know that Maldon do Sea Salt/Rock Salt or was he using a famous Dutch Brand which he knew about .
If he used the Pizza to get her out of the flat or as a lure some other way he would know how significant the pizza is/was .
Why if it wasn't him that murdered or killed her has no one else's DNA been found or even anyone else's name been put forward , we simply don't know We can all have our own opinions but do they really count for anything not being flippant , aggressive or nasty just questioning opinions that are based on conjecture , hearsay or non factual questions worded and made to make a case that he is innocent when in fact in his own words he did it .
*&*%£
Now you know that doesn't make sense..... Why would he need a translating app..... they are "Rubbish"!!!!!!!!!
-
Is it plausible that he switched his GPS signal off ?
Was his story cover all the bases to simple make it fit and to neither confirm or deny the real reasons ,
:: Whether he had been invited into her flat.No one can possibly know that other than her & him (VT)
:: Whether he had made sexual advances to her.It was stated that he blushed or could have ?
:: Whether he had done anything to stop her screaming.In his own words he tried to stop her screaming why would she have screamed ?
:: Whether he had strangled her from the front or behind.What difference does it make strangling her from the front or from behind he still strangled her in his and now your own words ?
:: Whether he had attempted to revive her.That might have suggested it was a accident but there was no mention of this .
:: Why he needed to put his hands around her throat.he placed his hands over her mouth and in the struggle they slipped around her throat ?
:: Where the strangulation took place.VT is the only person who can know that
:: Whether he had a conversation with her.VT is the only person who can know that
:: Whether he went into the bedroom or lounge.He was looking for something to move the body
:: Whether she had done anything to lead him on.VT is the only person who can know that
:: Was she dead when he put her in the boot of the Renault Megane.VT is the only person who can know that but the fact her blood was found there must suggest she was there does it not
:: When did he take her to Longwood Lane.VT is the only person who can know that
:: Whether his drinking had increased following her death & did that leave to his relationship ending and could the fact he tried to cheat on his girlfriend with the victim & he killed her would that not be reason enough for her not to want to visit him rather than her being denied access .
these questions where put to him before he said anything... he never admitted to anything at this point,... So why would they even KNOW the supposed order of events and what or what did not take place!!!!!
Ridiculous to even suggest it.....
If... as you believe it was him.. he could have seen her going to the bins or anything..... what makes it the way that they say it is before they have even got any evidence to support this way the events unfolded....
Why did she scream?????? This is only because DC Joe Goff decided to tell the world .. That the screams heard on the Friday Night was why they knew the time..... (idiot)(IMO)... You are a Detective..... "Detect"!!! don't just hazzard a guess!!!!!
They failed to take into account Kingdoms timeline!!!! Mid morning of the Saturday...
Just because neighbours heard screams does not mean it was Joanna Yeates.... As the time of some of the screams were before she would have reached home.....
"Whether he had a conversation with her???? "... now that doesn't even deserve a response!!!! They need a conversation to explain why he would be in her house....
If the screams are saying he did it immediatley.. then when did he converse with her..... ?? Through the letter box that doesn't have a hole in it?????
Or did he press the Intercom!!! They have to work a way for him to be inside that Flat as there was no forced entry!!!!
She's not gonna let him in...(full stop)......
As for him cheating on Tanja... I really do not believe that possible.... His first proper girlfriend who he was obviously smitten with... Texting and emailing each other constantly, I would not expect him to try it on with the first pretty girl he sees, there is No evidence to support the fact that Dr Vincent Tabak ever tried it on with any other female!!!!
Also... have you really thought about this.... with all his supposed searches, some say stalking... watching violent porn.... texting Tanja.... when did he have time to work!!
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/8523653.stm
-
You are picking and choosing info again. You are dismissing all Tabak says as lies. So why did he tell them. You have no proof whatsoever that he was forced to admit to a crime he didnt commit and at no point then or since has he or anyone come up with anything to back up that theory so that is all it is... a theory to make him look innocent
He googled manslaughter etc and wanted the best possible outcome for his particular situation. There may well be huge holes in his story not because he is innocent but because he couldnt actually tell the truth including all facts as they unfolding.
That was definitely NOT in his best interests to offer anything that would make him look like a murderer...
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/8523653.stm
[/quote
Good example Paul. Anyone who was even quite tech minded wanted the latest one
-
Why is it impossible for me to make suggestions on what may or may not have occurred but it is perfectly okay for you to, your talk and write as if you know VT personally and as if you were there , your opinions can carry weight but mine are dismissed out of hand as rubbish , what gives you the right to belittle , condemn and suggest I'm an idiot , clearly it has to be your way or the highway and you as a threesome attack & deny others opinions & bit unfair really .....
-
I have an hidden agenda. only problem with that is the court agrees and ooosp wait a minute even VT agrees with it by his own confession so how is me thinking he is guilty a hidden agenda ?
By the way it wasn't me who made the suggestion he made a pass at her it was you who offered up the cheating as in making a pass not me! a man making a pass that went wrong and ended up in manslaughter is still afar better option than a murderer serving a life sentence .
-
As for him cheating on Tanja... I really do not believe that possible.... His first proper girlfriend who he was obviously smitten with... Texting and emailing each other constantly, I would not expect him to try it on with the first pretty girl he sees, there is No evidence to support the fact that Dr Vincent Tabak ever tried it on with any other female!!!!
In the interests of sticking to the facts, it wasnt PaultheRed who assumed Tabak was a would be cheat, Tabak brought that idea to the table.
If in fact he was so inexperienced as some people assumed that would only add weight to an over the top reaction if he tried to make advances that were then knocked back
-
David Wadhwani, vice president of Adobe, said: "We'll see over the next 12 months Flash player 10.1, which is the same version of Flash on desktops, running on a variety of smartphones."
The mobile download of Flash 10.1 will be available from this summer on Android and Palm Pre handsets - and with other manufacturers to follow.
Updates are done throughout the year ....... Updates are rarely stable, and anyone with any savvy would wait before updating anything on devices so that all the bugs have been ironed out!!!
You would have to know what phone Dr Vincent Tabak owned and when the update for that particular phone was available to put on his device.... And what bugs and glitches pertained to said update!!!
Currently 19 out of the top 20 manufacturers have signed up to support the video and animation platform.
The update will not be available on the iPhone because Apple has decided not to support the software.
What mobile phone did Dr Vincent Tabak own?????
Familiar browsers
Firefox has finally brought its popular browser to the mobile.
HTC Desire and Legend
HTC launched two new smartphones with a revamped interface
It will feature tabbed browsing, session syncing between mobile and desktops, and currently includes 40 add-ons to make it among the most customisable browser on a handset.
You are deciding he used Firefox as a browser!!!!
I'm still not convinced that even though you sync between devices the search history from your mobile phone would come up on your laptop!!! ( a folder would appear)
It would sync the contents and photo's ,music etc...So that they would be able to be shifted between devices... Once the phone is unplugged from the laptop, the contents would no longer be there... There may be folders but they would be empty!!!
And even if as you say you have evidence left over from the phone.... your laptop would need to be the same operating system for it to be able to read the files... or at least have some sort of plug -in to aid this operation ...
But I still believe that the folders would be empty.. they would just have little kb files pertaining to the fact there had been a sync operation.
So what plug-in did Dr Vincent Tabak have on his laptop???
This evidence you say is not shown or explained in court by the IT Expert!
Also when ever new devices are previewed they do not become available till the August of the next year.. They tease us with the promise of flash phones , only for them to start becoming the last smart phone and really you want something completely different by the time they are released...
Talking all thing smartphone.... Did Joanna Yeates have a smartphone????
Because back in 2010 the battery life was Rubbish!!! So her phone should not have rung at 9:00pm on Sunday the 19th December 2010 if she died on the Friday!!!!
And lets just stop there.... Why didn't the computer whizz kid just get rid of the Hard Drive!!!!!!!!
-
In VT's own words he made a pass at Joanna , In his own words he killed her , if he was such a nice person why has no one raised the fact he is innocent that he hasn't claimed that because what he is covering up is far worse and horrific
-
In VT's own words he made a pass at Joanna , In his own words he killed her , if he was such a nice person why has no one raised the fact he is innocent that he hasn't claimed that because what he is covering up is far worse and horrific
Making a pass is not how the Dutch would say it... that's far too English..
Well, you say own words... At his trial he told a story of how the events were supposed to have unfolded.. Doesn't mean the words were his..
I don't remember him saying he killed her..... I remember him saying he was responsible...
We cannot summise why he hasn't said anything, and why his family hasn't said anything... doesn't mean it's far worse... Doesn't mean he is not Innocent!!!
It could be far worse but at the hands of another!!!!
-
Morning All.... (arguing) figure of speech.. 8)--))
Why were the police constantly contacting them... It appears early on they had decided that it had to be someone in that building... But why??
Paul .. alot of tiny details may be important, we just don't know...
And Dr Vincent Tabak did plead guilty.... But, the question is why??? I do not believe the story he gave on the witness stand... it just covers all the bases:......
These questions are interesting and so early on... And coincidently, Dr Vincent Tabak covered these questions in court... Too coincidently in my opinion...
He never goes beyond them.. he doesn't have an answer because he doesn't know.... he wasn't there...
...
Of course he wasn't there! Until today I had forgotten about the 2nd statement that his solicitor got him to sign during what I think must have been his 2nd day of interrogation in the police station:
"In his second statement Vincent Tabak disputed the validity of the forensic analysis that linked his DNA to the victim’s body, asserted that he had no knowledge of how such a match could have been obtained, and contended that this result had been leaked to the media by a scientist from the laboratory for financial gain."
One or two of the posters on this thread may see red when confronted by an accusation like this from such a placid prisoner. It is strong stuff for people who cry "The DNA on her chest proves he did it!"
Was it the solicitor who came up with this conspiracy theory, or VT himself? Was it just her standard response by a lawyer accustomed to having her clients plastered with enhanced (low-copy-number) partial DNA? Or had she or VT been making a close study of the succession of newspaper articles about the forensics of the Jo case in the weeks leading up to his arrest? I would take the 1300 page document more seriously if it showed that he had opened each of the six or seven articles that gave good publicity to the firm that got the forensics contract.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343462/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Police-hope-frozen-DNA-sample-body-solve-murder.html
This accusation was reinforced by a curious piece of evidence submitted to the Leveson Inquiry long after VT had disappeared into the dark side. This implies that the DNA company used a tabloid newspaper to bully the police into maximising the publicity they got for nailing Jo's eventual killer. Unlike the general public, the scientists knew perfectly well that they had found zero forensics in the landlord's cars, on Jo's front door, nor anything connected with the arrested landlord, so their nose told them that the cops were up to something fishy.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3169359/How-spot-serial-killer-Criminologists-reveal-five-key-traits-common-notorious-murderers.html .....
Placid people can become Killers .... so they wanted to stitch him up he went along with it gave a good story but never complained and couldn't tell anyone cos its too big a burden to bear for him .... Oh Please
-
Since her body was found, lines of investigation have included interviewing partygoers on the street where she lived, one of whom reported hearing screams on December 17; viewing vast amounts of CCTV footage; attempting to trace the driver of a mystery car; and a possible link to the unsolved murder of Glenis Carruthers, who was strangled in Bristol in 1974.
What was to stop one of these partygoers following her to her doorstep???
And the rest of that paragraph was aimed at CJ....!!!!
At this date the sample had been tested and obviously No match had been made in relation to Dr Vincent Tabak or they would have responded sooner....
That's what makes the CPS ladies statement about a planned arrest of Dr Vincent Tabak very worrying!!!!
They had Jack Do Do.... and needed to solve a crime before the Big Boys came in and took over!!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343462/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Police-hope-frozen-DNA-sample-body-solve-murder.html#ixzz4YlA9Ez63
-
He is an intelligent man no matter how many times placid is used as a defence guard for him not being capable of hurting someone that leads to their death
Who would sit back and not say a word and just quietly serve a life sentence after confessing to being the one who ended Joanna's life
His version of what happened could be just that. Yes I agree something else may well have happened and not at the flat but then that wouldnt fit his story about the pass or whatever dutch word you care to use for what he did
If he was hoping for the manslaugher charge to stick, the evening has to appear as casual as possible. Maybe Joanna never waved and invited him in but making a pass out side that lead to death by accident is not so easy to believe is it?
A forced confession didnt have to be anywhere near as detailed as he said. He is a great person to set up because then he even remembers to cry in court and apologise to the family for the pain he has caused. Couldnt have picked a better man to frame... years roll on not a peep. Good boy Tabak!
-
How if he didn't know her did her blood end up in his car boot, who is to say she made it home or didn't go back out, who is to say the ear rings where the ones she wore that day .Why is all the time he has served not once has he said he is innocent that he didn't do it , why say sorry, why say she died at his hands, that he made a pass at her (my term rather than being vulgar) chanced his arm , touched her up gropped her however you wish to put it there is nothing to say he did but equally there is nothing to say he didn't except he admitted it so if he was lying over that who is to say he isn't lying over everything and he did in fact KILL HER.
-
Car boot... or rubber seal.......!!!!
Basically at the end of the day, if the prosecution believed that they had such an air tight case against Dr Vincent Tabak.... with him explaining all on the witness stand....
Why did they feel the need to withhold the 1300 page Document from the Defence until trial..... they should have had that Document in plenty of time....
If there was nothing to CONCEAL!!!!!!!!!
-
How if he didn't know her did her blood end up in his car boot, who is to say she made it home or didn't go back out, who is to say the ear rings where the ones she wore that day .Why is all the time he has served not once has he said he is innocent that he didn't do it , why say sorry, why say she died at his hands, that he made a pass at her (my term rather than being vulgar) chanced his arm , touched her up gropped her however you wish to put it there is nothing to say he did but equally there is nothing to say he didn't except he admitted it so if he was lying over that who is to say he isn't lying over everything and he did in fact KILL HER.
People admit to things they haven't done.... Dr Vincent Tabak would not be the first!!!!!
-
Car boot... or rubber seal.......surely the rubber seal is part of the car and towards the rear which english people call the boot others may call it the tail , tailgate or back of the car , some call it making a pass others call it copping a feel or groping splitting hairs her blood was still in or on the car why? he told us he killed her there is no proof to suggest he was forced to do this equally as there is no way he was so circumstantial so he is either lying or he is manipulating the truth because the actual story is worse and more gruesome ...... The Blood was found in the kofferbak
-
Admit things they havent done for no reason whatsoever have their dna on the body have the blood belonging to the victim ANYWHERE near them and then say sorry
There are some things believable and others not,
There isnt one piece of evidence he was forced into any of this. In fact his care while being 'vulnerable' in prison proves they did in fact look after him
If he didnt go behind a perspex door then im sure that too would spark outrage
I have read all the posts on here but nothing has changed my mind on his own admission he killed Joanne. Any kind of denial or word of wrong doing towards him would be a start but there hasnt been a word
The reason and the only reason for that can only be his guilt and maybe hopefully some genuine remorse if he is the nice guy he is made out to be on this forum.
-
Kofferbak.... you been learning Dutch Paul ????
Andrew Mott said inside the boot.... He didn't say Rubber Seal.... That was DCI Phil Jones many many years later!!!!!
-
Was it or was it not the rear of VT's car be it in the boot or the rubber seal there is no question that it is her blood why was it there
Now let’s say that during the date, you find out the other person is really nice. Now you have a job to do. We call that “versieren” (which literally means decorating). It is like seducing, but not necessarily aiming at sex. For that reason I am not so sure if “to hit on someone” or “to make a pass at someone” are translations with exactly the same connotation. Give me your ideas.
Good to know is the difference between “flirten” (we have that word in Dutch now) and “versieren”. Flirten is much more sophisticated, like giving hints or smile. “Versieren” is already an activity.
-
Was it or was it not the rear of VT's car be it in the boot or the rubber seal there is no question that it is her blood why was it there
Now let’s say that during the date, you find out the other person is really nice. Now you have a job to do. We call that “versieren” (which literally means decorating). It is like seducing, but not necessarily aiming at sex. For that reason I am not so sure if “to hit on someone” or “to make a pass at someone” are translations with exactly the same connotation. Give me your ideas.
Good to know is the difference between “flirten” (we have that word in Dutch now) and “versieren”. Flirten is much more sophisticated, like giving hints or smile. “Versieren” is already an activity.
Versieron....
Stages of the game Decorate [ edit ]
The garnish process usually goes through nine stages: [1]
determine whether someone is a potential partner
determining whether the potential partner is free
the attention draw
Watching a Comment
the potential partner appeal
the potential partner first fleeting touch
acquaintance extend through a conversation.
a link building through much of the potential partner to go.
start a relationship.
If Dutch people were to use English Lanuage terms it would tend to be American Phrases....
Are we Dutch Paul???????????
I believe Dr Vincent Tabak was Inept at best when it came to the opposite sex....
Soul Mates... a place to meet partners.... why did he bother with that... He could have just start knocking on doors to see who answered.... Then use his powers of persuasion to gain entry!!!!!
-
I believe Dr Vincent Tabak was Inept at best when it came to the opposite sex....
Other people have suggested this, but is there any evidence that he was socially inept? It might be that he wanted to finish his studies and settle in a steady job before finding a partner. He appears to have had a circle of friends and a pretty busy social life.
-
I have just been reading up about Tabaks girlfriend visit and what has been noted as a ban to put pressure on him and torment him further
She was actually waiting for clearance to visit which can take a while for anyone not just for him
I have had the same clearance for a different high security prison and it isnt instant even for immediate family members
His Brother and Girlfriend said he was innocent, they visited and then they disappeared, gave up the fight forgetting about him and moving on
They knew him and they believed his confession
-
Other people have suggested this, but is there any evidence that he was socially inept? It might be that he wanted to finish his studies and settle in a steady job before finding a partner. He appears to have had a circle of friends and a pretty busy social life.
A circle of friends is one thing, but having the ability to converse well with the opposite sex is quite a different thing all together...
-
I have just been reading up about Tabaks girlfriend visit and what has been noted as a ban to put pressure on him and torment him further
She was actually waiting for clearance to visit which can take a while for anyone not just for him
I have had the same clearance for a different high security prison and it isnt instant even for immediate family members
His Brother and Girlfriend said he was innocent, they visited and then they disappeared, gave up the fight forgetting about him and moving on
They knew him and they believed his confession
WHAT ...... 23 days clearance!!!!!
I have just been reading up about Tabaks girlfriend visit and what has been noted as a ban to put pressure on him and torment him further
I wish you would give me a link please.....
I don't think they believed what you call a confession... he didn't confess to anyone.... Especially "Brotherton"..
They made everything as difficult as possible for him... isolating him, he didn't get his first visit till after his birthday which I believe is the 10th... all psychological to have an impact on his psycological well being...
His family believed he was innocent always....
Who says they disappeared.... "The Media"????
Maybe they were not allowed to see him... anything to do with Dr Vincent Tabak is NOT straight forward....
-
That is quick actually... it took me about six weeks. I have asked my friend how long her clearance took as she was the partner of the man concerned unlike me. Will get back to you
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3169359/How-spot-serial-killer-Criminologists-reveal-five-key-traits-common-notorious-murderers.html .....
Placid people can become Killers .... so they wanted to stitch him up he went along with it gave a good story but never complained and couldn't tell anyone cos its too big a burden to bear for him .... Oh Please
I read the article in the Mail----I would hardly describe Fred West as an "average Joe" , would you?
The article was actually about serial killers: if VT were one, we would know about it by now.
VT didn't give a good story---it was pathetic!
-
That is quick actually... it took me about six weeks. I have asked my friend how long her clearance took as she was the partner of the man concerned unlike me. Will get back to you
But you were not related!!!! And I'm sure the visiting system is different for remand prisoners.....
-
I have just been reading up about Tabaks girlfriend visit and what has been noted as a ban to put pressure on him and torment him further
She was actually waiting for clearance to visit which can take a while for anyone not just for him
I have had the same clearance for a different high security prison and it isnt instant even for immediate family members
His Brother and Girlfriend said he was innocent, they visited and then they disappeared, gave up the fight forgetting about him and moving on
They knew him and they believed his confession
Is this the same for prisoners on remand, Jixy? I was under the impression that they were allowed three visits per week.
We don't actually know that VT's family has disappeared, and no longer visits him. We don't know that they believe he murdered Jo, either.
-
Their comments in the media give a very good impression that they believe just that...he is guilty.
My point was they arent fighting his corner they arent screaming about his mistreatment are they? Nor are they demanding that a miscarriage of justice has taken place!
-
I have just been reading up about Tabaks girlfriend visit and what has been noted as a ban to put pressure on him and torment him further
So if you know they put a ban on him to pressure him even further and not let him see his girlfriend so they could torment him.... why are we going back and forth with the treatment he received in prison?????
-
Their comments in the media give a very good impression that they believe just that...he is guilty.
My point was they arent fighting his corner they arent screaming about his mistreatment are they? Nor are they demanding that a miscarriage of justice has taken place!
You don't know what other pressure may have been brought to bare!!!!!!!
-
Oh my god! I never said that. its one of the ponts you keep arguing to back up the theory that he is innocent
The wheels of HMP take time especially when a murder has taken place!
My friend just replied and hers was the same kind of timescale and he was on remand and never admitted his guilt to this day but they still had to get through the red tape
-
it can take two weeks or more just to get telephone numbers added never mind anything else and that is for a 'normal' crime!
-
Oh my god! I never said that. its one of the ponts you keep arguing to back up the theory that he is innocent
The wheels of HMP take time especially when a murder has taken place!
My friend just replied and hers was the same kind of timescale and he was on remand and never admitted his guilt to this day but they still had to get through the red tape
Oh My God.... you did say that Jixy...... Oh yes ...oh Yes ..... oh yes.....
I have just been reading up about Tabaks girlfriend visit and what has been noted as a ban t
Now that didn't come from my mouth... You're the one reading up on it....
Oh My God.... Yes ....Yes... ..yes.....
My question is where was it noted????? because I never knew that info!!!!
-
it can take two weeks or more just to get telephone numbers added never mind anything else and that is for a 'normal' crime!
As an unconvicted prisoner, you should get help and support to
• ask for bail
• keep your home and job
• get ready for your trial
• keep in touch with family and friends
• carry on being involved with or running a business, as long as it is legal
• get help with any problems you may have.
http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/PIB%20extract%20-%20Unconvicted%20prisoners.pdf
Well we know that didn't happen!!!
You usually have to fill in a form called a Visiting Order before someone can visit you
in prison (unless you are an unconvicted or civil prisoner)
Visits happen in a hall in the prison. Prison staff will tell you which part of the hall to sit
in.
The governor of each prison decides the times and days that visits can happen. Visits
cannot normally happen on public holidays (such as Christmas and Easter).
Prison staff may have to decide if children can visit you or not. This depends on things
like the offence you have committed and your behaviour while in prison. Prison staff will
tell you if this happens.
Then.....
Your family will usually have to phone the prison to arrange a time to see you. You do
not have to fill in a Visiting Order form.
You are usually allowed 3 visits a week. These visits will be for 1 hour each time.
1 of the visits can be at the weekend.
So there should have been NO issue with visiting... other than the obsticals they put in his way!!!!!!
Or something being....... NOTED!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/PIB%20extract%20-%20Keeping%20in%20touch%20wiht%20family%20and%20friends.pdf
-
give your head a shake. I said what has been NOTED as a ban not that I said it was a ban. On here you have said numerous times that his family have been kept from it and mentioned the torment of that and the clothes he had to wear etc etc . Noted as a ban in no way indicates that I believe there was a ban or would ever agree with you that such a ban was put in place to wreck his head and make him admit to murder just to make it all stop
Noted as a ban.... get it? not Jixy says they did it to make him confess. Totally different and half the reason we are now on page 73 still going round and round in circles
Seeing things that arent there ignoring vital things like DNA Blood in car confession that wasnt made under any kind of duress.
Good idea to read what I wrote not what you think i did or want me to say. Noted.... that isnt said by me!
-
Even more importantly take on board that fact that it is in black and white she needed clearance not something I made up to argue with you!
-
*&*%£
you make me laugh
-
With regards the DNA/ blood..
The Forensic Company are not the best at not contaminating things....
If she had bleed... IE,... the wall.. his car... there would have been alot more blood in in car than a micro dot on the seal...
We are forgetting.... he covered her up so as not to get any evidence in his car.... He didn't take as much care in his home though!!!!!! were was the blood there....
And you still haven't answered how Lynsey Lennon could test Dr vincent Tabak's coat before he was arrested!!!!!!!
And if she had been attacked in her home... where was the blood there????????????
None... it's a clean and tidy crime scene!!!!!
-
Sarah Rayne, 22, met the Dutchman in a hotel room while he was in Los Angeles on a business trip last December.
Miss Rayne says Tabak paid her £155 for sex and then asked her to act out a fantasy in which she pretended to have been drugged by him while he squeezed her neck and "throttled" her.
“He wanted me to pretend that I’d been knocked out by a washcloth he’d soaked in chloroform so he could fantasise that he was raping me while I was unconscious," told the Daily Star on Sunday,
“When I told him there was no way I’d play along with that, he said ‘Let me squeeze your neck while we have sex, then’.
“At first I played along with him. But then squeezing started to turn into throttling. I screamed at him to let me go and he must have been so shocked by my shrieking that he did.”
Hardily a placid man
-
Question:..... Why.. If you lot believe he is as guilty as sin, do you even bother to entertain, the statements of someone like me...
Thought you'd have more important things to be getting on with.... Just a thought ?{)(**
-
Sarah Rayne, 22, met the Dutchman in a hotel room while he was in Los Angeles on a business trip last December.
Miss Rayne says Tabak paid her £155 for sex and then asked her to act out a fantasy in which she pretended to have been drugged by him while he squeezed her neck and "throttled" her.
“He wanted me to pretend that I’d been knocked out by a washcloth he’d soaked in chloroform so he could fantasise that he was raping me while I was unconscious," told the Daily Star on Sunday,
“When I told him there was no way I’d play along with that, he said ‘Let me squeeze your neck while we have sex, then’.
“At first I played along with him. But then squeezing started to turn into throttling. I screamed at him to let me go and he must have been so shocked by my shrieking that he did.”
Hardily a placid man
Is Sarah Rayne,.. Princess butterfly....???? She's a prostitue... easy money from tabloids.... she would say anything...
Biggest Bag of.. I have ever heard...
Pointless bringing her to the table...
-
No she aint princess Butterfly.....
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/218238/Hooker-s-terrifying-tryst-with-Vincent-Tabak
So we have......
(A): Sarah Rayne
(B): Princess Butterfly
(C): Mimi
(D): Michelle...
What did he do give em 50 bucks each and close the door behind them.....
You can pull as many prostitues out of the cupboard as you like.... doesn't make it true!!!!!!!
But Sarah, whose street name is Skylar, said: “I don’t do anything you’d describe as kinky. He told me he saw my photos on the internet and was attracted to me because he liked young blondes.”
Well he slipped up with princess butterfly, with her african decent!!!!!
This is TOSH!!!! Culver City.... you sure someone wasn't making a film!!!!!!
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8858241/Prostitute-claims-Joanna-Yeatess-killer-Vincent-Tabak-tried-to-strangle-her.html
It doesn't make it lies either
The delays in family visiting him could be due Dutch Police Checks on them travelling & also arranging where to stay and time off work etc
-
Tabak was "an intelligent and manipulative man".An astute and proven liar After killing Joanna he had the presence of mind to dispose of her body together with evidence linking him to her flat. He then constructed a cunning plan to cover his tracks,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8856082/Police-Vincent-Tabak-was-intelligent-and-manipulative.html
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8858241/Prostitute-claims-Joanna-Yeatess-killer-Vincent-Tabak-tried-to-strangle-her.html
It doesn't make it lies either
The delays in family visiting him could be due Dutch Police Checks on them travelling & also arranging where to stay and time off work etc
Was that before or after he drove for 3 hours from the peach Tree inn!!!!! OMG... such crap...
It's like a prozza in every port.... lets be serious here...
Dutch authorities... Yer they jumped in with both feet in a bid to help him... NOT!!!!
Tanja lived in this country should not have been a problem... I'm sure her company would have given her time off if needed!!!!
-
Tabak was "an intelligent and manipulative man".An astute and proven liar After killing Joanna he had the presence of mind to dispose of her body together with evidence linking him to her flat. He then constructed a cunning plan to cover his tracks,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8856082/Police-Vincent-Tabak-was-intelligent-and-manipulative.html
So the only thing linking him to her flat is a Pizza??????? oh yer... and a sock.... Not that he'd apparentley been in every room and touched the coatstand that still sat there when the jury went to the flat...
He tip toed... not touching anything but a bloody Pizza...
Why would a Pizza link him to the flat???????? Rubbish....
-
His brother needed the checks & Tanja had already washed her hands of him after discovering his use of prostitutes...
Vincent Tabak guilty: killer fantasised about women being choked during sex
Vincent Tabak did his utmost to convince a jury he was a shy, naïve bachelor who strangled Joanna Yeates in a moment of panic to stop her screaming after a clumsy pass.In his own words he made a clumsy pass and she died at his hands
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8856817/Vincent-Tabak-guilty-killer-fantasised-about-women-being-choked-during-sex.html
-
So the only thing linking him to her flat is a Pizza??????? oh yer... and a sock.... Not that he'd apparentley been in every room and touched the coatstand that still sat there when the jury went to the flat...
He tip toed... not touching anything but a bloody Pizza...
Why would a Pizza link him to the flat???????? Rubbish....
...and his confession?
I have a feeling that if he hadn't confessed the CPS would have had a rather more difficult job securing a prosecution.
-
Posters are reminded that this thread has been reinstated on the basis that comments remain convivial and constructive.
-
In his second statement, Vincent Tabak disputed the validity of the forensic analysis that linked his DNA to the victim’s body, asserted that he had no knowledge of how such a match could have been obtained, and contended that this result had been leaked to the media by a scientist from the laboratory for financial gain.
This fact emerged at his trial. His defence counsel cross-examined, at some length, the very scientist whom his own client had accused of leaking her findings to the media for financial gain - without once asking her to refute this accusation. With a defence counsel like that, who needs a prosecutor?
I wouldn't normally labour such an obvious point, but there is ample evidence available to suggest that this scientist was corrupt, and the miscroscopic blood stains she alleged had been found in the car are thereby invalidated by her own loss of credibility. She even admitted that her findings had not been proved in court. I don't understand why some people haven't got the message yet - that the discrediting of the last items of circumstantial evidence submitted against the defendant proves that the entire trial MUST have been fixed. I don't need to speculate on the actual means used to persuade this vulnerable foreigner, who was deprived of the opportunity to visit his sick widowed mother, to "perform" in court, as they have to be, frankly, disgusting.
Out of respect for the rules, I will restrain myself from dredging up epithets suitable to describe those who continue to reiterate, "He said he did it, so it must be true".
-
The escorts were never checked out by the police. We don't know if any of those stories are true. How can we be sure the man they are describing was VT?
I would imagine that some escorts who actually hate "escorting" and who are doing it merely because they need the money, would jump at the chance to sell their stories to the tabloids. They would have been paid well---perhaps well enough to be able to give up having to work as escorts.
-
On the evening of Sunday 2nd January 2011, according to her testimony to the Leveson inquiry by Avon & somerset Constabulary's Director of Corporate Communications, there were negotiations between Avon & Somerset Constabulary and a national tabloid newspaper to avoid the publication of potentially compromising detail relating to DNA found on Joanna’s body. The negotiations, she asserted, resulted in a compromise. An unattributed source claimed in the exclusive article in the newspaper that a single sample of DNA had been taken from Joanna’s body soon after it was found. The newspaper wrote that the revelation had been made the day after police had released the landlord, but that attempts had been made soon after it was found (i.e., before the arrest of the landlord) to match this DNA with DNA already on police records and with DNA samples taken during the investigation.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/300493/jo-crucial-clue-found/
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/304186/saliva-found-on-jo-body/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346275/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Best-friend-hits-secret-lover-speculation.html
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-rachel-nickell-174025
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1347828/Rachel-Nickell-scientists-DNA-trail-Joanna-Yeates-killer.html
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/321718/more-time-to-quiz-jos-neighbour/
-
In his second statement, Vincent Tabak disputed the validity of the forensic analysis that linked his DNA to the victim’s body, asserted that he had no knowledge of how such a match could have been obtained, and contended that this result had been leaked to the media by a scientist from the laboratory for financial gain.
This fact emerged at his trial. His defence counsel cross-examined, at some length, the very scientist whom his own client had accused of leaking her findings to the media for financial gain - without once asking her to refute this accusation. With a defence counsel like that, who needs a prosecutor?
I wouldn't normally labour such an obvious point, but there is ample evidence available to suggest that this scientist was corrupt, and the miscroscopic blood stains she alleged had been found in the car are thereby invalidated by her own loss of credibility. She even admitted that her findings had not been proved in court. I don't understand why some people haven't got the message yet - that the discrediting of the last items of circumstantial evidence submitted against the defendant proves that the entire trial MUST have been fixed. I don't need to speculate on the actual means used to persuade this vulnerable foreigner, who was deprived of the opportunity to visit his sick widowed mother, to "perform" in court, as they have to be, frankly, disgusting.
Out of respect for the rules, I will restrain myself from dredging up epithets suitable to describe those who continue to reiterate, "He said he did it, so it must be true".
A scientist who sells information to the media has little to do with the validity of the DNA analyses. In any event, VT went on to admit to being there in Joanna's flat which sort of begs the question as to why did he lied in his original statements?
-
...and his confession?
I have a feeling that if he hadn't confessed the CPS would have had a rather more difficult job securing a prosecution.
I agree.... It would have been thrown out of court probably...
-
A scientist who sells information to the media has little to do with the validity of the DNA analyses. In any event, VT went on to admit to being there in Joanna's flat which sort of begs the question as to why did he lied in his original statements?
The problem I believe John is they are not actually scientists... (IMO)
Lydnsey Lennen works as a DNA specialist... nothing to do with being a scientist... I said many many posts ago..
My son was a micro biologist... but he didn't have a qualification to rub togther...
LGC Forensics is basically a lab that gives in house training... No qualifications needed... But a good telephone manner will bag you the job...
-
Experts are working on the sample, thought to come from saliva left by the
killer as he struggled to dump her.
How could they possibly know that the DNA sample was deposited when who ever killed her, left the DNA sample whilst struggling to dump her....
They hadn't arrested Dr Vincent Tabak by this point.....
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/304186/saliva-found-on-jo-body/
BY MIKE SULLIVAN, CRIME EDITOR AND JOHN COLES, TOM WELLS, EMILY NASH AND ALEX PEAKE 12th January 2011, 12:00 am
Just goes to prove that he covered the bases they wanted him to cover, when he was on the witness stand....
There is No way he killed Joanna Yeates... They can't tell you the evidence before an arrest.... 12 days before and goodness knows how many months after that he didn't say anything....
So which clever person... told the media the story of how the DNA came in contact with her?????
Up until this point it could easily have been in a struggle at the flat!!!!
-
It is understood that preliminary results on the samples – yet to go through the full process – have so far not provided a match with anyone on the National DNA Database.
Interesting quote.... Because Lyndsey Lennen said she didn't need to do any more work on the DNA sample..
That could mean they will be of use only AFTER an arrest.
Well what does that say!!!!!!!....
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-rachel-nickell-174025
-
A scientist who sells information to the media has little to do with the validity of the DNA analyses. In any event, VT went on to admit to being there in Joanna's flat which sort of begs the question as to why did he lied in his original statements?
Perhaps he lied about having been in Joanna's flat. There is no evidence that he was ever there, apart from him having said so.
-
On the evening of Sunday 2nd January 2011, according to her testimony to the Leveson inquiry by Avon & somerset Constabulary's Director of Corporate Communications, there were negotiations between Avon & Somerset Constabulary and a national tabloid newspaper to avoid the publication of potentially compromising detail relating to DNA found on Joanna’s body. The negotiations, she asserted, resulted in a compromise. An unattributed source claimed in the exclusive article in the newspaper that a single sample of DNA had been taken from Joanna’s body soon after it was found. The newspaper wrote that the revelation had been made the day after police had released the landlord, but that attempts had been made soon after it was found (i.e., before the arrest of the landlord) to match this DNA with DNA already on police records and with DNA samples taken during the investigation.
From the PDF attached to Leonora's above post ,which is in a quote...
Example 2: On 4 January 2011 we were contacted by the crime
editor of the Sun who had heard that three items of clothing - a
sock, a shoe and something else - were missing when Joanna’s body
was found. This was information that the SIO did not want in the
public domain as it may have been a matter which he wanted to put
to any possible offender. However it was clear that the Sun would
run the story on a ’scoop’ basis regardfess of our view. As a result
the decision was taken to hold a press conference the following day
when the Sun story broke.
Whilst looking at the pdf in relation to the DNA Sample... as in singular... I came across this:...
Sock we know about....
Shoe???????
"Something Else"??????
Now the shoe was mentioned in a very early police conference when DCI Phil Jones insisted that Joanna Yeates was fully clothed..
The "Something Else is really the problem"....... because if it had been her coat she would have divulged that....
More Interestingly is the timing.... The Leveson enquiry was before the trial... So what was the "SOMETHING ELSE " that was missing???????????
This is before the trial... what are they hiding??????
I was wondering if it could be her bag??? I have seen other pictures of Joanna Yeates wearing a black bag with long strap...
The Police Conference when the shoe is mentioned is 28th December 2010
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg369628#msg369628
Greg Reardon, when he returned from a weekend in Sheffield with family and found her gone but her coat, keys, purse and bankcards still at the flat they shared.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/28/joanna-yeates-may-have-known-killer
Wednesday 29 December 2010 00.04 GMT Date of article....
So it definatley was ~NOT her coat !!!!!!!!!
-
The best part about my above post, is that:....
She Doesn't......... DENY IT !!!!!!
So they probalby let them run with the "Missing Sock story"... To keep the other info quiet!!!!!!
On 4 January 2011 we were contacted by the crime
editor of the Sun who had heard that three items of clothing - a
sock, a shoe and something else - were missing when Joanna’s body
was found. This was information that the SIO did not want in the
public domain
No it never came to the public Domain!!!!! "3 Items of Clothing"!!!!!!!!!!!!
I will add that.... There apparently is a seperate Document attached to this statement that Amanda Hirst makes at the Leveson Inquiry.. Called:...
"The murder of Joanna Yeates - the inside story
-
I wonder how the crime editor of the Sun got that information???
Jo had been wearing boots that day, and they were found in her flat, along with her coat. If she WERE wearing shoes (or one shoe) when she was found, this would suggest she had gone out again.
On the other hand, it's all rumour, IMO. Some of what has been printed by the newspapers is just inaccurate, for example, the date on which Vincent and Tanja travelled to Holland, the claim that they had split up, etc.
-
I wonder how the crime editor of the Sun got that information???
Jo had been wearing boots that day, and they were found in her flat, along with her coat. If she WERE wearing shoes (or one shoe) when she was found, this would suggest she had gone out again.
On the other hand, it's all rumour, IMO. Some of what has been printed by the newspapers is just inaccurate, for example, the date on which Vincent and Tanja travelled to Holland, the claim that they had split up, etc.
Yes mrswah.... but we do not know what she wore when she was found... we have already discovered that she had a flower patterned top on plus blue jeans... who's to say she wasn't wearing shoes???
And what is the third item.... Amanda doesn't deny... she basically says they run with the missing sock story...
Also 22nd December her coat was missing.... Think I've put a link on the thread somewhere about that!
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/police-reveal-known-movements-missing-bristol-woman/story-11235664-detail/story.html
So...the "Something else"... that was going to be divulged has to be something else.... Amanda does say 3 items of clothing and never mentions the Coat!
-
More Interestingly is the timing.... The Leveson enquiry was before the trial... So what was the "SOMETHING ELSE " that was missing???????????
This is before the trial... what are they hiding??????
Fortunately for us, the good Lord held his inquiry the year AFTER VT's murder trial, namely 2012. If he had wanted to elicit the truth, he would have invited you and me to sit in on his cross-examination of the trio from Avon & Somerset Constabulary. But he didn't, and the director of Corporate Communications went back to her home in Eastern-Super-Mare content in the knowledge that she had helped to ensure that no heads would roll that day. I wonder when you are going to talk about the elephant in the room?
-
Perhaps he lied about having been in Joanna's flat. There is no evidence that he was ever there, apart from him having said so..... If he lied about being in the flat what else as he lied about or did he lie to cover up the fact he murdered her outside the flat remember this was a calculating, manipulative and clever man who was fluent in at least 2 languages, was headhunted for a job but lied to his girlfriend so if he could lie to her he could lie to anyone
-
Fortunately for us, the good Lord held his inquiry the year AFTER VT's murder trial, namely 2012. If he had wanted to elicit the truth, he would have invited you and me to sit in on his cross-examination of the trio from Avon & Somerset Constabulary. But he didn't, and the director of Corporate Communications went back to her home in Eastern-Super-Mare content in the knowledge that she had helped to ensure that no heads would roll that day. I wonder when you are going to talk about the elephant in the room?
What elephant in the room??????? I thought it was much sooner
-
I wonder how the crime editor of the Sun got that information???
Jo had been wearing boots that day, and they were found in her flat, along with her coat. If she WERE wearing shoes (or one shoe) when she was found, this would suggest she had gone out again.
On the other hand, it's all rumour, IMO. Some of what has been printed by the newspapers is just inaccurate, for example, the date on which Vincent and Tanja travelled to Holland, the claim that they had split up, etc.
That is the $64,000 question mrswah. Normally I would react by suspecting the Director of Corporate Communications herself as the source of the leak, as she is the most obvious source for all unattributed statements (from the police, a neighbour, a colleague) that might be incorrect, especially those that do prove to be incorrect.
However, in this case I believe The Sun paid its usual cheque to some disaffected cop who was fed up with poking the snow with his broom handle when he ought to have been at home enjoying his son's first Christmas. In my opinion the CIO's motive for withholding the information about the missing items was NOT the one that the Director of Corporate Communications stated under oath, but rather a quite different motive.
-
That is the $64,000 question mrswah. Normally I would react by suspecting the Director of Corporate Communications herself as the source of the leak, as she is the most obvious source for all unattributed statements (from the police, a neighbour, a colleague) that might be incorrect, especially those that do prove to be incorrect.
However, in this case I believe The Sun paid its usual cheque to some disaffected cop who was fed up with poking the snow with his broom handle when he ought to have been at home enjoying his son's first Christmas. In my opinion the CIO's motive for withholding the information about the missing items was NOT the one that the Director of Corporate Communications stated under oath, but rather a quite different motive.
has to be a different motive if there is a "THIRD ITEM"????
What is it?????? What is this "THIRD ITEM"!!
-
Picture of Joanna Yeates with Bag I was referring too.....
She wears it underneath her coat...
With the zip at the front... maybe that the part of the bag she goes into to get money from when she is at bargain booze.....
Notice she still wears a rucksack....
She definatley had a bag with her on the Friday 17th December 2010... But there is little or NO reference too it!!!!!!!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
has to be a different motive if there is a "THIRD ITEM"????
What is it?????? What is this "THIRD ITEM"!!
Surely that is obvious? If the second item is a shoe, then the third item has to be the other shoe! To refer to items of clothing as "missing" was manipulative in my opinion. I am sure Joanna had many pairs of shoes, boots, socks and stockings. Who is to say whether any item that was not there was therefore "missing"? Neither the editor of The Sun, the Director of Corporate Communications, Joanna's boyfriend or you can possibly know which of them she might have chosen to put on, and which not to put on.
-
Surely that is obvious? If the second item is a shoe, then the third item has to be the other shoe! To refer to items of clothing as "missing" was manipulative in my opinion. I am sure Joanna had many pairs of shoes, boots, socks and stockings. Who is to say whether any item that was not there was therefore "missing"? Neither the editor of The Sun, the Director of Corporate Communications, Joanna's boyfriend or you can possibly know which of them she might have chosen to put on, and which not to put on.
Could be the other shoe... But what happened to her BAG!!!!!
Also if she was wearing shoes... she would NOT be wearing those huge socks!!!!
As the jeans were skin tight... the socks would be clearly visible...
-
What elephant in the room??????? I thought it was much sooner
Avon & Somerset Constabulary were frequently criticised in public for not doing enough to discover Jo, nor her killer, even though they searched umpteen cubic metres of garbage for the pizza and set 70 detectives on the case. However, life has to be experienced forwards, but understood backwards, as VT's intended father-in-law mysteriously remarked to the press at a time when he could think of nothing more useful to say. Sometimes the energy of the Constabulary deserves attention.
When a grown-up person is reported missing by a partner or spouse in the middle of the night, the most common reasons are a misunderstanding, an argument, drunkenness, forgetfulness, sudden illness, and infidelity. The natural reaction of the police officer on duty to Jo's boyfriend's 999 call would have been to suggest waiting until the next day to see if she turned up of her own accord. Instead, they sent two officers out to Canynge Road within the hour, and, not only that, these officers roused at least some of the other occupants.
-
Talking of missing Items....
The drawing of how she looks when they found her in the foetal position in court.... Shows her without any socks whatsoever!!!!!!
Newspaper Article... please don't look if you think i'm being disrespectful... it's for information purposes only:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2053178/Joanna-Yeates-trial-verdict-Vincent-Tabak-guilty-murder.html
-
He could quite easily have made the story up about going into her flat, misreading the signals making an improper pass and killing her by accident as that would carry a lesser sentence rather than telling the truth that he meticulously planned his attack on her and viciously murdered her , his girlfriend heard the story in her 2 hr visit with him and realised he was guilty as did his brother and female friend, are you seriously suggesting that someone put his DNA on her , Her Blood in his car, the 145 pictures, the many searches he made such as the different sentence for manslaughter compared to murder ( if you hear a body of a neighbour has been found why search manslaughter your instinct would be someone murdered her) , then he was forced to confess and say sorry to the family in court, never instruct his solicitor to say he was innocent or not once before, during or after all this time say he is innocent & has suffered a miscarriage of justice Why one can only presume because he is guilty & did murder her
-
When a grown-up person is reported missing by a partner or spouse in the middle of the night, the most common reasons are a misunderstanding, an argument, drunkenness, forgetfulness, sudden illness, and infidelity. The natural reaction of the police officer on duty to Jo's boyfriend's 999 call would have been to suggest waiting until the next day to see if she turned up of her own accord. Instead, they sent two officers out to Canynge Road within the hour, and, not only that, these officers roused at least some of the other occupants.
Yes.... Also he wouldn't know how long she had been missing for.. especially as Greg had said many times ,as other people had... that she did not always answer her phone...
So.... Basically she could have been missing 4 hours by this point!!!!
-
He could quite easily have made the story up about going into her flat, misreading the signals making an improper pass and killing her by accident as that would carry a lesser sentence rather than telling the truth that he meticulously planned his attack on her and viciously murdered her , his girlfriend heard the story in her 2 hr visit with him and realised he was guilty as did his brother and female friend, are you seriously suggesting that someone put his DNA on her , Her Blood in his car, the 145 pictures, the many searches he made such as the different sentence for manslaughter compared to murder ( if you hear a body of a neighbour has been found why search manslaughter your instinct would be someone murdered her) , then he was forced to confess and say sorry to the family in court, never instruct his solicitor to say he was innocent or not once before, during or after all this time say he is innocent & has suffered a miscarriage of justice Why one can only presume because he is guilty & did murder her
I'll cut to the chase...... 145 pictures are a complete untrue :
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg382603;topicseen#msg382603
Not only he could have made up that story!!!
-
Yes.... Also he wouldn't know how long she had been missing for.. especially as Greg had said many times ,as other people had... that she did not always answer her phone...
So.... Basically she could have been missing 4 hours by this point!!!!
Sorry, but I don't think that is in the least important IN THIS CONTEXT. I see no reason to question the timings in her boyfriend's own timeline. What is important was the speed of the police's response. They responded far quicker than normal police training would have warranted. This suggests that they already knew much more about the case than they want us to believe. The same goes for the choice of the name "Operation Braid". In my opinion these show that they ALREADY knew Jo had been "snatched", and they may even have known she was dead. Why? How could they? Maybe the missing black bag and the green fleece invented by Counsel for the Defence will give us a clue.
-
Sorry, but I don't think that is in the least important IN THIS CONTEXT. I see no reason to question the timings in her boyfriend's own timeline. What is important was the speed of the police's response. They responded far quicker than normal police training would have warranted. This suggests that they already knew much more about the case than they want us to believe. The same goes for the choice of the name "Operation Braid". In my opinion these show that they ALREADY knew Jo had been "snatched", and they may even have known she was dead. Why? How could they? Maybe the missing black bag and the green fleece invented by Counsel for the Defence will give us a clue.
No... I am not questioning the boyfriends timelines.... As far as he is aware is is only missing 4 hours from when he arrives home...
And if he says he tried to contact her and had no response, but that wasn't unusual... then I am agreeing with you that, the police responded extremely quickly to a missing person, who for all intense and purposes was only missing for 4 hours at this point....
Her black bag was mentioned in the crimewatch reconstruction... if i recall correctly .... it had been mentioned in a paper before..
-
I'll cut to the chase...... 145 pictures are a complete untrue :
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg382603;topicseen#msg382603
Not only he could have made up that story!!!
There is no doubt that Counsel for the Prosecution made at least two attempts to get the judge's permission to tell the jury about the defendant's bad character, on account of the adult porn he watched and the escort girls whom he paid for sex. The judge said this was not evidence of bad character. He rejected the applications. There is also no possible doubt that the judge would have given permission to tell the jury about any picture of child abuse found on the defendant's computers, even if there was only one such image. The jury would have blanched, and the judge would have jumped at the opportunity to throw the defendant to PaultheRed, to be torn limb from limb. THERE WERE NO SUCH IMAGES - because if there had been, they would have been used as evidence of bad character. AND BECAUSE THERE WERE NO IMAGES OF CHILD ABUSE, VT MUST HAVE BEEN STITCHED UP.
-
No... I am not questioning the boyfriends timelines.... As far as he is aware is is only missing 4 hours from when he arrives home...
And if he says he tried to contact her and had no response, but that wasn't unusual... then I am agreeing with you that, the police responded extremely quickly to a missing person, who for all intense and purposes was only missing for 4 hours at this point....
Her black bag was mentioned in the crimewatch reconstruction... if i recall correctly .... it had been mentioned in a paper before..
I posted over-hastily, because of course it IS important, even in THIS CONTEXT, whether she had been missing for 44 hours by the time her boyfriend got home, or 24 hours, or 4 hours, or didn't even disappear until after the time when he told the police he got home. Long before the police needed to put the time of her disappearance on Friday evening to enable them to convict Vincent Tabak, they were repeatedly energetic in ruling out any later disappearance. They did not "keep an open mind" as the CIO might have put it.
Oh yes, in my opinion it was champagne that the police would not tell us was in the black bag.
-
Oh yes, in my opinion it was champagne that the police would not tell us was in the black bag.
Tattinger Reims ???????
-
After conviction, details were released of his use of prostitutes and the contents of his computer which showed he had viewed violent and sexual pornography including strangulation pornography. Questions have been asked as to why such evidence was excluded in the trial. In analysing the judge’s decision it has to be borne in mind that not all people who watch pornography are murderers. Evidence of the bad character of a defendant is admissible as part of the prosecution case where it is relevant to the issues and not too prejudicial to a fair trial.
‘Bad character’ evidence is evidence that the defendant has carried out reprehensible behaviour other than the offence charged. It is not limited to criminal convictions. Tabak had no criminal history. The judge concluded that the possession of strangulation pornography was reprehensible and later sentenced on the basis of sexually motivated murder but excluded that material from the consideration of the jury during the prosecution case.
http://thejusticegap.com/2011/10/vincent-tabak-and-the-law-on-bad-character/
-
Vincent Tabak will stay on the sex offenders' register for 10 years, said ... also discovered 145 indecent images of children stored on the laptop.
Vincent Tabak admits possessing indecent images of children
Joanna Yeates’s killer pleads guilty to four charges at Bristol crown court over images found on his laptop so now he has not only killing Joanna but also to having these images so that is 5 things he has now admitted too
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/02/vincent-tabak-admits-possessing-indecent-images-of-children
-
I'll come back to your post Paul... just wanted to say something before I forget... I'm on the peasant shuttle meeting sis.. when u first came to this forum it was not only to see what I could find out about Dr Vincent Tabak.. but something a homicide detective had said on a game chat... he referred to the Joanna Yeates Case as A Cold Case.. anyone she'd any light ???
-
Oh yes, in my opinion it was champagne that the police would not tell us was in the black bag.
Why would the police have wanted to keep that secret?
-
Why would the police have wanted to keep that secret?
Are you trying to get me to post something I shouldn't? The police didn't want to spoil the wholesome image we had of a landscape architect who didn't drink anything stronger than cider nor eat anything more exotic than cheesy chips and finest mozzarella, tomato and basil pesto pizza.
-
I'll come back to your post Paul... just wanted to say something before I forget... I'm on the peasant shuttle meeting sis.. when u first came to this forum it was not only to see what I could find out about Dr Vincent Tabak.. but something a homicide detective had said on a game chat... he referred to the Joanna Yeates Case as A Cold Case.. anyone she'd any light ???
I guess you are talking about the The murder of Glenis Carruthers who died in 1974 Nine ?
-
A second witness has told police they heard screams from the direction of Joanna Yeates’s flat on the night she went missing.The cries were reported to officers while Miss Yeates was still a missing person, just a few days after she disappeared on December 17.It is believed the witness was walking down Miss Yeates’s road at the time.A partygoer at a flat across the road from the 25-year-old’s home had already told detectives she heard loud screams – but put it down to festive high jinks.Both witnesses are believed to have heard the screams around 9pm, less than 15 minutes after Miss Yeates is thought to have returned to her home on Canynge Road in Bristol’s affluent Clifton area.
Detectives believe the scream could have been Miss Yeates being attacked on her doorstep, which would help them to narrow down times on their inquiries.
If she was attacked on her door step that could lead to the fact she never made it into the flat hence why VT's DNA wasn't in there as he was never in there like I pointed out earlier today.....
-
Are you trying to get me to post something I shouldn't? The police didn't want to spoil the wholesome image we had of a landscape architect who didn't drink anything stronger than cider nor eat anything more exotic than cheesy chips and finest mozzarella, tomato and basil pesto pizza.
I read somewhere that Jo and Greg had celebrated, or were about to celebrate their second anniversary together. Also, they were going to have a party the following week. Buying champagne does not seem very odd to me-----could even have been a Christmas special offer.
-
If she was attacked on her door step that could lead to the fact she never made it into the flat hence why VT's DNA wasn't in there as he was never in there like I pointed out earlier today.....
If anyone had attacked Jo on her doorstep, it is likely that CJ would have heard, come down to find out what was going on, and contacted the police. He was in that Friday night, and didn't own a TV, so is more likely to have heard if someone was being attacked in the grounds of the property. He was a diligent landlord, and also involved in neighbourhood watch, remember.
-
The fact that the CSI team failed to identify any DNA profile associated with Tabak within Joanna's flat is neither here nor there. My own feeling is that it was simply a poor investigation, bad luck or both.
Even if VT had carried out a sterile cleaning of the flat, I don't think there is any evidence of this, there would have been some evidence of his presence left behind.
By the way, was there any evidence of a struggle in the flat ever recorded?
-
I agree but I can also see a clear reaosn he lied about being in the flat and that is where Joanna died. he was hoping for a manslaughter charge and the scenario he gave was far more plausible if he said it all happened there
-
Are you trying to get me to post something I shouldn't? The police didn't want to spoil the wholesome image we had of a landscape architect who didn't drink anything stronger than cider nor eat anything more exotic than cheesy chips and finest mozzarella, tomato and basil pesto pizza.
Do you understand the term "Show respect to the Dead " Leonora ???
If so maybe you should try employing some there is nothing in any reports , stories or links that suggest that Joanna had anything less than a wholesome image unlike that of VT who has admitted to using Prostitutes, Hookers (USA term) and viewing Pornographic Images
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1344957/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Similarities-unsolved-murder-Glenis-Carruthers-1974.html
-
Do you understand the term "Show respect to the Dead " Leonora ???
If so maybe you should try employing some there is nothing in any reports , stories or links that suggest that Joanna had anything less than a wholesome image unlike that of VT who has admitted to using Prostitutes, Hookers (USA term) and viewing Pornographic Images
Drinking champagne at Christmas gives someone an "unwholesome image"??? I really don't understand! Most people drink champagne at Christmas, don't they????? Even I do----it is normal.
-
And, by the way, in my opinion, Jo was a normal 25 year old, like any other normal 25 year old. The only difference is that , very tragically, she was killed.
-
By the way, was there any evidence of a struggle in the flat ever recorded?
At first, the media were saying there were no signs of a struggle. I recall that Jo's parents thought the state of the flat was unusual, but I cannot recall whether they thought it was too tidy, or more untidy than usual. It wasn't made clear, and I remember being confused by this at the time. At the trial, Greg testified that he had come home to find disorder, and things out of place, which he had to tidy up.
-
I guess you are talking about the The murder of Glenis Carruthers who died in 1974 Nine ?
I remember that case, in 1974. I was a student teacher at the time, and two of my friends at college came from Bristol, and were really "spooked out" by what happened to Glenis. She was a student teacher too, although at a different college. Yes, it is a "cold case". I believe CJ was questioned about it------or so some media reports (and the film) say.
Although I dont believe VT killed Joanna (and he certainly didn't kill Glenis, as he wasn't even born then), I also don't believe that whoever killed Glenis also killed Joanna. There is too big a gap in years between the two murders. Only a very prolific serial killer, with an extreme talent for not getting caught, could have done both.
-
I guess you are talking about the The murder of Glenis Carruthers who died in 1974 Nine ?
No...... both..... Said he couldn't talk about cold cases....( As in plural)..
I was acutually asking him things to do with Dr Vincent Tabak.... And body fluids...
Him And an American Cop I was talking too... Said he'd get back to me... then a day later said he couldn't talk about cold cases...
All my questions were in relation to this case.... I just thought "Eh"????? seemed strange..
-
He could quite easily have made the story up about going into her flat, misreading the signals making an improper pass and killing her by accident as that would carry a lesser sentence rather than telling the truth that he meticulously planned his attack on her and viciously murdered her , his girlfriend heard the story in her 2 hr visit with him and realised he was guilty as did his brother and female friend, are you seriously suggesting that someone put his DNA on her , Her Blood in his car, the 145 pictures, the many searches he made such as the different sentence for manslaughter compared to murder ( if you hear a body of a neighbour has been found why search manslaughter your instinct would be someone murdered her) , then he was forced to confess and say sorry to the family in court, never instruct his solicitor to say he was innocent or not once before, during or after all this time say he is innocent & has suffered a miscarriage of justice Why one can only presume because he is guilty & did murder her
he could have made the story up Paul... quite correct.... But you still have a time scale to follow....
Please explain why there is NO TimeStamp on the Asda Video?????
-
After conviction, details were released of his use of prostitutes and the contents of his computer which showed he had viewed violent and sexual pornography including strangulation pornography. Questions have been asked as to why such evidence was excluded in the trial. In analysing the judge’s decision it has to be borne in mind that not all people who watch pornography are murderers. Evidence of the bad character of a defendant is admissible as part of the prosecution case where it is relevant to the issues and not too prejudicial to a fair trial.
‘Bad character’ evidence is evidence that the defendant has carried out reprehensible behaviour other than the offence charged. It is not limited to criminal convictions. Tabak had no criminal history. The judge concluded that the possession of strangulation pornography was reprehensible and later sentenced on the basis of sexually motivated murder but excluded that material from the consideration of the jury during the prosecution case.
http://thejusticegap.com/2011/10/vincent-tabak-and-the-law-on-bad-character/
By sentencing Dr Vincent Tabak with regards the Pornography that was brought to trial and was thrown out... Then the fact the Judge used it in sentencing, could that be a reason to look at his case????
How can you sentence someone on evidence that hasn't been proven... Wouldn't that be similar as "Heresay"????
How can that be Fair and True Justice???? As the proof of it being sexually motivated wasn't really proven!!!!
-
I agree but I can also see a clear reaosn he lied about being in the flat and that is where Joanna died. he was hoping for a manslaughter charge and the scenario he gave was far more plausible if he said it all happened there
The Manslaughter Charge was bound to be thrown out... It was a media frenzy... They were not going out without a bang!!! (IMO)..
But it's who persuaded him to plead guilty to manslaughter in the first place... because the defences evidence was poor at best in court.... (1300 pages may have changed that!!)... They hadn't gone in all guns blazing trying to show how it was manslaughter..
The didn't seem to challenge the prosecution enough... No Medical Assessment of Dr Vincent Tabak... No Mitigating Circumstances... Nothing....
They just popped him on the stand and let him take it... He didn't really need to be on the stand to be honest... then the onus would have been completely on the prosecution....
But.... like a song and dance, they had him sat there like a muppet... Knowing how the Jury was bound to respond...
He could have been sat near his own Council and watch it all unfold...
You see... that's another reason I have a problem.... he didn't need to be on the stand... !!!!
And it wasn't like his defence Council were trying to show him in the best light as his abuse of his own client is testiment to that (IMO)...
1: his conduct after Yeates died when he hid the body was “frankly disgusting” and had caused untold anguish and agony to her family.
2: “I’m not going to ask you to like Vincent Tabak. There’s probably nothing to like.”
3: And Miss Morson seems to agree, having failed to make a single appearance at court.
4: He had told “lie after lie to the police.
5: “did everything he could to cover his tracks”.
6: He added that he would not try to justify Tabak’s actions after her death, saying his client was “living a lie” by attending dinner parties and attempting to carry on his life as normal.
7: “I’m not going to ask you to have any sympathy for him. He deserves none.
8: “I’m not going to ask you to excuse his conduct. There can be no excuse.
9: “If I was to set out to win a popularity contest I would lose.
10: He told the court: “Of course, afterwards his behaviour is utterly disgraceful. It’s not going to be justified by me
So why have Dr Vincent Tabak on the stand at all...... when as the Defence you would know what the Prosecution would do with him!!!!!!!!!
Being a Placid Dutchman!!!!
-
Do you understand the term "Show respect to the Dead " Leonora ???
If so maybe you should try employing some there is nothing in any reports , stories or links that suggest that Joanna had anything less than a wholesome image unlike that of VT who has admitted to using Prostitutes, Hookers (USA term) and viewing Pornographic Images
When did Dr Vincent Tabak Admit to using Prostitutes??????? Erm....... Not that I know of!!!!!!
-
Going back to Dr Vincent Tabak taking the stand...
Why did they put him on it??????
I can see No benefit to Dr Vincent Tabak taking the stand!!!!
Basically I think it comes down partly to knowing what was in the statement that he signed , did that have a full explanation as to the events that were supposed to have taken place???
I don't believe it did.. I can't defineatly say as I haven't seen the statement, butI believe the explanation came later..
So again why put him on the stand???
I ask this question because he has already pleaded guilty to manslaughter, it was for the prosecution to take up the mantle and prove that his intention was murder..
Ordinarily you would have a defendant on the stand trying to prove his Innocence , but in this trial, that wasn't the case.. And with the display we saw from Dr Vincent Tabak sobbing, he was not a very good person to be put on the stand...
Why did his defence team put him there???
We have had NO medical assesement of Dr Vincent Tabak made available, and if he was in such a depressed state, that in itself would lean towards him being an unreliable witness/defendant..
If there is little or no evidence in his signed staement. the prosecution would have to prove intent...
All they managed to do was destroy him on the witness stand and turn him into a blubbering mess..
What is that about!! Why would his Councel allow this????
This is governed by s35 Criminal Justice and Public Order 1994 (part of Michael Howard’s ‘tough on crime’ policy). This states that, provided there is no physical or mental reason why a defendant shouldn’t give evidence, then if they don’t “the court or jury, in determining whether the accused is guilty of the offence charged, may draw such inferences as appear proper from the failure of the accused to give evidence or his refusal, without good cause, to answer any question“.
If he remained silent.. I cannot see how the prosecution would prove intent to murder..
It the defendant demeour on the stand that sways the Jury more often than not, and by placing him on the stand, they left him wide open..
As we are aware... as I have said before, I believe the statements made by the Defence about their own client buried him in the minds of the Jury...
So why have him on the stand???
This has given rise to a huge amount of case law looking at when this applies, and what the Judge should tell the jury when a defendant doesn’t give evidence. The Crown Court Bench Book has the following guidance which judges should make sure the jury are aware of:
The judge will have told the jury that the burden of proof remains up on the prosecution throughout and what the required standard is.
It is necessary for the judge to make clear to the jury that the defendant is entitled to remain silent. That is his right and his choice. The right of silence remains.
An inference from failure to give evidence cannot on its own prove guilt.That is expressly stated in section 38(3) of the Act.
Therefore, the jury must be satisfied that the prosecution have established a case to answer before drawing any inferences from silence. Of course, the judge must have thought so or the question whether the defendant was to give evidence would not have arisen.
But the jury may not believe the witnesses whose evidence the judge considered sufficient to raise a prima facie case. It must therefore be made clear to them that they must find there to be a case to answer on the prosecution evidence before drawing an adverse inference from the defendant’s silence.
If, despite any evidence relied upon to explain his silence or in the absence of any such evidence,the jury conclude the silence can only sensibly be attributed to the defendant’s having no answer or none that would stand up to cross-examination, they may draw an adverse inference.
Baring in mind that it would purely be on the Prosecution to prove Murder. if Dr VincentvTabak had remained silent... Then I believe the Manslaughter would have been the outcome..
If The Defence had listened to their own timelines, and read up on the 1300 page Document I might then have understood why they had him on the stand.. Also proper cross examnation of prosecution witness's...
The evidence within the 1300 page Document would prove he didn't do it... coupled with the Timestamps on the Asda video's...
I keep asking myself... what was this case????
People have said what a good Lawyer he is... But I disagree.. your only as good as your last case... And Dr Vincent Tabak case... And I quote!!!
“If I was to set out to win a popularity contest I would lose.
But it wasn't a popularity contest... You were supposed to be fighting for a man's freedom... And if you took the time to Look at your own statement you would have know he couldn't do it.....
On the one hand the defence said that Miss Yeates died between 9:00pm and 9:30pm... Then on the other hand he said that Dr Vincent Tabak remained in his flat till 9:29pm.....
So could not have done it.....
So again... I will ask.... WHY PUT HIM ON THE STAND!!!!!!!!
How did he defend his client???
Because... I can't see how he did (IMO)
http://ukcriminallawblog.com/why-wouldnt-a-defendant-give-evidence/
Heres an interesting read:..
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-destroy-a-witness-on-the-stand-2013-7?IR=T
-
Please look at it from the other side for just a minute.
I was thinking the very same thing yesterday BUT if he didnt take the stand he could have still been thrown to the wolves as you see it
He gave his version of the night either with holes because he watered down his version of events or he made the whole thing up. Obviously we differ on that reason!
He most likely wanted to give 'his' evidence, a misjudgement that went wrong, he didnt mean it and most importantly he was sorry hence the crying and apologising
A gamble maybe but unless we have been in the position how do we know what option we would choose. Nowhere is it stated he is a stupid man lacking any sort of intelligence so maybe he opted for damage limitation
If you knew you were facing a murder charge, which would you hope for?
-
5. Lawyers can still find other ways to trip witnesses up without calling them names
On cross-examination, lawyers should pay close attention to how quickly their witnesses talk, and to how quickly they're breathing, Singer tells us.
"If somebody is a fast talker, you want to speak slowly. If somebody is a slow talker, you want to talk very quickly," Singer says. "It trips them up. I'm a fast talker, and if somebody speaks slowly, I want to kill them."
Lawyers should look at how quickly witnesses breath and try to push their buttons to make their hearts race. But lawyers need to be subtle button-pushers. If lawyers blatantly attack witnesses on cross-examination, they may end up looking like bullies.
"A jury's sympathy will always be with the witness because they identify with the person ... They expect that the lawyer has all of the cards and the witness is at a disadvantage, especially on cross," Critelli says. "So as an attorney you need to anticipate this and try and figure out a way to get the jury to turn on the witness — that is come to a belief that they can't trust the person."
Yes... Get the Jury to turn on a witness... But Not your own defendant.....
1: his conduct after Yeates died when he hid the body was “frankly disgusting” and had caused untold anguish and agony to her family.
2: “I’m not going to ask you to like Vincent Tabak. There’s probably nothing to like.”
3: And Miss Morson seems to agree, having failed to make a single appearance at court.
4: He had told “lie after lie to the police.
5: “did everything he could to cover his tracks”.
6: He added that he would not try to justify Tabak’s actions after her death, saying his client was “living a lie” by attending dinner parties and attempting to carry on his life as normal.
7: “I’m not going to ask you to have any sympathy for him. He deserves none.
8: “I’m not going to ask you to excuse his conduct. There can be no excuse.
9: “If I was to set out to win a popularity contest I would lose.
10: He told the court: “Of course, afterwards his behaviour is utterly disgraceful. It’s not going to be justified by me
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-destroy-a-witness-on-the-stand-2013-7?IR=T
-
If you knew you were facing a murder charge, which would you hope for?
I would hope my lawyer had my interests first and foremost... And ALL THE EVIDENCE was brought to trial and given to my Lawyer way before the trial took place...
I would want CCTV Timestamps available..
I would want ever effort afforded to me to prove my innocence....
Not have to battle with my Lawyer because he tells the Jury that I am a Liar..... by saying......
He had told “lie after lie to the police.
Ooooo..... yes please..... help me... The way you woo the Jury makes me confident I will win..... NOT!!
Lets put it this was Jixy... with that type of defence strategy... would you want him to defend you in a murder trial??????
The type were they will discredit you!!!!!
-
The points you make might resemble what happened but that wasnt your question. The question was why would he give evidence
Im sure if all that was said he wouldnt have expected it. What was said, his legal representation etc is a whole different argument
There is only so much you can do when someone has said they are guilty of the death of another person. You cant really prove their guilt if they themselves stand there and say yes I did it but I didnt mean to.
The trial was to work out was it murder or manslaughter not if confirm if he did it. He had done that already.
-
The points you make might resemble what happened but that wasnt your question. The question was why would he give evidence
Im sure if all that was said he wouldnt have expected it. What was said, his legal representation etc is a whole different argument
There is only so much you can do when someone has said they are guilty of the death of another person. You cant really prove their guilt if they themselves stand there and say yes I did it but I didnt mean to.
The trial was to work out was it murder or manslaughter not if confirm if he did it. He had done that already.
Manslaughter exactly... So why put him on the stand??? And why let the jury know you despise your own client??
So if he sat back and wasn't on the stand it would be more difficult for the prosecution.....
They wouldn't have had a show!!!!!!
Isn't this Misconduct on the defences part ???? Turning the Jury against your own client?????
-
Please look at it from the other side for just a minute.
I was thinking the very same thing yesterday BUT if he didnt take the stand he could have still been thrown to the wolves as you see it
He gave his version of the night either with holes because he watered down his version of events or he made the whole thing up. Obviously we differ on that reason!
He most likely wanted to give 'his' evidence, a misjudgement that went wrong, he didnt mean it and most importantly he was sorry hence the crying and apologising
A gamble maybe but unless we have been in the position how do we know what option we would choose. Nowhere is it stated he is a stupid man lacking any sort of intelligence so maybe he opted for damage limitation
If you knew you were facing a murder charge, which would you hope for?
Don't think he gambled with anything.... Gambling suggest that you have a chance!!!
He Defence would have advised or told him to take the stand... I think he was very much the type of person who would comply with authority..
Wasn't it DCI Phil Jones who said: A Very Placid Individual To Deal With......
How can he give evidence on something he obviously didn't know anything about.. apart from what I believe he was told to say...
The police cannot release the evidence in the paper before he has been arrested... How would they Know how the DNA got on Joanna Yeates body????
Like I keep saying.... He told a story that was NOT his.... evidence of more than the DNA in the paper proves that... and all before Dr Vincent Tabak is arrested!!!
-
If you lose your appeal
Your original sentence or conviction won’t change but you might have to:
restart your sentence from the beginning
pay the court costs
Maybe this is a reason Dr Vincent Tabak hasn't appealed amongst others...!!!!
https://www.gov.uk/appeal-against-sentence-conviction/crown-court-verdict
You must apply within 28 days of either:
the date you were convicted (even if you were sentenced at a later date) if you’re appealing against your conviction
the date you were sentenced if you’re appealing against your sentence
So the time ran out... what can he do now?????
-
If The Defence Council didn't get their own DNA tests done, is that "Ineffective Assistance of Counsel" ???
Does anyone know what tests the Defence Council did on the DNA Samples?????
-
http://guiltypleaproblem.org/
-
He Defence would have advised or told him to take the stand... I think he was very much the type of person who would comply with authority..
Yes, I agree. VT had a choice as to whether or not to take the stand, but I would imagine he was advised to by his defence team. He was probably told that it would "look better " for him. Same with his "no comment" police interview: he said in court that his lawyer had advised him to do that.
He had no experience of the police, or of lawyers, or of court, and he was alone in a foreign country. I would not be surprised if he did everything he was told, believing that this would produce the best outcome for him.
-
If The Defence Council didn't get their own DNA tests done, is that "Ineffective Assistance of Counsel" ???
Does anyone know what tests the Defence Council did on the DNA Samples?????
I could be wrong about this, but I believe the DNA samples available were all used up in the "enhancing" process. The results could not be challenged.
-
I could be wrong about this, but I believe the DNA samples available were all used up in the "enhancing" process. The results could not be challenged.
Dr Vincent Tabak had nothing going for him did he ??????
-
Yes, I agree. VT had a choice as to whether or not to take the stand, but I would imagine he was advised to by his defence team. He was probably told that it would "look better " for him. Same with his "no comment" police interview: he said in court that his lawyer had advised him to do that.
He had no experience of the police, or of lawyers, or of court, and he was alone in a foreign country. I would not be surprised if he did everything he was told, believing that this would produce the best outcome for him.
Well I would say the Defence knew that the Prosecution would make mince meat of him... He never opposed the prosecutions badgering of their client on the witness stand....
He obviously was put there for a show.. "Go On Dr Vincent Tabak... tell the nice jury what you did"!! (IMO)
Really... hardly a good defence for a Foreign National!!!
Where were the mitigating circumstances!!!!!!!
There was nothing positive put before the Jury in any shape or form for Dr Vincent Tabak!!!!!!
-
After finding this article with regards Dr Vincent Tabak, I was interested to read that his mother was an agoraphobic..
Agoraphobia is an anxiety disorder and anxiety disorders run within families, ... And with anxiety disorders many other spectrums can be involved.
Ordinarily people just associate agoraphobia, with the inability to go outside or scared of open spaces... But there is more to it than that...
Agoraphobia arises from anxiety and panic and to stop these conditions happening agoraphobic's like to stay where they feel safe. So leaving the home is less likely.
Dr Vincent Tabak's mental health assessment should have been brought to court especially as there is mental health issues within his family...
Why have we never seen anything to do with Dr Vincent Tabak's mental health??
If his mother is agoraphobic, she will not be travelling to this country to visit her son... And this too could be a reason we do not here anything from Dr Vincent Tabak, he may be hoping that if he complys they will send him back to Holland.
If he has some kind of anxiety disorder, it would make sense why he keeps in constant contact with Tanja, And why he wouldn't venture next door for any reason!!!!
Marcel said:The family believes it's in Vincents best interest if we do not make any comments
It says it all doesn't it!!! They do not know what to do for the best!!!!!!
Edit:.... statistically how many Murders are they that have anxiety and panic disorder?????
I bet there isn't even a statistic for it!!!!
Most people who have these disorder either take medication or learn to deal with it, by having routines.. And distraction tactics... Sudden changes do not suit people of this nature..
Maybe the defence should have concentrated more on Dr Vincent Tabaks routine.... Because I bet he did the same thing every day...
And when we hear about his socialising, it's only when he's in the company of Tanja, someone he feels safe with!!!!
His crying on the stand could be a coping mechanisim, with the stress levels being so high!!!!
His apologising, his responsibility could be just wanting it all to stop... because Panic disorder and anxiety suffers who use their own methods to contain it, need the freedom to escape any situation that they are in... And on a witness stand there is no escape!!
Double edit:... Just thought about when the CPS lady refers to Dr Vincent Tabak's decision to visit the big Asda in bedminster as "Frankly weird"...
Well if he doesn't particularly like enclosed spaces that would be a good reason to visit the Asda store late at night when there is more space and less people... Frankly it's weird not understanding or trying to understand why people may or may not do something!!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055167/Vincent-Tabak-Girlfriend-Tanja-Morson-saved-fate-Joanna-Yeates-guardian-angel.html
-
People who suffer such disorders are at more risk of harming themselves than others...
They are at a higher risk of suicide.. Maybe thats why he was put in a perspex cage!!!!!
-
After finding this article with regards Dr Vincent Tabak, I was interested to read that his mother was an agoraphobic..
Agoraphobia is an anxiety disorder and anxiety disorders run within families, ... And with anxiety disorders many other spectrums can be involved.
Ordinarily people just associate agoraphobia, with the inability to go outside or scared of open spaces... But there is more to it than that...
Agoraphobia arises from anxiety and panic and to stop these conditions happening agoraphobic's like to stay where they feel safe. So leaving the home is less likely.
Dr Vincent Tabak's mental health assessment should have been brought to court especially as there is mental health issues within his family...
Why have we never seen anything to do with Dr Vincent Tabak's mental health??
If his mother is agoraphobic, she will not be travelling to this country to visit her son... And this too could be a reason we do not here anything from Dr Vincent Tabak, he may be hoping that if he complys they will send him back to Holland.
If he has some kind of anxiety disorder, it would make sense why he keeps in constant contact with Tanja, And why he wouldn't venture next door for any reason!!!!
It says it all doesn't it!!! They do not know what to do for the best!!!!!!
Edit:.... statistically how many Murders are they that have anxiety and panic disorder?????
I bet there isn't even a statistic for it!!!!
Most people who have these disorder either take medication or learn to deal with it, by having routines.. And distraction tactics... Sudden changes do not suit people of this nature..
Maybe the defence should have concentrated more on Dr Vincent Tabaks routine.... Because I bet he did the same thing every day...
And when we hear about his socialising, it's only when he's in the company of Tanja, someone he feels safe with!!!!
His crying on the stand could be a coping mechanisim, with the stress levels being so high!!!!
His apologising, his responsibility could be just wanting it all to stop... because Panic disorder and anxiety suffers who use their own methods to contain it, need the freedom to escape any situation that they are in... And on a witness stand there is no escape!!
Double edit:... Just thought about when the CPS lady refers to Dr Vincent Tabak's decision to visit the big Asda in bedminster as "Frankly weird"...
Well if he doesn't particularly like enclosed spaces that would be a good reason to visit the Asda store late at night when there is more space and less people... Frankly it's weird not understanding or trying to understand why people may or may not do something!!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055167/Vincent-Tabak-Girlfriend-Tanja-Morson-saved-fate-Joanna-Yeates-guardian-angel.html
VT's preference for the bigger supermarket is not weird at all, IMO. It is in keeping with the work he did: studying the movement of people around buildings and spaces. I would imagine he was merely interested.
I don't think he had any known psychiatric disorder when he was first arrested and placed in custody. He admitted to the nurse who examined him in prison that the only medication he used was herbal sleeping tablets, so he was obviously not in receipt of any psychiatric medication from his GP or from a hospital.
I agree that he and his family are (IMO) making as little fuss and noise as possible, in the hope that he might be allowed to serve his sentence in Holland, where his mother will be able to visit him.
-
VT's preference for the bigger supermarket is not weird at all, IMO. It is in keeping with the work he did: studying the movement of people around buildings and spaces. I would imagine he was merely interested.
I don't think he had any known psychiatric disorder when he was first arrested and placed in custody. He admitted to the nurse who examined him in prison that the only medication he used was herbal sleeping tablets, so he was obviously not in receipt of any psychiatric medication from his GP or from a hospital.
I agree that he and his family are (IMO) making as little fuss and noise as possible, in the hope that he might be allowed to serve his sentence in Holland, where his mother will be able to visit him.
Suffering from Anxiety or Panic disorder does not mean you need to take medication, if learnt behaviours assist you in dealing with such issues...
He would not have necessarily told the nurse that he has this disorder, and we do not know if he would have sort medical attention for it in the past.... Most people keep such mental health issues to themselves as there is a massive taboo with anything mental health related.
Herbal sleeping tablets, always a possibility he didn't trust convention medicine if his mother took it to treat her own problems!!!
http://www.encyclopedia.com/medicine/diseases-and-conditions/pathology/panic-disorder
-
Maybe this is a reason Dr Vincent Tabak hasn't appealed amongst others...!!!!
https://www.gov.uk/appeal-against-sentence-conviction/crown-court-verdict
So the time ran out... what can he do now?????
The likelihood of any appeal is severely limited because of his admission to manslaughter. However, if someone were to come forward and admit to the crime the case would have to be reopened. I must add that I find that particular scenario highly unlikely.
-
If The Defence Council didn't get their own DNA tests done, is that "Ineffective Assistance of Counsel" ???
Does anyone know what tests the Defence Council did on the DNA Samples?????
If the defence was being paid out of legal aid no independent tests would have been carried out.
-
If the defence was being paid out of legal aid no independent tests would have been carried out.
So how is that fair??????? he did get legal aid!!!
-
So how is that fair??????? he did get legal aid!!!
As I found out from bitter experience, legal aid gets you a lawyer and sometimes a barrister but little else. The prosecution however can spend virtually limitless sums on investigations, on witnesses and on experts. No it isn't fair but that is the system we in the UK are stuck with.
I'm afraid that in the world of justice, money does talk!
-
As I found out from bitter experience, legal aid gets you a lawyer and sometimes a barrister but little else. The prosecution however can spend virtually limitless sums on investigations, on witnesses and on experts. No it isn't fair but that is the system we in the UK are stuck with.
I'm afraid that in the world of justice, money does talk!
Well that is hardly Justice then is it!!! Not surprised he didn't stand a cat in hells chance of getting a fair trial (IMO)
-
The likelihood of any appeal is severely limited because of his admission to manslaughter. However, if someone were to come forward and admit to the crime the case would have to be reopened. I must add that I find that particular scenario highly unlikely.
Yes, John, I agree it is unlikely------but such things have happened before.
-
My question is: How do you help someone who obviously can't help themselves??????
-
My question is: How do you help someone who obviously can't help themselves??????
Maybe VT has resigned himself to his punishment and just wants to get on with it?
-
Could this have been a practise run?
Prostitute claims Joanna Yeates's killer Vincent Tabak tried to strangle her
An American prostitute has claimed Vincent Tabak tried to strangle her weeks before he murdered Joanna Yeates.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8858241/Prostitute-claims-Joanna-Yeatess-killer-Vincent-Tabak-tried-to-strangle-her.html
-
Maybe VT has resigned himself to his punishment and just wants to get on with it?
It is a lot easier than having a load of nut jobs saying you are innocent and trying to get you out.
-
Could this been a practise run?
Prostitute claims Joanna Yeates's killer Vincent Tabak tried to strangle her
An American prostitute has claimed Vincent Tabak tried to strangle her weeks before he murdered Joanna Yeates.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8858241/Prostitute-claims-Joanna-Yeatess-killer-Vincent-Tabak-tried-to-strangle-her.html
There is no evidence that this ever took place, John, or if it did, that the person was VT. The police did not even investigate these escorts.
-
Maybe VT has resigned himself to his punishment and just wants to get on with it?
Always a possibility!
-
Always a possibility!
He will be moved to Holland in due course and I believe the prison regime there is quite civilised.
-
He will be moved to Holland in due course and I believe the prison regime there is quite civilised.
How is that likely to happen John???? It would be a start.....
Other people make judgements about the intentions of others without balancing the evidence that is available, and not questioning, far too many inconsistencies in this case, even If people believe in his guilt, they must admit that things just don't add up.....
So I am Happy to be apart of the discombobulation of lunatics society, I believe in his Innocence and maybe if there where more people in this country who give others a chance, then our prisons wouldn't have Innocent people languishing inside them.
-
He will be moved to Holland in due course and I believe the prison regime there is quite civilised.
How do you know that, John?
BTW, I read that they are closing prisons in Holland-----because they don't have enough prisoners to fill them!!
-
How do you know that, John?
BTW, I read that they are closing prisons in Holland-----because they don't have enough prisoners to fill them!!
lol... well maybe they need to send Dr Vincent Tabak over...
-
A difficult balancing exercise’
It was a difficult balancing exercise for the judge but, in my view, the right one: The only issue in the trial was intent and not sexual motive. That depended on the level of force and the time it would take to kill. In the end the pornography could only support a suggestion that he liked violent sex. This would have been admissible if he had denied killing, but he didn’t. In addition, the evidence was that most viewing of pornography was after the killing so, on balance, viewing strangulation pornography after the event would be more prejudicial than probative in a trial as it could cause the jury to leap to a conclusion rather than reaching a verdict on the evidence. Tabak’s sexual conduct online and with prostitutes could also have been used to rebut his assertions that he was morally correct but he was obviously such apoor witness that, as the verdict shows, it was better to reach a safe conviction on direct expert evidence than one based on an examination of his character and leave the now proved motive to the judge when setting the sentencing tariff.
So leonora stated that she believe that the porn arguement probably happened over two appearances, One when he goes to the old bailey and two when he was at trial...
Either way it was a poinless exersise according to this quote from the JusticeGap...
In the end the pornography could only support a suggestion that he liked violent sex. This would have been admissible if he had denied killing,
Obviously these Lawyers have the experience to know that the porn would not be admissible at trial, so the arguement is completely pointless even if it was as the old Bailey it was first mentioned..
If by admitting he killed her... the porn could not be used... Both the Prosecution and the defence knew this..... (makes words like green and cabbage looking, spring to mind)...
So it shows that the porn was just for the media, and to plant in the mind of the public he was a sexual deviant!!! Not for any other reason than that...
I do not believe the porn existed and the arguement in court seems ridiculous if both the Prosecution and the Defence where aware that it wouldn't be admissible... taking picture to a judge and saying that they were on Dr Vincent Tabak computer without proof, is extremely easy to do.. The prosecution are fully aware that it would be thrown out, because Dr Vincent Tabak had pled guilty to manslaughter... So the only reason they were brought was to be used AFTER trial....
Why the judge even used the NONE fact of there existence to sentence Dr Vincent Tabak is beyond me!!!!!
Which beggars the question HOW????...the Judge could sentence him on the porn when it wasn't relevant or admissible???
So.....
The judge concluded that the possession of strangulation pornography was reprehensible and later sentenced on the basis of sexually motivated murder but excluded that material from the consideration of the jury during the prosecution case.
Is that even Legal???????
Basically.... there was NO bad character evidence in relation to Dr Vincent Tabak... So where was his GOOD Character referrances??????
http://thejusticegap.com/2011/10/vincent-tabak-and-the-law-on-bad-character/
-
Tabak’s sexual conduct online and with prostitutes could also have been used to rebut his assertions that he was morally correct but he was obviously such apoor witness that, as the verdict shows,
Well two questions in relation to this......
The prosecution should have argued that the so called prostitutes were brought to court to show his bad character, if he was such a poor witness it would be perfect for them... they could have run rings around him....
And secondly.... if he was such a poor witness which the defence should have realised early on before trial.... why did they put him on the stand in the first place!!!!!
http://thejusticegap.com/2011/10/vincent-tabak-and-the-law-on-bad-character/
-
I always wanted to know what the green tarpaulin was for .... I have found the contractors
Workmen from D.R.A Maintenance Ltd put poles and green tarpaulin around Jo’s basement flat and Flat 2, which also overlooks the garden.
D R A Maintenance Ltd, address is at Channel Farm Oakridge Lane, Sidcot, Winscombe, Avon, BS25 1NJ and phone is 01934 842 975. Services/business category-Plumbers in Winscombe
D R A Maintenance Ltd
Channel Farm Oakridge Lane, Sidcot, Winscombe, Avon, BS25 1NJ
01934 842 975
BS25 1NJ
Plumbers in Winscombe
What did they need plumbers for ????
http://www.tradesmencorner.co.uk/listings/d-r-a-maintenance-ltd-01934-842-975/
I've attached a photograph... This has pavement slabs removed and replaced... there is also a manhole cover..
To me this suggests that they thought she had been down the manhole cover..
And the only reason for that is that she had not been on Longwood lane for 8 days....
The same outside Joanna Yeates flat???
I can't believe it was the sock they where looking for they wouldn't need tarpaulin for that!!!!
What are they looking for?????
It's either they thought she had been down there or they may have been looking for the clothes she wore on the friday...????
Anyone any ideas????
http://swns.com/news/tarpaulin-put-around-jo-yeates-and-neighbour-vincent-tabaks-flats-13962/
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I always think I'm missing something... it has to be in plain sight... But I don't know what it is...
LCG Forensics hasn't always been squeaky clean when it comes to their testing methods and have been known to cross contaminate...
So I was looking at their site and found a write up on the Joanna Yeates case which gives me more questions...
The scientists used a combination of analytical tools including exacting DNA enhancement work and fibre analysis, and consideration was also given for recovery of hair, ecology and biological samples.
CONSIDERATION..... So does that mean they didn't test these samples????
Another question is what HAIR samples did they have???
http://www.lgcgroup.com/about-us/media-room/latest-news/2011/lgc-forensics-provides-key-evidence-in-jo-yeates-i/#.WKq6OxLyjIE
-
The crucial evidence was provided by the work to refine the DNA procedures in order to enhance the
DNA samples – which were inhibited, possibly by the unusually high levels of salt at the location
I wonder what the odds are for being able to extract from one tiny sample a DNA profile??
With the salt inhibiter causing a problem and them not having loads of DNA samples from Joanna Yeates... It amazes me that the 3 supposed samples each yielded DNA from Dr Vincent Tabak.
The process they use is used the world over...
How did they manage such success with the minute samples and the contamination involved???
http://archive.lgcgroup.com/pdf_5c64ea97.aspx.pdf
-
Another massive question I have about this DNA sample that was supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabaks....
Did the DNA sample show that the sample came from someone of DUTCH ORIGIN?????
In a population that contains groups with characteristic allele frequencies, knowledge of one allele in a person's genotype might carry some information about the group to which the person belongs, and this in turn alters the statistical expectation for the other alleles in the genotype. For example, a person who has one allele that is common among Italians is more likely to be of Italian descent and is thus more likely to carry additional alleles that are common among Italians. The true genotype frequency is thus higher than would be predicted by applying the multiplication rule and using the average frequency in the entire population.
If as some have said that the result was 1 in a billion, then Lyndsey Lennen should have explained what genotype the sample was ...ie Dutch!!
This was never given in evidence that the sample showed that the perprtor was of Dutch Desent!!!! You think that would have bagged her the arguement!!!!!
https://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/teaching_aids/books_articles/DNAtyping/node1.html
-
A Pdf on false positives in DNA testing: How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of
DNA Evidence
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.329.4527&rep=rep1&type=pdf
-
I keep looking at the CCTV images, to see what she is wearing...
I have circled where what looks like her top, which goes straight across between either side of her green fleece, it dark cannot distinguish the colour... It's definitely not pink....
I'll add 2 pics one circled the other not...
Just made one colourless so you can see that it is a top.....
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
An interesting Article... See all forensic labs are not squeaky clean.... Thinks it time something was done about these labs...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/20/murder-cases-may-among-convictions-reviewed-forensic-results/
-
Police Magazine, February 2012, page 19:
"Initially, it was treated as a missing person’s case after her boyfriend Greg Reardon returned home from a weekend and reported her missing on December 22.
But as her disappearance was so out of character, the police were already concerned for her safety and several items, including the bedding from the couples’ first floor flat, were sent to a forensic laboratory for analysis, although nothing of significance was discovered."
- Tina Orr Munro
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
How do you know that, John?
BTW, I read that they are closing prisons in Holland-----because they don't have enough prisoners to fill them!!
He could be repatriated to Holland if he so requests it and has no outstanding appeal.
-
I am going to try to make sense of this:
This is what Tabak’s defence counsel said in his address to the court:
The two were facing each other. He put one arm around her back with his hand in the
middle of her back. And she screamed. He put his other hand over her mouth which
caused the noise of the scream to cease.He removed his hand from her mouth and the
screaming continued. He then put his hand around her throat. He believes it was the one
that had been from behind her back and held it there for about 20 seconds. He applied no
more than moderate force on a scale of one to three - light, moderate and severe. He did
not intend death or serious injury. The actions described above killed Miss Yeates. The
defendant accepts his actions were unlawful. He removed the hand from the mouth and the
screaming continued and then he put the hand around the throat. He believes it was the one
from around her back and held it there for about 20 seconds.' In a typed statement signed
by Vincent Tabak in September 2011, Tabak claimed that he didn't intend death or serious
injury.
For arguements sake the hand around her back I am going to say is his RIGHT Hand.....
He put one arm around her back with his hand in the
middle of her back. And she screamed
Right Hand
He put his other hand over her mouth which
caused the noise of the scream to cease.
Left hand
He removed his hand from her mouth and the
screaming continued.
Left Hand
He then put his hand around her throat. He believes it was the one
that had been from behind her back and held it there
Right Hand
The actions described above killed Miss Yeates. The
defendant accepts his actions were unlawful
Then he goes on to say: This is really confusing.....
He removed the hand from the mouth and the
screaming continued and then he put the hand around the throat. He believes it was the one
from around her back and held it there for about 20 seconds.'
Left hand put round her throat.. He believes it was the Right Hand
He removed the hand from the mouth and the
screaming continued and then he put the hand around the throat
Left Hand
He believes it was the one
from around her back and held it there for about 20 seconds.
Right Hand
Come on common sense is knocking on the door... why say he believes it was the one from around her back.. when you have said it was the one from her mouth???? Dr Vincent Tabak needs his expert help here... But on his address to the Jury he says information that is already confusing..
That statement is not helpful in the slightest...
So the defence has got his hands in knots here.... which of his hands were supposed to be around her throat??? And whilst he had her in that position what was is other hand doing????
A simple opening statement and a hash as been made of it.... So he is literally saying that Dr Vincent Tabak used two hands.... In a round about way.. Or ???
Another thing I have a problem with is this:
It was Mr William Clegg who first asked the
Defendant to reconstruct the moments that he strangled Miss Yeates by closing his eyes
and reliving the event. It lasted some 20 seconds.
Now.... If everyone in the Jury is supposed to believe that this was a sexually motivated assault then, getting Dr Vincent Tabak to close his eyes and relive the moment, would only put in the jury's mind that he was reliving it for sexual reasons.... WHY would he direct him to that?????
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
Police Magazine, February 2012, page 19:
"Initially, it was treated as a missing person’s case after her boyfriend Greg Reardon returned home from a weekend and reported her missing on December 22.
But as her disappearance was so out of character, the police were already concerned for her safety and several items, including the bedding from the couples’ first floor flat, were sent to a forensic laboratory for analysis, although nothing of significance was discovered."
- Tina Orr Munro
Interesting PDF Leonora
Then, 25 days after the discovery
of Jo Yeates’ body, scientists made a
breakthrough. They found DNA
matching Vincent Tabak on one of
the samples recovered from her body
Firstly... it's only one of the samples..... question is: Which One????
25 days after finding her makes that the 19th January 2011 ... Which we know is rubbish because... the CPS Lady said the Planned arrest of Dr Vincent Tabak..
DCI Phil Jones said: that it was the 20th January 2011
And Lyndsey Lennon said that they turned the DNA around in 48 hours....
None of them can keep a straight story!!!!!!
We are left with TWO samples that belonged to WHO????? There is so much confusion ..... The DNA sounds compromised... It makes no sense ...And I remember in an earlier post I did they had a full profile they didn't test...
How can they seriously go to court knowing that there was more than one contributor... Why haven't the defence argued this point!!!!
-
Again referring to Leonora's pdf:....
On Boxing Day, Avon and Somerset
police requested a scene-going
scientist, Tania Nickson, from a
forensic company to attend the place
where Jo’s body had been dumped.
Boxing Day??????
While forensic scientists do not attend
crime scenes as a matter of course, in
this instance the police had very little
to go on.
How would they know they would have very little to go on... before they examined her?????????
“It was a difficult scene. It was
very cold and there was a lot of snow
on the ground,” says Lindsay Lennen,
who is a case leader for homicides.
“The first issue was whether or not
to disturb the snow.
So she was there when she was found.... Case Leader????? Thought it was Andrew Mott and his unweildly broom handle!!!
There were
discussions on whether to remove
the snow which could interfere with any evidence or examine it in situ. In
the end, the snow was removed and
blood was recovered from the wall
behind the body.”
So they removed the snow and collected the blood.... Now good old Tania Nickson collected the blood from the wall... And apparently she was there on "BOXING DAY"!!!!
This statement is off... Sounds like they removed the snow and them collected the blood??? Which is Boxing Day!!
If her body was hiding the blood on the wall , how low down was this blood??/ or was she propped up against the wall???
An ecologist was also asked to attend
the scene. By examining the layering of
leaves over the body, it was hoped they
would be able to give some indication
as to how long the body had lain there
And what was the ecologist findings????
Because they didn't use them in court to determine how long the body had been there... it also suggests that the snow must have been underneath her... because if it hadn't then they would have know she had been there since Friday 17th December 2010!!!
Lets not forget it snowed on the Saturday 18th December 2010... So Dr Vincent Tabak could not have done it!!!!
Back to Saturday again... which they always thought by the way they acted with CJ!!!
So if we go back to Boxing Day being the day she was removed... then this is why DCI Phil Jones says the 20th Jan 2011.. he's counting 25 days after...
But Dr Delaney apparently saw her on Christmas Day??? She was in the mortuary frozen solid.. so how did they thaw the body so quickly to determine the cause of death???
Surley it would take more than 1 day ... or the same day according to this lot who's story is everywhere!!!
Once the body had been removed tothe mortuary, swabs were taken in the
hope scientists could extract enough
of the all-important DNA to get a
profile of the suspect. Clothing was
also recovered and analysed. But
extracting the DNA from the swabs
was to prove a painstaking and
complicated process.
So they take the swabs in the mortuary???? Not being funny but i find that hard to believe that they were allowed in the mortuary when Dr Delaney was doing his post mortum...
Joanna Yeates
It started as a missing person inquiry on December 18, 2010, says Lindsey Lennen, a body fluids and DNA specialist (who, like many forensic scientists, says the work is "all I ever wanted to do"). The team started by examining items from Joanna's home, looking for foreign DNA. Then on Christmas Day, Yeates was found dead, on a country road.
A colleague went down to supervise the removal of her clothing and preserve any body fluids: "The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky." Under the media glare, the work was flat-out: clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours.
"Eventually, we found something," Lennen says. "On swabs and tapes from her breasts, and tapes from three areas of her jeans. There were DNA components that matched one of the suspects, Vincent Tabak." But there wasn't enough, of enough quality, to evaluate ? perhaps because of the high salt levels where the body was found, following heavy snowfall.
So the team deployed an LGC technique known as DNA SenCE, which purifies, concentrates and enhances otherwise unusable DNA: "We couldn't say whether the DNA was from saliva, or semen, or even touch. But we could say that the probability of it not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion."
With the killer's confession, Lennen's DNA evidence was not further tested. "It happens, in court," she says. "You get called biased, in the police's pay. You have to tell the truth, not stretch what you have. If you don't know which of two alternatives is more likely, you must say so."
https://www.lccsa.org.uk/csi-oxford-behind-the-scenes-at-britains-top-forensic-lab/
Then, 25 days after the discovery
of Jo Yeates’ body, scientists made a
breakthrough. They found DNA
matching Vincent Tabak on one of
the samples recovered from her body
Now back to 48 hours... to 25 days.... they had Dr Vincent Tabak's full profile on the 31st December 2010, when he gave it in Holland...
The group comprised the most
appropriately experienced and
qualified forensic scientists, who
carried out the DNA examinations
as well as interpretation, peer review
and quality review.
“The focus group was quite specific
to this case and it worked very well as
it meant the different scientists could
come together and share their
findings.
What are her qualification actually??? the job descriptions for this company never ask for degree's or PHD's as far as I can tell with the jobs I have listed...
Can she call herself a Scientist???
Following Tabak’s conviction, DCI
Phil Jones, senior investigating officer,
said the DNA analysis was “crucial in
building a strong evidential case
against Vincent Tabak and ultimately
securing his conviction”.
Now how can the DNA be crucial when it wasn't a strong profile??? and other DNA was on her body... So what is he saying.. admitting guilt didn't do it????
EDIT:...... Dog walkers discovered her snow-covered body, laying in a foetal position against a wall, on Christmas Day.
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/joanna-yeates-fought-killer/story-13538504-detail/story.html#DRAzfbpZ2tOOTk8Q.99quote]
So if she is laying against the wall is the blood behind her???? what angle???
-
The prosecution claims Tabak drove with her dead body in the boot of his Renault Megane car, photographs of which were released yesterday, before dumping her body.
The only photo's that were released where the ones of him on Park Street... And that was the 18th December 2010 when he went to pick Tanja up and got lost.... So he wasn't driving with Joanna Yeates in the boot of his car!!!
There is NO CCTV of Dr Vincent Tabak Driving with Joanna Yeates in the boot of his car!!!!
So did they tell the Jury an untrue????
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/joanna-yeates-fought-killer/story-13538504-detail/story.html#vzuvXmTEMYGa7Y4I.99
-
Question is one in a billion a standard answer or is it an actual fact...
This from a different case... Don't know which lab it is:... (I could hazzard a guess)..
Forensic scientist Sally Stansbie told Exeter Crown Court the chance of blood on trainers and on a blood-stained newspaper placed in the bin in at Wain Lane not being that of Mr Munday was 'one in a billion' after forensic DNA profile matching had been carried.
http://www.torquayheraldexpress.co.uk/billion-chance-blood-murder-scene-vicitm-court/story-29356330-detail/story.html#EBPktbEMMHhw0GSa.99
What are the odds in DNA ????? one in a billion is a standard answer as far as I can tell!!!!!
I remeber Joanna Yeates blood sample being one in a billion, that it was hers....
So it stops at one billion?????
EdIT:......
I'm reading Forensics: A Guide for Writers by D. P. Lyle. When the author talks about the probabilities of forensic testing results, he says:
'No two people have the same DNA, but the testifying expert will not say that the DNA “absolutely matches” that of the defendant. Instead he will say that the probability that it matches is a billion to one. That is almost, but not quite, absolute.'
So... defendant you could probably understand the one in a billion...
In the case of the DNA sample, a billion to one means that given the test results, there are very strong odds that the sample came from the defendant.
The likelihood of it coming from the defendant is 1000000000/1000000001.
So why did they say the same odds for Joanna Yeates blood???? Because it was supposed to be definatley hers?????
See what I mean about standard answers... They didn't need to give the odds on it being her BLOOD!!!!!
http://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/89880/meaning-of-a-billion-to-one-and-50-million-to-1
-
Understanding the maths....
https://plus.maths.org/content/os/issue55/features/dnacourt/index
Match probability 1/200m 1/20m 1/2m
Posterior prob of guilt 98% 85% 35%
The match probabilities that are routinely quoted now are in the order of 1 in a billion. At this level of accuracy they are much harder to overturn, but not impossible. The most convincing arguments would either be based on laboratory error, contamination, or deliberate fraud.
But even though the accuracy of DNA profiling has increased to produce these astronomical match probabilities, such as 1 in a billion, it is still important to recognise the process that you need to go through to assess this evidence.
Unfortunately there are still few jurors, lawyers and judges who understand the statistical subtleties of such evidence. However there are signs that things are improving in a very small way. There are a number of judges and lawyers who understand the issues and care about them and want to spread good practice. And a working party set up by the Royal Statistical Society is bringing statisticians and lawyers together to understand the issues.
What's problematic is not so much that people don't appreciate the problems, that is the case in many fields. The real difficulty is that people don't appreciate that they don't appreciate the problems — they don't even realise that there is a problem. It all looks so straightforward, instead of incredibly subtle. The correct computations needed to understand statistical evidence such as DNA profile matches are not mathematically difficult, it's simply arithmetic. But knowing what the correct computations are is something that is not many people understand.
So when we use these huge numbers... Is one in a billion... which has become the standard.. but how many people live on the planet????
The odds are misleading... http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
Nearly 7 and a half Billion...
So if Dr Vincent Tabak is 1 in 7 are they trying to tell me that 1 billion people are of Dutch Decent???
African Population.......... http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/africa-population/
1.2 .....Billion
Dr Vincent Tabak is now 1 in 6.3 billion
Chinese population :... http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/china-population/
1.38 billion
Dr Vincent Tabak is now 1 in 4.7 billion
Russian desent : http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/russia-population/
143,397.791 not even a billion......
American population: 325,644,133 again not a billion...
Now the Netherlands:.... http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/netherlands-population/
17,014,154 Now there isn't even a billion people in the Netherlands..
I am confused..... How can he be 1 in a billion... what where the markers that made Dr Vincent Tabak 1 in a billion when it was a partial DNA sample???????
Another thought here.... how many billion people are FEMALE??? cutting the odds again!!!
come on someone make sense of this for me please!!
-
He could be repatriated to Holland if he so requests it and has no outstanding appeal.
He is on the sex offenders' register, so I don't think he can.
-
Mr Lickley said forensic archaeologist Karl Harrison considered how Miss Yeates was found, especially regarding leaves and snow around and on her body.
Mr Lickley said: "After her death, she was placed on a verge, laying on a layer of leaf matter. Following her deposition leaves were placed around her and tucked in around her sides, compressed against her body.
"A layer of snow fell, sealing the leaf litter. A little time was taken to place the body of Joanna Yeates before she was left at the scene."
Read more at http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/joanna-yeates-fought-killer/story-13538504-detail/story.html#657kCmb7ZmU9bH5T.99
https://www.cranfield.ac.uk/people/dr-karl-harrison-466715
-
He is on the sex offenders' register, so I don't think he can.
Well well well..... That just about sums it up doesn't it....
So the Child porn was to do with him not being allowed to go to Holland, rather than saving any children who may be in dangers......
Why are they trying their hardest to stop Dr Vincent Tabak from talking basically....
Question:... Does Dr Vincent Tabak even realise that he can't apply to go back to his native country????
So the child porn on file can be brought to the forefront at any time..... Let hazzard a guess as to when that might be.. about 2025..(IMO)
My God... I feel frustrated , so I don't know how Dr Vincent Tabak must feel.... It's almost like a gag order... If he's not able to go to Holland then, he's not able to tell anyone what actually happened to him...
Basically I just think when he eventually gets to go to Holland or released then enough time will have passed where most people won't give a damn whether or not he was Guilty or INNOCENT!!!
So with all the lies that have been told.. all the inconsistencies in the evidence the demonising of Dr Vincent Tabak.. Someone is hoping no-one will do anything about this...
Obviously people believe they have covered all the angles, but they have NOT!!! more people need to be made aware as to what has happened to Dr Vincent Tabak in my opinion..
Another question.... I have this same question when I watch Crime programmes, when people commit the most horrendous atrocities and i always say:
How can they live with themselves????????? Lets just think about that...... How on God's green earth can these people sleep at night....
I never understood how people in this world trample on other people to get to the top... But it's obviously human nature...
Karma springs to mind!!!
-
When his girlfriend and Brother went to see him why didn't they take the chance to help him and highlight his plight
There is no proof whatsoever he was gagged then or to this day!
-
Mr Lickley said forensic archaeologist Karl Harrison considered how Miss Yeates was found, especially regarding leaves and snow around and on her body.
Mr Lickley said: "After her death, she was placed on a verge, laying on a layer of leaf matter. Following her deposition leaves were placed around her and tucked in around her sides, compressed against her body.
"A layer of snow fell, sealing the leaf litter. A little time was taken to place the body of Joanna Yeates before she was left at the scene."
Read more at http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/joanna-yeates-fought-killer/story-13538504-detail/story.html#657kCmb7ZmU9bH5T.99
https://www.cranfield.ac.uk/people/dr-karl-harrison-466715
Just looking at the article and I found something interesting.....
Tests revealed Miss Yeates had 67 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. The limit for driving is 80. The court heard her brain showed a reduction in oxygenated blood and the last meal she ate proved to be the cheesy chips she ate with her boyfriend Greg Reardon at lunchtime on December 17, in the Hope and Anchor pub.
Read more at http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/joanna-yeates-fought-killer/story-13538504-detail/story.html#udTLtdV[Name removed]4v5IdKI.99
Now we covered the cheesy chips and how it was impossible for them to be still in her stomach contenets... But we never covered the Alchohol....
I presume the alcohol tests were done when the stomach contents where done in Glasgow... And this is were the Important stuff lies...
Tests revealed Miss Yeates had 67 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.
I was looking at the 67 mill in 100 mill and can across the drink drive limits.... So in ENGLAND...
England & Wales Drink Driving Limit
The maximum BAC (blood alcohol content) limit in England & Wales is:
35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath
OR
80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood
OR
107 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of urine
So I thought 67 mill in 100 mill doesn't apply to ENGLAND... then I remember she had tests done in Glasgow... So Scotland:....
Scotland Drink Driving Limit
The maximum BAC (blood alcohol content) limit in Scotland is:
22 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath
OR
50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood
OR
67 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of urine
Did you notice that....!!!!!
67 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of urine
It's the amount in Urine not blood... How did she have exactly the right number of milligrams in a test,.....
So it's a drink drive limit in Scotland and not the exact amount of alcohol in Joanna Yeates system (IMO)
That is mental!!!!!!
The limit for driving is 80.
Yes 80 when you use English Limits, But you used Scottish Calculations to calculate her alcohol content.... And that was in urine NOT Blood!!!!
So if we are talking Blood in Scotland... she was over the limit.. By quite a margin...
50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood
Who has guessed what her ALCOHOL Content is?????? Because it doesn't appear accurate!!..
So she could have drunk that bottle of Tattinger Reims Champagne that the cork was seen in the Crime Scene photo's...
How many pints did they say that Joanna Yeates drank... because I know she drank pints of beer and not halves... Pictures of her in Stuttgard she her drinking pints..
The really odd thing about the alcohol in her system is it EQUALS the Scottish Drink Drive Limit... I would have expected the number to be more random than that!!!!!
https://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_information_bloodalcoholcontentcalculator.php
Edit:... 67 out of 100 sounds random in English drink drive limits and that probably why no one questioned it....
But the number is NOT RANDOM... it's Scottish..... !!!!
More evidence that things don't add up in this case... No one would even question her alcohol levels if it was equated to Engish Drink Drive Laws... But they failed to tell the JURY it was Scottish drink drive laws and it was in Urine and not blood!!!!!!!
OMG!!! ... some please... sort this out!!!
EDIT:.... looks like halves in the Ram....
-
When his girlfriend and Brother went to see him why didn't they take the chance to help him and highlight his plight
There is no proof whatsoever he was gagged then or to this day!
Morning Jixy..
We don't know, It's possible they kept quite to help him.. they probably thought they were helping..
Marcel said:The family believes it's in Vincents best interest if we do not make any comments
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg384191#msg384191
It's my opinion that he was gagged... He's rather quite wouldn't you say...
Jixy... answer me why the DNA turnaround times keep changing...????
-
Good morning
I am sorry but I still don't agree...
Best interest could be their excuse for not doing or saying anything or more likely there is nothing to say in his defence.
His own version was that he made a pass or whatever he would call it and it wasn't welcome, he panicked etc etc. As his girlfriend what could she say in his defence to that. I know I would struggle if it was me.
If she believed in his innocence and don't forget she sat with him, he could have told her what really happened and I think he did. He told her the truth and she believes his guilt
Her own Father's comments are very telling when he could have been a very good source of information help and advice
-
Maybe VT has resigned himself to his punishment and just wants to get on with it?
I think that is exactly what happened. He did his research give it his best shot...manslaughter and it failed
-
I think that is exactly what happened. He did his research give it his best shot...manslaughter and it failed
None of the evidence adds up Jixy... It doesn't make any sense whatsoever....
I know you think he is guilty... But even you must question some of the things I have brought to the table..
I can't believe at this point I still keep finding things.....
Lord please give me a copy of the 1300 page Document!!!
-
Mr Lickley said forensic archaeologist Karl Harrison considered how Miss Yeates was found, especially regarding leaves and snow around and on her body.
Mr Lickley said: "After her death, she was placed on a verge, laying on a layer of leaf matter. Following her deposition leaves were placed around her and tucked in around her sides, compressed against her body.
"A layer of snow fell, sealing the leaf litter. A little time was taken to place the body of Joanna Yeates before she was left at the scene."
Read more at http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/joanna-yeates-fought-killer/story-13538504-detail/story.html#657kCmb7ZmU9bH5T.99
https://www.cranfield.ac.uk/people/dr-karl-harrison-466715
a layer of leaf litter doesn't sound very much.... Her body surely would have been seen before 25th Decemeber 2010 if she had lain there since 17th December 2010....
People were aware she was missing... A lump on the side of the road would have drawn attention to it....!!
-
Another problem with the guessing of the alcohol in Joanna Yeates system, is there are many factors that contribute they the rate at which it is metabolised...
Where these rates ever brought into consideration when they tested the alcohol in her system, instead of saying it equates to what she drank in the pub...
Now she was in The Ram for about 2 hours... So her first drink would start to metabolise, if she left at 8:00pm then both drinks would be metabolising...
People who drink drive delay being breathalised by the police on the spot, and opt for going to the police station, in the hope that some of the alcohol will have metabolised before they have to give there sample... they use evry trick in the book for the time to elapse...
With this in mind.. Joanna Yeates had at least 45 mins for the alcohol to start metabolising... She was a fit young woman and these factors, play a part in how quickly the alcohol metabolises...
The speed at which a person consumes alcohol: the faster a person drinks, the faster their BAC will rise
Well it was a lesuirely drink with friends... so that doesn't apply..
A person's fat/muscle content: fatty tissue does not absorb alcohol very well, alcohol will be absorbed a lot more into other tissues which are rich in water such as muscle. If two people weighing 90kg, one a tall thin person and the other a small fat person consumed the same amount of alcohol, the small fat person would usually have a higher BAC than the thin person.
Joanna Yeates was lean and athletic...
A person's metabolism (the rate at which alcohol is processed and eliminated by the body): this can vary from person to person, however, the average person will usually eliminate 10ml of alcohol per hour. Heavy drinkers may have more active livers and can therefore usually eliminate more alcohol than average. People with liver disease may have less active livers and will therefore usually eliminate alcohol slower
So no time at all was allowed for the rate of alcohol to metabolise in Joanna Yeates body.. And she only took a sip out of the bottle of cider according to Greg...
So she should be on the more than average scale...
Medication and the amount of food in the stomach: this can have an effect on the rate at which alcohol is absorbed into the body and subsequently eliminated.
Now her medical history was not brought to court so... I'll assume she wasn't taking medication!!
A person's age: younger people tend to usually metabolise alcohol more quickly than older people.
Exactly.... young athletic fit girl....
So the question is.... How can the alcohol level in Joanna yeates blood sample equal roughly 2 pints ??????
To me... it leads to her having drunk more alcohol after she left The Ram!!!!
https://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_information_bloodalcoholcontentcalculator.php
-
I've attached another pic.... It's in the Ram... when she sit down she sits where the empty glass is... the glass looks like a half pints glass....
So if she consumed 2 pints in 2 hours over 4 drinks ... they should have started metabolising !!!!!
We have no record of the strength of the alcohol....
shouldn't these questions have been asked before?????...
The more I look at this the more I believe it leans towards her drinking more alcohol than just at The Ram!!!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Just looking at the article and I found something interesting.....
Now we covered the cheesy chips and how it was impossible for them to be still in her stomach contenets... But we never covered the Alchohol....
I presume the alcohol tests were done when the stomach contents where done in Glasgow... And this is were the Important stuff lies...
Counsel for the Prosecution is gifted with a vivid imagination. You may not presume anything!!! Several of the expert witnesses were in a position to carry out tests to find the content of alcohol in Joanna's blood, but none of them actually testified to having done so in court. The article also reports Counsel as declaring that the Scottish expert witness pinpointed a time of death. If she did, she never actually told the court what it was!
-
I think that is exactly what happened. He did his research give it his best shot...manslaughter and it failed
I think he was given the wrong advise... wrong information... and the wrong Lawyer (IMO)!!
-
Counsel for the Prosecution is gifted with a vivid imagination. You may not presume anything!!! Several of the expert witnesses were in a position to carry out tests to find the content of alcohol in Joanna's blood, but none of them actually testified to having done so in court. The article also reports Counsel as declaring that the Scottish expert witness pinpointed a time of death. If she did, she never actually told the court what it was!
Mr Lickley said Dr Jennifer Miller pinpointed time of death to between 9pm and 11pm.
So... anytime between 9:00pm and 11:00pm... So why did the Defence tell the court she died between 9:00pm and 9:30pm..????
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/joanna-yeates-fought-killer/story-13538504-detail/story.html#XtZEcOGTVsYhytSP.99
On what day........
-
Mr Lickley said forensic archaeologist Karl Harrison considered how Miss Yeates was found, especially regarding leaves and snow around and on her body.
Mr Lickley said: "After her death, she was placed on a verge, laying on a layer of leaf matter. Following her deposition leaves were placed around her and tucked in around her sides, compressed against her body.
"A layer of snow fell, sealing the leaf litter. A little time was taken to place the body of Joanna Yeates before she was left at the scene."
Read more at http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/joanna-yeates-fought-killer/story-13538504-detail/story.html#657kCmb7ZmU9bH5T.99
https://www.cranfield.ac.uk/people/dr-karl-harrison-466715
From reading the report quoted, it sounds as if the person who deposited the body was somebody with time, and somebody with experience in such matters. Either that, or the person had done a lot of research.
-
Mr Lickley said forensic archaeologist Karl Harrison considered how Miss Yeates was found, especially regarding leaves and snow around and on her body.
Mr Lickley said: "After her death, she was placed on a verge, laying on a layer of leaf matter. Following her deposition leaves were placed around her and tucked in around her sides, compressed against her body.
"A layer of snow fell, sealing the leaf litter. A little time was taken to place the body of Joanna Yeates before she was left at the scene."
Read more at http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/joanna-yeates-fought-killer/story-13538504-detail/story.html#657kCmb7ZmU9bH5T.99
https://www.cranfield.ac.uk/people/dr-karl-harrison-466715
Bit surprised about the Forensic Archaeologist Karl Harrison being called....
Leonora ,does this lend weight to what you believed as to where she may have been...
A forensic archaeologist is typically called when human remains are found scattered on the ground surface and/or remains are suspected to be buried.
So why did they need a Forensic Archaeologist????
She was only supposed to be covered up with a LAYER of leaves... they had already removed the snow!!!
They Didn't need to call Karl !!!
Evidence recovery
Most forensic archaeological investigations take place outdoors, where considerations of scene location and weather must be made. One must make carefully consider logistics to determine what equipment is necessary and potentially useful. A consideration of logistics also implies planning for broader issues such as how to approach the site and how to delimit the area under investigation.In the case of buried evidence, a forensic archaeologist will excavate. Excavation refers to the process of digging out or uncovering objects in the ground. In a forensic investigation, an archaeologist may be called to excavate a grave. Before the destructive process of excavating a grave begins, all evidence on the ground surface must be documented and collected. Surface evidence can include plants, insects, objects such as clothing or a weapon, and human remains. All evidence should be photographed and mapped, showing the location of each item in relation to other evidence as well as to other important features such as buildings, streams, roads or fences. Once the location of evidence is documented, investigators may collect it. How each piece of evidence is collected and cared for depends on various factors, explained in the section: Inventory of Evidence.
Is this why the 8 Fire Appliances where called???? extremeley weird that they would use a Forensic Archaeologist????
http://www.sfu.museum/forensics/eng/pg_media-media_pg/archaeologie-archaeology/
EDIT:
Archaeology and anthropology are the study of historic human remains and the objects, buildings and other artefacts associated with them. Forensic archaeologists and anthropologists can apply the same techniques to crime scenes, to get evidence from human remains, as well as from drugs, guns or stolen goods found at crime scenes, whether recent or decades old.
Forensic Archaeology
A forensic archaeologist’s first involvement may be to help the police locate the site where a body and victim’s personal items, or stolen goods are buried, through geological and geophysical surveying techniques, as well as using imaging and photography.
The forensic archaeologist may also help with the excavation, using similar tools and expertise to those used at an archaeological dig. This has to be done slowly and painstakingly, and the archaeologists will record and preserve anything found at every stage and depth (for example paint flakes, hair, clothing or DNA) as it may be vital evidence. The colour and state of the soil may be useful in the investigation.
FORENSIC ARCHAEOLOGIST .... Buried ITEMSs... where on earth was she???? she cannot have been on the road by their own admission!!!!
http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/forensic-archaeology.html
Human Remains tends to lend to skeletal remains... Buried must be the reason.....
-
When his girlfriend and Brother went to see him why didn't they take the chance to help him and highlight his plight
There is no proof whatsoever he was gagged then or to this day!
If VT feels that he is the victim of a miscarriage of justice there are several organisations in England which he can approach for help but that has not happened. My own view is that he knew exactly what he was doing when he admitted to manslaughter. Unfortunately for him however the CPS and a jury disagreed and called it murder.
-
Bit surprised about the Forensic Archaeologist Karl Harrison being called....
Leonora ,does this lend weight to what you believed as to where she may have been...
So why did they need a Forensic Archaeologist????
She was only supposed to be covered up with a LAYER of leaves... they had already removed the snow!!!
They Didn't need to call Karl !!!
Is this why the 8 Fire Appliances where called???? extremeley weird that they would use a Forensic Archaeologist????
http://www.sfu.museum/forensics/eng/pg_media-media_pg/archaeologie-archaeology/
EDIT:
FORENSIC ARCHAEOLOGIST .... Buried ITEMSs... where on earth was she???? she cannot have been on the road by their own admission!!!!
http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/forensic-archaeology.html
Human Remains tends to lend to skeletal remains... Buried must be the reason.....
We cannot be sure whether Karl Harrison arrived at Longwood Lane before Joanna's body was recovered and moved to the mortuary, or was not summoned until Boxing day. I am not sure whether he read his own statement out in court, or whether it was read out by a Prosecution barrister. He was not cross-examined. However, the jury did hear his evidence, one way or the other.
On the other hand, the jury were NOT told about the FOUR pumping engines, plus a command vehicle (seen towing a fuel bowser), plus a safety boat (not demounted). These were called to the scene on Christmas day, manned by some 23 fire & rescue officers. The HM Pathologist was not able to do more than "glimpse" the body until the fire & rescue appliances had done whatever it was they were called out to do.
You may draw your own conclusions. Were all these people just carrying out some sort of charade to give us something to chat about? In that case, failing to tell the jury about the fire engines was just a bit of harmless fun. Is that really a proper occupation for a police force engaged in a serious investigation?
-
Quote from :
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/200400/NDNAD_Annual_Report_2009-11.pdf
5 A crime is detected when a suspect has been identified for that crime and there is sufficient evidence to charge the
suspect. In such cases, the Crown Prosecution Service requires that, in addition to the DNA match, there must be
supporting non-DNA evidence available. Convictions are achieved through integrated criminal investigation and evidence
from a number of sources - not through a DNA match alone.
6 For example, a suspect on being presented with DNA match evidence linking him to one offence, may also confess to
further offences.
What evidence did they have when they first arrested Dr Vincent Tabak... other than the DNA they said was his????
And what evidence did they have to charge him?????
Because I cannot see any of this supposed evidence brought to trial!!!!!
For example, a suspect on being presented with DNA match evidence linking him to one offence, may also confess to
further offences
This is why I believe the confession or whatever you want to call it happened.... They had absolutley NOTHING to hold him on... the evidence was NONE existent ,.. and they knew they would lose if they went to court...
What was the SUBSTANTIAL piece of evidence they ARRESTED him on????????
They had nothing!!! Yet the lady from the CPS said they planned his arrest....... my question is....
WITH WHAT!!!!!!
What evidence did they arrest Dr Vincent Tabak on?????????
And lets not go with the sobbing girl who never existed rubbish...... What did they arrest him with??
He was an Ideal citizen... nothing in his background to even suggest criminal behaviour.. not even a parking ticket....
So I will keep asking ...WHAT evidence did they arrest him with?????
-
Quote from :
So I will keep asking ...WHAT evidence did they arrest him with?????
Long may you ask this question. The big "why" concerns that "master of defence" who swallowed the prosecution's case so wholeheartedly.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The police never seemed to look any further than Canynge Road for Joanna's killer. I wonder why.
The fact that her belongings were in the flat is by no means proof that she ever arrived home.
-
The police never seemed to look any further than Canynge Road for Joanna's killer. I wonder why.
The fact that her belongings were in the flat is by no means proof that she ever arrived home.
Once someone admits to a crime the police won't use valuable resources following any other line of enquiry unless there a persuasive reason for doing so. The vast majority of sane people who confess to a crime mean what they say.
-
Long may you ask this question. The big "why" concerns that "master of defence" who swallowed the prosecution's case so wholeheartedly.
Quoting from your pdf leonora
On the day I meet Clegg, his former client
the Soham police officer Brian Stevens,
appeared in court charged with conspiracy
to pervert the course of justice. Clegg shows
no glint of emotion when he describes acting
for Stevens on previous charges, all dismissed,
relating to child sex allegations and
computer pornography charges. “It was
obvious the prosecution case was flawed
because of their expert evidence,” he states.
The prosecution threw in the towel and
offered no new evidence after it acknowledged
fundamental flaws in its technical
computer evidence. It is likely that Clegg will
be instructed on the current charges facing
Stevens. Perhaps Clegg has a natural distrust
of the efficiency of our investigation system.
He makes it clear that he is not really
surprised about the evidence debacle in
Stevens’ case. “There are lots of cases where
the evidence is flawed,” he says.
So what happened in the Dr Vincent Tabak Trial?????
So where does his future lie? He and his
set’s senior clerk John Grimmer are
seasoned at promoting the chambers. The
set has grown from 22 in 1983 to its current
15 silks and 42 juniors and is rated as
England’s finest serious crime chambers.
Clegg, that master of criminal defence, now
spends a lot of his time advising City clients
on matters such as corporate manslaughter,
health and safety, trading standards, and
money laundering.
But Clegg, it seems, will never be too far
from the action, although professional life for
him has changed. “Individuals come to me for
advice these days,” he says. ■
So if people came to him for advice in 2003... what made him be Dr Vincent Tabak's defence.... ?????
There seems no reason!!!!
-
Once someone admits to a crime the police won't use valuable resources following any other line of enquiry unless there a persuasive reason for doing so. The vast majority of sane people who confess to a crime mean what they say.
So why didn't they use there resources before his appearance at the Old Bailey???? It doesn't make sense John..
And what evidence did they arrest him on.... This case is wrong on so many levels...
Yes... unfortunatley people do admit to things that they have not done.. It's been proved the world over... An admission should be only part of the plea... real evidence to support it should also be used ... and I cannot see any real evidence... Especially when it was reported that Dr Vincent Tabak was driving around with Jonna Yeates body in his car... the images they used where of him on Park Street.. on the 18th Decemeber 2010.. when he was picking up Tanja...
The searches I believe are completeley flawed....
The porn I believe was a ruse....
The DNA was partial and cross contamination could easily have happened as the forensic company had had similar errors in the past...
No evidence was presented to show Dr Vincent Tabak's previous good character..
No evidence of him being in her flat...
Her clothes had changed from friday 17th December 2010
The asda Video's didn't have time stamps...
The defence got the 1300 page Document on the 7th Oct 2011..
The statements by various people keep changing.....
The was NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE presented in Court...
And the full profile which they never got a match too that wasn't Joanna Yeates or Dr Vincent Tabak's...
Why wasn't there a delay made in this trial... if as Leonora has pointed out he was such a good Lawyer???
And why assasinate his own Clients Character?????
Someone prove to me that he did it.... And not with the dodgy evidence they brought to court or used after he was convicted...
Give me some proper times... Show where he was with his phone... if it was switched off show that too....
Show which bridge he crossed... which traffic cams he went passed ... show me all his text messages and phone calls.. emails etc... show me the ASDA CCTV TimeStamps...
Show me how he managed to carry a dead weight that many times... Show me his statements... show me the pics of the crime scene...
show me what was underneath the two Forensic tents??
Show me, the dates of the DNA samples from Joanna Yeates that was put into the National Data base...
Because that one doesn't make sense!!
Show me what evidence the CPS had when they planned to arrest Dr Vincent Tabak... Show me all of those computers...
Show me the phone call from Holland, let me listen to it... Show me Joanna Yeates computer and phone... Greg's and Tanja's... let me see all the text and phone calls that were logged... let me see if Joanna Yeates phone could indeed be working on Sunday the 19th 2010 at 9:00pm if it hadn't been charged since friday...
Show me finger prints on the tv... show me finger prints in the flat.... show me a real reason why Dr Vincent Tabak would jepodise the life he had spent over 10 yrs studying for just to go throw it in the bin...
Show me why a man whom obviously loved his girlfriend he was in constant contact with, would suddenly get his head turned by a pretty girl...
Show me how he had harrased females in the past... Show me why Tanja never came to court.... Show me why CJ never came to court...
Show me the CCTV of him leaving his street and at what times...
Do a complete demonstration to show me if it is even possible within the time frame... Show me all the cars on Longwood Lane that night... If cars passed him on Longwood Lane they would have had to slow down to get past him... It isn't very wide.... Get me the people who slowed down to pass him on that night to come court and testify he was there or at least someone was there....
Show me every bit of evidence that is supposed to be against Dr Vincent Tabak.... And then,, if you can prove it maybe I'll change my mind!!!!
-
Long may you ask this question. The big "why" concerns that "master of defence" who swallowed the prosecution's case so wholeheartedly.
Yes Leonora WHY??????
-
The police never seemed to look any further than Canynge Road for Joanna's killer. I wonder why.
The fact that her belongings were in the flat is by no means proof that she ever arrived home.
Cast your mind back, mrswah, to that missing person's call at 00.45 on Monday morning. Imagine you are on duty at Avon & Somerset Crime Centre. What do the rules tell you to do? You should reassure the caller that there has probably been a misunderstanding, so why not get some sleep and wait to see if she turns up at work? In 99 missing-person cases out of a hundred, no crime has been committed.
So what was it that made someone decided to send officers out to 44 Canynge Rd in the middle of the night and even get the neighbours out of the beds to ask if they had heard anything? Obviously, the police KNEW a crime had been committed. The police insisted publicly that no one had heard from Joanna after she phoned her best friend in Swansea - even though they couldn't possibly KNOW that NO ONE had heard from her.
They INSISTED that she had got back to the flat - as indeed she probably had done, at some stage - but the presence of her coat and handbag in the flat didn't actually prove anything at all.
The police appealed for a pizza, instead of appealing for the persons seen on the front path. They did not behave like police who want to find a missing person, nor like police who were keeping an open mind. Once they had a body, they continued not to behave like police who are keen to find the killer, since 99 victims of violence out of a hundred were assailed by someone close to them. If the police were genuinely keen to nail the killer, they would have arrested Joanna's boyfriend, or one of the young men she texted on the way home, or an ex-boyfriend, depending on what they found when they read her diary.
But no, they arrested the landlord, who everyone is now agreed was the wrong man, but who quite clearly would have fulfilled the police's requirement for a random killer connected to 44 Canynge Road, rather than a personal killer who target Joanna because she was who she was. That is your question mrswah. Why did the police focus on the house rather than the victim?
-
Cast your mind back, mrswah, to that missing person's call at 00.45 on Monday morning. Imagine you are on duty at Avon & Somerset Crime Centre. What do the rules tell you to do? You should reassure the caller that there has probably been a misunderstanding, so why not get some sleep and wait to see if she turns up at work? In 99 missing-person cases out of a hundred, no crime has been committed.
So what was it that made someone decided to send officers out to 44 Canynge Rd in the middle of the night and even get the neighbours out of the beds to ask if they had heard anything? Obviously, the police KNEW a crime had been committed. The police insisted publicly that no one had heard from Joanna after she phoned her best friend in Swansea - even though they couldn't possibly KNOW that NO ONE had heard from her.
They INSISTED that she had got back to the flat - as indeed she probably had done, at some stage - but the presence of her coat and handbag in the flat didn't actually prove anything at all.
The police appealed for a pizza, instead of appealing for the persons seen on the front path. They did not behave like police who want to find a missing person, nor like police who were keeping an open mind. Once they had a body, they continued not to behave like police who are keen to find the killer, since 99 victims of violence out of a hundred were assailed by someone close to them. If the police were genuinely keen to nail the killer, they would have arrested Joanna's boyfriend, or one of the young men she texted on the way home, or an ex-boyfriend, depending on what they found when they read her diary.
But no, they arrested the landlord, who everyone is now agreed was the wrong man, but who quite clearly would have fulfilled the police's requirement for a random killer connected to 44 Canynge Road, rather than a personal killer who target Joanna because she was who she was. That is your question mrswah. Why did the police focus on the house rather than the victim?
Why did the ask Dr Vincent Tabak about the lounge???? To me theres rather alot of furniture in the lounge arranged in the wrong way... they don't give freedom of movement... you have to squeeze past...
:: :: Whether he went into the bedroom or lounge.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg383784#msg383784
So... we always knew why he needed to be in the bedroom.... because of the earring in the duvet and the other one under the pile of clothes....
But what was with the LOUNGE?????
Again... why did her mother think she had been abducted....???
:: Was she dead when he put her in the boot of the Renault Megane.
Because there should NOT have been any blood in the boot of Dr Vincent Tabak's car... dead people don't bleed... he'd apparently already put her in the bicycle bag/cover!!!!
So what was in the front room?????? There that white outline behind the couch... never knew what that was... about the size of a mobile phone!!!
Edit:....
Cast your mind back, mrswah, to that missing person's call at 00.45 on Monday morning.
Why did it take so long to ring the police when he'd rung her parents around 12:00 ??
Her phone gets me.... if the police think immediatley there is foul play... why did they allow Greg to use her phone to ring rebecca Scott around 4:00am??
And another thing that gets me..... How did he know the password/ number to get into her phone in the first place??
Did they just look at her phone for texts and calls or did they get a proper read out from the phone company????
And if there's a proper read out... did the defence have a copy????
-
Cast your mind back, mrswah, to that missing person's call at 00.45 on Monday morning. Imagine you are on duty at Avon & Somerset Crime Centre. What do the rules tell you to do? You should reassure the caller that there has probably been a misunderstanding, so why not get some sleep and wait to see if she turns up at work? In 99 missing-person cases out of a hundred, no crime has been committed.
So what was it that made someone decided to send officers out to 44 Canynge Rd in the middle of the night and even get the neighbours out of the beds to ask if they had heard anything? Obviously, the police KNEW a crime had been committed. The police insisted publicly that no one had heard from Joanna after she phoned her best friend in Swansea - even though they couldn't possibly KNOW that NO ONE had heard from her.
They INSISTED that she had got back to the flat - as indeed she probably had done, at some stage - but the presence of her coat and handbag in the flat didn't actually prove anything at all.
The police appealed for a pizza, instead of appealing for the persons seen on the front path. They did not behave like police who want to find a missing person, nor like police who were keeping an open mind. Once they had a body, they continued not to behave like police who are keen to find the killer, since 99 victims of violence out of a hundred were assailed by someone close to them. If the police were genuinely keen to nail the killer, they would have arrested Joanna's boyfriend, or one of the young men she texted on the way home, or an ex-boyfriend, depending on what they found when they read her diary.
But no, they arrested the landlord, who everyone is now agreed was the wrong man, but who quite clearly would have fulfilled the police's requirement for a random killer connected to 44 Canynge Road, rather than a personal killer who target Joanna because she was who she was. That is your question mrswah. Why did the police focus on the house rather than the victim?
Yes, indeed, that is my question-----and they were focussing on the house right from the start, long before anyone had "confessed" to anything !
They so wanted us all to believe Joanna had arrived home that they got Father Henwood into court to testify that he had seen and spoken to Joanna (whom he did not know), rather than read out a statement from him.
-
I was just looking at one of the early post and photo's... And noticed something...
This is of the door in the hallway....
The catchment for the brass yale lock is a different colour and I noticed a large stain at the front door, never noticed that before...
If as one newspaper suggested.. they never had carpets.. why hasn't that piece of underlay been taken away, there is obviously a stain there?????
Another thing I had noticed was the new looking underlay in the bedroom....
If someone has gone to the trouble of buying new underlay, where is the carpet???
The underlay in the bedroom is "cosi"... the underlay in the rest of the house is old of a fawn colour.. why the new looking underlay???
I can't see why someone would buy new underlay and not carpet? odd!
Yet in October when the Halloween party happened at their house the underlay is old????
I've circled the underlay in the bedroom in October 2010
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
If VT feels that he is the victim of a miscarriage of justice there are several organisations in England which he can approach for help but that has not happened. My own view is that he knew exactly what he was doing when he admitted to manslaughter. Unfortunately for him however the CPS and a jury disagreed and called it murder.
So you think Vincent Tabak knew exactly what he was doing when he signed his enhanced statement and agreed to be cross-examined as his lawyer's only independent defence witness? (His team had "inherited" their pathologist from their predecessors instructed by Crossman & Co of Radstock.)
You are very keen to point out that the police did everything they did because that is standard police procedure. Presumably you would also agree that Vincent Tabak's formidably experienced defence lawyer also knew exactly what he was doing when he avoided every opportunity to discredit the prosecution witnesses, and took every possible opportunity to discredit his own client in the eyes of the jury?
Why do you think Vincent Tabak stuck with the same firm of solicitors and the same barristers' chambers when he subsequently appeared in court on a charge of possessing illegal images of child abuse?
There can be only one rational explanation for the behaviour of Vincent Tabak and his top lawyer - namely, that he had been secretly offered a full amnesty and a new identity, in return for sacrificing his good name and for taking responsibility for the actions of some (to us) unknown killer who (for reasons of National Security or other reasons) the CPS couldn't bring to justice.
To this day Vincent Tabak is probably analyzing people movements in a Buro Happold office in one of the many overseas countries where the murder of Joanna Yeates never made the headlinrs. This is the only possible explanation why no one will talk about him, and why nothing is heard from him.
-
If this is one rational explanation then god help anyone suffering a miscarriage of justice!
Once again all written without any proof whatsoever all with the presumption of what Takab would or wouldn't do! You don't know him and yet the two people probably most closest to him agree with his guilt
They went to visit and left him there. No word no huge campaign to clear up any wrong doing
Just a conspiracy theory without substance.
So all the people involved in this set up walk away and leave and innocent man to rot?
Why oh why did they then pursue the indecent images charges? Oh yes to seal the deal on what a totally disgusting individual he is? Bringing the spot light right back on him rather than letting him disappear quietly
Unknown killer due to national security ... think we are bordering on fantasy now don't you?
You don't know if Tabak is sat there serving his sentence quietly and his words in court are TRUE! he is sorry for the death of Joanna whether we believe it to be murder or manslaughter
Who knows why he hasn't challenged it, he certainly had the opportunity and yet didn't take it! He admitted his part which is probably a watered down version of what actually happened because as stated many times on this post, he hoped to be convicted on manslaughter didn't he? And with that his options were and always will be limited!
-
Her phone gets me.... if the police think immediatley there is foul play... why did they allow Greg to use her phone to ring rebecca Scott around 4:00am??
And another thing that gets me..... How did he know the password/ number to get into her phone in the first place??
Did they just look at her phone for texts and calls or did they get a proper read out from the phone company????
And if there's a proper read out... did the defence have a copy????
Correction: Greg Reardon did not phone Rebecca Scott at any time that we know of. An unidentified police officer texted Rebecca some time before 4 a.m., possibly after she failed to respond to a voice call, to tell her that her friend Joanna was missing. Rebecca told the press at the time (but not the court subsequently) that she responded by telephoning Joanna's mobile phone, only to have it answered by Greg.
I share your concerns about her phone. Two officers went to 44 Canynge Road in the small hours, but we know the name of only one of these, WPC Anneleise Jackson. She did not testify in person. Instead, the court heard her statement read out by a barrister, separated by an interruption while a point of law was discussed.
There is no sign that Jackson had any instructions to treat the flat as a potential crime scene. She and her partner went away and returned at 4.00 a.m. to take a statement from Joanna's parents. She also took Greg Reardon with her round to flat 2 and roused the occupants to ask them if they had heard anything. Her statement reinforced the jury's impressions of Greg Reardon as the neutral witness, Tanja Morson as the shocked bystander, and Vincent Tabak as the unconcerned drousy hulk.
-
So you think Vincent Tabak knew exactly what he was doing when he signed his enhanced statement and agreed to be cross-examined as his lawyer's only independent defence witness? (His team had "inherited" their pathologist from their predecessors instructed by Crossman & Co of Radstock.)
You are very keen to point out that the police did everything they did because that is standard police procedure. Presumably you would also agree that Vincent Tabak's formidably experienced defence lawyer also knew exactly what he was doing when he avoided every opportunity to discredit the prosecution witnesses, and took every possible opportunity to discredit his own client in the eyes of the jury?
Why do you think Vincent Tabak stuck with the same firm of solicitors and the same barristers' chambers when he subsequently appeared in court on a charge of possessing illegal images of child abuse?
There can be only one rational explanation for the behaviour of Vincent Tabak and his top lawyer - namely, that he had been secretly offered a full amnesty and a new identity, in return for sacrificing his good name and for taking responsibility for the actions of some (to us) unknown killer who (for reasons of National Security or other reasons) the CPS couldn't bring to justice.
To this day Vincent Tabak is probably analyzing people movements in a Buro Happold office in one of the many overseas countries where the murder of Joanna Yeates never made the headlinrs. This is the only possible explanation why no one will talk about him, and why nothing is heard from him.
Intriguing, but VT would not have willingly given up his girlfriend, IMO.
There are other possible explanations as to why we hear nothing about him. He could be in prison in Holland, or he could even be dead.
Or, as some on this thread will surely tell me, he knows he is guilty and he is keeping his head down and serving out his sentence without making a fuss. Even I have to accept that this is possible !!
-
I agree mrswah that any of those could be a possibility and far more likely than him being free living under an assumed name and leaving everything in his life behind
-
Yeah VT is alive and well living on Belle Isle under a new name , his neighbours are Lord Lucan, Lord Mountbatten & Elvis he can regularly be seen riding Shergar on the shore line ..... the man is guilty , he has held his hands up, it as a watertight conviction & he is sitting in his prison cell serving his time , If he was innocent like you claim why has he never once voiced this claim , he has had time and time again to do so he has come to terms he has been caught & has unlike you accepted the fact he is a murderer , He could have claimed his Innocence at the end of the trail , his top class lawyer could have done so & at any time during his sentence he could have wrote to Inside Times or other sources to claim this but he hasn't WHY because he is Guilty .....
-
Once again all written without any proof whatsoever all with the presumption of what Takab would or wouldn't do! You don't know him and yet the two people probably most closest to him agree with his guilt
They went to visit and left him there. No word no huge campaign to clear up any wrong doing
Of course they went to visit him and left him there-----what else could they possibly have done? They could hardly have taken him with them!!
There is no evidence that VT's family believe him to be guilty, although I have to accept that they might. There is also no evidence that they no longer visit him.
-
Left him there alone with no one to fight his corner. Of course they couldn't have taken him with them unless of course we go with Leonora's theory!
Even on Vincent Tabak is Innocent there are links/quotes to what happened. Even how he was feeling in prison at the beginning which isn't consistent with what is implied on here!
Yes they could have done more and no there isn't any evidence they tried to help him in fact if you google what Tanja and her Father said, its clear they didn't continue to support him and did in fact walk away without fighting for him!
Her father could have helped and guided her to fight any part of this but his comments are very telling, just like Tanja's when she is quoted along with Joanna's family
None of that indicates they believe in his innocence hence their silence!
-
Yes, indeed, that is my question-----and they were focussing on the house right from the start, long before anyone had "confessed" to anything !
They so wanted us all to believe Joanna had arrived home that they got Father Henwood into court to testify that he had seen and spoken to Joanna (whom he did not know), rather than read out a statement from him.
Father Henwood's testimony in court was SO BAD and SO IMPRECISE that it certainly reinforces the conclusion that we have been greatly deceived about 44 Canynge Road.
The most important factor in this case is the continued secrecy surrounding the landlord's 2nd witness statement. I cannot for the life of me understand why an intelligent person like "Nine" is so obsessed with the 1300 page document that she knows was a work of pure fiction.
By comparison, Mr. Jefferies's 2nd witness statement will show, if made public, that it was at THE HOUSE that something DID happen. Its importance cannot be underestimated.
Remember, Mr. Jefferies is now a world famous star witness of the Leveson Inquiry, a key player in numerous TV documentaries, and the central character of a top NETFLIX drama-documentary. He is the recipient of undisclosed sums in damages. He has become a bosom friend of well-known celebrity members of the Hacked-Off campaign. Yet no one has wrested out of him the secret of what he saw at 44 Canynge Road. So it must be a very important secret indeed.
If you want to find out what really happened, you need do no more than bang on Mr Jefferies's front door.
-
Yeah VT is alive and well living on Belle Isle under a new name , his neighbours are Lord Lucan, Lord Mountbatten & Elvis he can regularly be seen riding Shergar on the shore line ..... the man is guilty , he has held his hands up, it as a watertight conviction & he is sitting in his prison cell serving his time , If he was innocent like you claim why has he never once voiced this claim , he has had time and time again to do so he has come to terms he has been caught & has unlike you accepted the fact he is a murderer , He could have claimed his Innocence at the end of the trail , his top class lawyer could have done so & at any time during his sentence he could have wrote to Inside Times or other sources to claim this but he hasn't WHY because he is Guilty .....
He could have claimed his Innocence at the end of the trail , his top class lawyer could have done so & at any time during his sentence
But his Top Class Lawyers didn't even defend him in the first place (IMO)
Discrediting their own Client!!! WHY????
-
Of course they went to visit him and left him there-----what else could they possibly have done? They could hardly have taken him with them!!
There is no evidence that VT's family believe him to be guilty, although I have to accept that they might. There is also no evidence that they no longer visit him.
In a statement Miss Morson, who has now moved abroad to escape the memories of her relationship with Tabak, said: “I would like to extend my deepest sorrow and sympathy to the Yeates family for their loss. I am thankful to the judge, the jury, the barristers and solicitors for all their ongoing attention and professionalism
-
Left him there alone with no one to fight his corner. Of course they couldn't have taken him with them unless of course we go with Leonora's theory!
Even on Vincent Tabak is Innocent there are links/quotes to what happened. Even how he was feeling in prison at the beginning which isn't consistent with what is implied on here!
Yes they could have done more and no there isn't any evidence they tried to help him in fact if you google what Tanja and her Father said, its clear they didn't continue to support him and did in fact walk away without fighting for him!
Her father could have helped and guided her to fight any part of this but his comments are very telling, just like Tanja's when she is quoted along with Joanna's family
None of that indicates they believe in his innocence hence their silence!
I can accept that Tanja and her father have probably disowned him, but I am not so sure that his own family would, even if they did believe him to be guilty. Even Myra Hindley was visited in prison by her family.
-
Actions speak louder than words.... they were on a visit and had chance to listen to the real story and help. They got the real story and accepted his guilt
-
In a statement Miss Morson, who has now moved abroad to escape the memories of her relationship with Tabak, said: “I would like to extend my deepest sorrow and sympathy to the Yeates family for their loss. I am thankful to the judge, the jury, the barristers and solicitors for all their ongoing attention and professionalism
Yes, I have read this before.
Why does it sound, to me, very much as if Tanja was advised to make this little speech?????
I'm not saying that she doesn't believe him to be guilty, but what she said after the trial sounded very contrived, to me. It was also in her interests to say it, and to disown VT publicly-----after all, she has a career to think about, and a life to live. One cannot really blame her, I suppose.
-
The most important factor in this case is the continued secrecy surrounding the landlord's 2nd witness statement. I cannot for the life of me understand why an intelligent person like "Nine" is so obsessed with the 1300 page document that she knows was a work of pure fiction.
All the witness statements are Important NOT Just CJ's.... whether he saw her or not... doesn't change the fact she was wearing different clothing to that she wore on the night of Friday 17th December 2010..
she could have left and CJ saw her... true! But I like to go with whats available... I like times... especially on CCTV recordings... I like texts, phones calls movements and emails of everyone who was supposed to be in the 1300 page document....
If as you believe there is not the information in the document and its a work of fiction..... then I want a readout of everyones phone calls and texts. emails of all the parties involved.... I want the CCTV tapes with the original times on them... I still want the demonstration of how he was supposed to have carried a dead weight.....
I want all the witness's on the stand instead of written statements... I want them all to verify their credencials...
There's not just secrecy surrounding CJ's witness statement... there's secrecy surrounding the WHOLE case... because it doesn't not add up no matter how many ways you look at it....
I want all the timings of the events from when he entered the flat as they say till he came back home around midnight or before... I want to see the DUTCH Language in any of Dr Vincent Tabak's written words!!!
And if the 1300 page document is a work of fiction... bring it back to court and lets have a jolly good look at it.... better still someone give me a copy...
-
If you want to find out what really happened, you need do no more than bang on Mr Jefferies's front door.
Mr Jefferies would not tell me anything!!
If he suspcted that VT was innocent, he would never say so, not unless someone else was in the frame, and the evidence seemed compelling. CJ would be afraid that people might look to him again, if they thought there were any doubts re VT.
I have to add that if he really did see Jo leaving the premises with two other people , that would seem very feasible, IMO. However, we don't know whom he saw, and he may not know whom he saw either. Even if he recognised Jo, it is doubtful that he would know the other two people.
-
I know what springs to mind when I think about people making confessions that are not backed up by 'STRONG EVIDENCE'....
It reminds me of centuries ago... when someone was said to be a witch... and they were tided to a stool/chair and thrown in the water to see if they would drown...
If they floated and survived, that was proof enough of them being demonic..
But if they drown, they were INNOCENT!!!!
Think the so called Evidence against Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't strong enough..!!
Where was the Lifebuoy from the Defence???
-
It occurs to me, going back to the posts about Tanja and her dad, (and incidentally, TM only went abroad while the trial was going on---she is still living and working in England), that Tanja had been in a relationship with VT for about a year and a half, her parents had met him on at least a few occasions, and yet none of the family thought there was anything odd about him.
At least, we have not heard that they did, and Tanja's mum referred to him as "our lovely Vincent" when he was first arrested.
I accept that "love is blind" and Tanja might have overlooked "warning signs", but I find it difficult to believe that her parents, her brother and her friends would all have done so. My parents found fault with most of my boyfriends , and my friends were quick to warn me if somebody seemed dodgy!!!
Which suggests, to me, that there wasn't anything odd about VT.
-
Mr Jefferies would not tell me anything!!
If he suspcted that VT was innocent, he would never say so, not unless someone else was in the frame, and the evidence seemed compelling. CJ would be afraid that people might look to him again, if they thought there were any doubts re VT.
I have to add that if he really did see Jo leaving the premises with two other people , that would seem very feasible, IMO. However, we don't know whom he saw, and he may not know whom he saw either. Even if he recognised Jo, it is doubtful that he would know the other two people.
Mr Jefferies's 2nd witness statement is THE HOLY GRAIL of this case. You can forget about everything else.
You don't know WHAT or WHOM Mr Jefferies saw, nor do you know when he saw them. But you do KNOW that his 2nd witness statement changed the course of Operation Braid immediately. None of your speculations could account for the huge effect that this single and still unpublished statement had.
What do you mean, "if he suspected VT is innocent"? Do you really think they appoint stupid people to run the English dept at Clifton College? Mr. Jefferies knows very well what is in his 2nd witness statement, and he knows very well that its publication would be a bomb under VT's conviction.
-
Two men have gone to prison to preserve its secret.
Two men??????
I cannot claim to be as optimistic as you are that this second witness statement contains anything so vitally crucial-----although, as I always say, I could be wrong. Not much use telling me to read your lips either, since I can't see you!!!
CJ did say, in one of his interviews, that he was somewhat relieved when VT was charged and convicted, otherwise there would always have been a little bit of suspicion around him, or something to that effect. However, I still find it hard to believe that he would deliberately sit on information that would free VT. Also, if he had such vital imformation, surely he would have remembered to give it to the police first time around??
-
I know what springs to mind when I think about people making confessions that are not backed up by 'STRONG EVIDENCE'....
It reminds me of centuries ago... when someone was said to be a witch... and they were tided to a stool/chair and thrown in the water to see if they would drown...
If they floated and survived, that was proof enough of them being demonic..
But if they drown, they were INNOCENT!!!!
Think the so called Evidence against Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't strong enough..!!
Where was the Lifebuoy from the Defence???
A problem with confessions, so called confessions, and guilty pleas-------------if somebody makes one, everybody believes it, without looking for evidence to back it up. In fact, they often stop looking for evidence, and don't have a trial at all.
Nobody in their right mind would plead guilty to something they hadn't done. The problem is, after days of interrogation, solitary confinement, suicide watch, perhaps tranquillisers, and removal from one's home and family, who knows if some of these people are really in their right mind any more.
-
Posters are again reminded not to post unsupported allegations.
-
It is clear that if you are not in the VT is innocent camp you are belittled, abuseed and called names, your opinions , thoughts and ideas are cast a side as crass, idiotic and lies when in fact virtually everything posted by the VT is innocent side is made up, fabricated and pathetic lies, conjecture & hearsay , if this wasn't such a sad and true case it would make a brilliant story for an adult Jackonary as it is that far fetch the claims made it is a government, police and authority cover up ....lets not forgot that the only person who killed anyone was VT and there is little to no sympathy, respect or compassion shown to the victim of this heinous crime and act .
-
It is clear that if you are not in the VT is innocent camp you are belittled, abuseed and called names, your opinions , thoughts and ideas are cast a side as crass, idiotic and lies when in fact virtually everything posted by the VT is innocent side is made up, fabricated and pathetic lies, conjecture & hearsay , if this wasn't such a sad and true case it would make a brilliant story for an adult Jackonary as it is that far fetch the claims made it is a government, police and authority cover up ....lets not forgot that the only person who killed anyone was VT and there is little to no sympathy, respect or compassion shown to the victim of this heinous crime and act .
It is unfortunately a well known phenomena seen across many alleged miscarriage of justice threads, when all else fails blame and ridicule everyone else associated with the case. The classic being the Jeremy Bamber forums where just about everyone else is to blame for his murderous rampage.
-
You have not been paying attention. Read my lips mrswah. Mr Jefferies's 2nd witness statement is THE HOLY GRAIL of this case. You can forget about everything else. Two men have gone to prison to preserve its secret. Two officers flew to Schiphol to preserve its secret. Thirty journalists doorstepped its author, not realising that they were hapless tools in the hands of those who were determined to preserve its secret.
You don't know WHAT or WHOM Mr Jefferies saw, nor do you know when he saw them. But you do KNOW that his 2nd witness statement changed the course of Operation Braid immediately. None of your speculations could account for the huge effect that this single and still unpublished statement had.
What do you mean, "if he suspected VT is innocent"? Do you really think they appoint stupid people to run the English dept at Clifton College? Mr. Jefferies knows very well what is in his 2nd witness statement, and he knows very well that its publication would be a bomb under VT's conviction.
Nobody knows what was said or not said in that 2nd interview /statement to make such assumptions and guess is nothing more than scaremongering and fabrication something you seem very good at doing and when people don't agree you attack them , belittle , insult and denounce those who don't see eye to eye with you and you regularly flaunt the rules and over step the line of decency, compassion and understanding towards the victim , her family and the truth .
-
I have a suggestion, why don't those who claim Tabak is innocent write to him or e-mail him and ask him to explain why he doesn't contest the juries decision?
They are most welcome to post his reply.
-
I have a suggestion, why don't those who claim Tabak is innocent write to him or e-mail him and ask him to explain why he doesn't contest the juries decision?
They are most welcome to post his reply.
I have tried, John. I have to get VT's permission and his prison number in order to write to him. I first applied to the "Prisoner Location Service" in mid November, have sent two reminders (it is supposed to take six weeks), and still have not received an answer.
-
Nobody knows what was said or not said in that 2nd interview /statement to make such assumptions and guess is nothing more than scaremongering and fabrication something you seem very good at doing and when people don't agree you attack them , belittle , insult and denounce those who don't see eye to eye with you and you regularly flaunt the rules and over step the line of decency, compassion and understanding towards the victim , her family and the truth .
Paul, if you read Leonora's post properly, you will see that it was directed at me, not at you.
The "Vincent Is Innocent" camp do disagree with each other sometimes, but I can cope with that!
I do respect Joanna's family, actually, and I feel very, very sorry for them. However, I also believe the wrong man is in prison, and I don't believe that is what they would want. It is easy to say that anyone who believes a convicted murderer is innocent has no respect for the family or the victim, but if that were to be true, no miscarriages of justice would ever be revealed. I do acknowledge that I could be wrong, which is why I would like to be able to have some contact with VT. If I were to speak to him, and if I came to the conclusion that he was guilty, then so be it.
-
I was looking at the video from inside Joanna Yeates flat, and remember seeing marks on the wall...
It reminded me of crime scene's when they spray something on the wall to show up blood stains...
what do these stains look like to people??
I Think it is down by the table.. The table has always looked in an odd place... not a lot of room for it...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
oopsie
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8847771/Vincent-Tabak-carried-on-as-if-nothing-happened-after-murder-of-Joanna-Yeates.html
With reference to the newspaper report quoted above, yes, some killers do carry on afterwards as if nothing had happened, particularly serial killers.
However, it seems that VT had no previous" form," and had never even been inside a police station. We are supposed to believe that he committed his first murder, and in the following weeks, nobody noticed anything strange about his behaviour. According to the Telegraph, this suggests that he is a particularly callous and sick individual. However, there could be another explanation------that he didn't do it!
-
Thought I had remembered that the Judge in the trial had originally said he wanted a unanimous verdict:
Mr Justice Field had previously asked for a unanimous verdict, but as the deliberations continue for a third day he has said he will accept a decision supported by 10 of the 12 jurors.
Then he says something really weird:..
'Please make due allowance for the stress the defendant is under, facing this very serious charge and bear in mind this defendant gave his evidence in English, which is not his first language."
What does that even mean???????? EH!!!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2053703/Joanna-Yeates-trial-Judge-tells-jury-accept-majority-verdict.html#ixzz4Zv8sujID
-
I was looking at the video from inside Joanna Yeates flat, and remember seeing marks on the wall...
It reminded me of crime scene's when they spray something on the wall to show up blood stains...
what do these stains look like to people??
I Think it is down by the table.. The table has always looked in an odd place... not a lot of room for it...
I think the marks on the wall look like the results of applying dangerous chemicals intended to remove all possible forensic traces that could be used to reveal the presence of persons in the flat who were not supposed to be there. Obviously, if evidence of Vincent Tabak had been found, they would have been testified in court. Obviously, if he had been in the flat and done anything at all there, even if it was only turning off the TV, there would have been traces of him. But there weren't. You may be sure that there were traces of other people besides the two known occupants.
-
With reference to the newspaper report quoted above, yes, some killers do carry on afterwards as if nothing had happened, particularly serial killers.
However, it seems that VT had no previous" form," and had never even been inside a police station. We are supposed to believe that he committed his first murder, and in the following weeks, nobody noticed anything strange about his behaviour. According to the Telegraph, this suggests that he is a particularly callous and sick individual. However, there could be another explanation------that he didn't do it!
So you have experience that some serial killers carry on as if nothing had happened do you? The mind boggles at the dangerous life you must have been leading.
Why do you think no TV company has made a drama-documentary called "The Lost Honour of Vincent Tabak"? Don't you agree that there is something weird about the priorities of the media? After all, there is nothing so strange about a retired schoolmaster who is wrongly arrested being awarded damages for his wrongful character assassination by the sensation-hungry news media. Anyone would have done what the landlord did.
In contrast, an account of how a young, newly engaged engineer of irreproachible character, suddenly became so crazy and detached that, with no motive, he just popped next door and strangled his neighbour after 10 minutes' acquaintance is absolutely sensational and inexplicable. Why do you think TV producers aren't falling over themselves to interview all the people in the UK and Holland who knew him to find out the truth? What does it tell you about the media's interest in the truth?
-
Thought I had remembered that the Judge in the trial had originally said he wanted a unanimous verdict:
Then he says something really weird:..
What does that even mean???????? EH!!!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2053703/Joanna-Yeates-trial-Judge-tells-jury-accept-majority-verdict.html#ixzz4Zv8sujID
The jury submitted a piece of paper to the judge towards the end of their deliberations. Soon after that he informed them that he would accept a 10-2 majority verdict. I deduce that this means that up to five members of the jury refused to accept that it was murder, but they all wanted to get home for the weekend, so they agreed to tell the judge that their verdict was 10-2.
What is your problem with the judge pointing out the obvious fact that English was not VT's first language? It seems to have been almost the first sensible thing the judge said throughout the entire trial. VT's own defence counsel should have reminded the court of it when counsel for the prosecution was cross-examining the defendant so aggressively.
-
His English was fine enough to be head hunted for his job! The Lost Honour of Vincent Tabak...you make it sound like he is some fallen Hollywood Super Star who took the wrong path!
-
His English was fine enough to be head hunted for his job! The Lost Honour of Vincent Tabak...you make it sound like he is some fallen Hollywood Super Star who took the wrong path!
Jixy morning, It sounds like the Judge is making allowances, almost as if he'e leaning towards not guilty...
Please make due allowance for the stress the defendant is under, facing this very serious charge and bear in mind this defendant gave his evidence in English, which is not his first language."
And I agree with Leonora...... Why DIDN'T his defence object, when they saw him being badgered as his native tongue is Dutch...
Which brings me too the fact he had sent emails in the new year to his Dutch colleges from the university... if the email where to be in the 1300 page document.....
Where's the Dutch!!!!!!
-
Good morning Nine
Where is it documented that he struggled with English? He could have had assistance if he struggled with any part of the trial and understanding proceedings, he didn't.
Not sure the Judge was leaning towards not guilty
As for behaviour after a crime, there is no rule book. Some people commit murder and other horrific crimes while maintaining a normal family life. We don't have to know these people Leonora, its only documented in the media just like all the points raised in the case of Tabak
No one knows him, no one knows the serial killers either!
-
Good morning Nine
Where is it documented that he struggled with English? He could have had assistance if he struggled with any part of the trial and understanding proceedings, he didn't.
Not sure the Judge was leaning towards not guilty
As for behaviour after a crime, there is no rule book. Some people commit murder and other horrific crimes while maintaining a normal family life. We don't have to know these people Leonora, its only documented in the media just like all the points raised in the case of Tabak
No one knows him, no one knows the serial killers either!
It's documented that he had an interpreter initially and at trial there was an interpreter for the medical terminology...
Maybe they should have just given him an interpreter "full stop" who he could choose to use at any point in the trial.... i'm sure he wouldn't understand all the legal jargon!!!
As for the judge... what an extremely peculiar statement to make it's almost like he's making apologies for Dr Vincent Tabak....
Why didn't the judge stop the badgering of the witness, when he clearly admits the stress he was under, the language being not of his own....
'Please make due allowance for the stress the defendant is under, facing this very serious charge and bear in mind this defendant gave his evidence in English, which is not his first language."
What is making due allowances?????
For the stress the defendant is under ?????
Facing this very serious charge ?????
And bear in mind the his evidence was in english..... ???
Why would he make such comments? Is this normal????
Well his behaviour after the crime was what they wanted to screw him to the wall for!!!! Damned if he does damned if he doesn't...
Agreed Jixy no one know him apart from his family, who where never called to testify to his good character...
I still don't believe he did it,..... If it was him....
Then why all the secrecy??
-
CCTV......
They are not right... The Waitrose CCTV.. Jumps..... At 1:24 she's at the edge of the Aisle... at 1:24 she's at the end of the Fridge display leaving???
These video's have been interfered with (IMO)... Waitrose video is very jerky as well as the Tesco one...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dX6jD5QiIw
The tesco Video is in slow mo.... yet the timer runs normally.....
If you go back to look at the Waitrose video... Joanna Yeates manages walk down the street then she enters the store at around 22 seconds, walk around the display , up the Aisle looks for what she wants and doesn't find it.... then leaves the store in 1min 38 seconds...
Yet 58 secs of Tesco's she spends an awful long time not doing very much.... The Tesco video should be more than 58 seconds.... when does she go into her bag to get her MONEY!!!!!
The Tesco video has also been interfered with (IMO)...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeW_Jwn43g0
The Bargain Booze Video she is walking at a more natural pace....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU4z1M0LzrQ
It's 18 seconds long.... Why does a little store like Bargain Booze have CCTV That is better than Tesco or Waitrose????
Not likely.... yet the two big stores CCTV is really bad and jerky....... WHY!!!!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Morning, Jixy, Leonora, Nine
It has never occurred to me that I am being CCTV'd every time I go to Tesco ! Who is ever going to believe that all the apple pies, beer, crisps and cake that I buy are for the hubby? And , oh dear, I buy the incriminating stuff too: bleach, rubber gloves, dettol-------------------oh well !
Leonora, how do we know that Gunter knew the content of CJ's second witness statement?
Jixy, you are right: we don't know any of these people, and we rely on what we read in the media, (which is not always accurate, and which is often biased). We just have to do the best we can with the info we have, and I accept that much of what I believe may not be the truth. It seems to be impossible to find out any new information about this particular case, and, yes, I wonder why.
If VT did kill Jo, he is a most unusual murderer in that nobody seemed to find anything weird about him, and that he did, indeed , carry on as normal after what was , presumably, his first murder. I would have expected someone in that position to be scared out of his wits, and behaving so peculiarly that his family and friends would have noticed something was up straight away.
-
So you have experience that some serial killers carry on as if nothing had happened do you? The mind boggles at the dangerous life you must have been leading.
Why do you think no TV company has made a drama-documentary called "The Lost Honour of Vincent Tabak"? Don't you agree that there is something weird about the priorities of the media? After all, there is nothing so strange about a retired schoolmaster who is wrongly arrested being awarded damages for his wrongful character assassination by the sensation-hungry news media. Anyone would have done what the landlord did.
In contrast, an account of how a young, newly engaged engineer of irreproachible character, suddenly became so crazy and detached that, with no motive, he just popped next door and strangled his neighbour after 10 minutes' acquaintance is absolutely sensational and inexplicable. Why do you think TV producers aren't falling over themselves to interview all the people in the UK and Holland who knew him to find out the truth? What does it tell you about the media's interest in the truth?
Well, people who produce newspapers want to sell newspapers! We know they don't always print the truth: remember Chris Jefferies? Remember the original mugshot of "Evil Myra" still on front pages of newspapers at a time when she had probably long ceased to be evil or dangerous and was a sick, pathetic, institutionalised fifty-something year old? The owners of the tabloids must have been the only people who were sad when she died!!!
Saying that, there are also media reports and documentaries that do tell the truth, I am sure.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I have no experience of serial killers----I am afraid I am relying on the media again, and also on my psychology training: surely, if someone has committed a string of murders, and his/her nearest and dearest has not noticed anything odd , then it's reasonable to assume that the murderer is carrying on life as normal between crimes??? That is why they are so difficult to catch.
-
Where is it documented that he struggled with English? He could have had assistance if he struggled with any part of the trial and understanding proceedings, he didn't.
I don't think VT had any problems with English at all, apart from, perhaps, legal jargon. As far as I remember, he was offered the services of an interpreter and he declined.
-
Well, people who produce newspapers want to sell newspapers! We know they don't always print the truth: remember Chris Jefferies? Remember the original mugshot of "Evil Myra" still on front pages of newspapers at a time when she had probably long ceased to be evil or dangerous and was a sick, pathetic, institutionalised fifty-something year old? The owners of the tabloids must have been the only people who were sad when she died!!!
Which is why not being able to find anything out about Dr Vincent Tabak is strange.... It was a massive high profiled case.. ...
And...... Silence... WHY????
Why hasn't the media been in contact to find out what he's up to in prison... Is he a model prisoner?? for instance, has he had any altercations??....
Nobody wants to touch him with a barge pole????? WHY??????
-
Which is why not being able to find anything out about Dr Vincent Tabak is strange.... It was a massive high profiled case.. ...
And...... Silence... WHY????
Why hasn't the media been in contact to find out what he's up to in prison... Is he a model prisoner?? for instance, has he had any altercations??....
Nobody wants to touch him with a barge pole????? WHY??????
I ask myself the same question!
-
I don't think VT had any problems with English at all, apart from, perhaps, legal jargon. As far as I remember, he was offered the services of an interpreter and he declined.
I agree mrswah. I don't think he had any problems at all with English and did in fact decline the services of an interpreter
He is a very intelligent man and I don't think he would have refused one if needed
ANYONE facing a murder trial would face the same as he did at trial. Not to do with misunderstanding etc its a strange environment to say the least
-
I ask myself the same question!
While it seems strange as you focus on his case, there are many many murders where once convicted we never hear another word
Its only as we piece the case together in our own minds we think there should be more
-
quote from Leonora So you have experience that some serial killers carry on as if nothing had happened do you? The mind boggles at the dangerous life you must have been leading.
Mrswah my comment was in relation to the above. Reading something, which is all we have to go on doesn't indicate anyone leading a dangerous life lol Just to clarify what I meant 8)-)))
-
The Oscar goes to Vincent Tabak ..... oh no wait he is a murderer and spoke perfect unbroken English he understood everything except maybe legal and medical terms but there is no proof he didn't understand them , There is no proof that he isn't as guilty as he pleaded , the is no proof he was forced to give sch a plea, there is proof he is the only suspect and is and was guilty of the murder of Joanna Yates anything else other than that fact is conjecture , hearsay, personal opinion & pure speculation
-
quote from Leonora So you have experience that some serial killers carry on as if nothing had happened do you? The mind boggles at the dangerous life you must have been leading.
Mrswah my comment was in relation to the above. Reading something, which is all we have to go on doesn't indicate anyone leading a dangerous life lol Just to clarify what I meant 8)-)))
Oh, did I misunderstand----LOL !!!
It wouldn't be the first time!
-
While it seems strange as you focus on his case, there are many many murders where once convicted we never hear another word
Its only as we piece the case together in our own minds we think there should be more
No.... it's only when you here the Defence Call the defendant, that you think.....
What's going on here then!!!
-
I suppose most of us only focus on the high profile murder cases, because they are the ones that are reported in the media. Unless one is a lawyer, or in the police, one doesn't hear about the others!
-
I suppose most of us only focus on the high profile murder cases, because they are the ones that are reported in the media. Unless one is a lawyer, or in the police, one doesn't hear about the others!
Since Vincent Tabak is not appealing his conviction there isn't much media interest in the case any more. Done and dusted as far as most are concerned.
-
Since Vincent Tabak is not appealing his conviction there isn't much media interest in the case any more. Done and dusted as far as most are concerned.
Totally agree this thread has gone round and round in circles , going over and over the same old ground with no new answers or leads surely it is coming to a time when this thread has run its time and needs put to bed once and for all and shut down for good ..
-
Just looking around and I found this from:... I won't say at the moment but it was on social media ... I have always said the earlier statements people have made tend to be a little more acurate:..
20 December 2010 ·
All,
Most of you on my friends list will not know Jo Yeates but some of you do. Jo has been missing and the last time she was seen was on Friday night; she made it home but was not there when Greg(her boyfriend) returned home from a weekend away late last night. Her belongings however were there including her house key, mobile phone and purse.
Although there is little we can do apart from help the police we c
What time was Greg supposed to have returned home... ??? What time is late????
Now this person and Greg are Friends on this social media...
One thing of note.. this person says house 'KEY'...... I did notice two locks on Joanna Yeates door, one being yale the other being a dead lock... Also remember the photo I posted of the door and said that the Yale latch catchment was a different colour to the brass yale lock....
When was that changed????
So which lock did they use??? If it's the dead lock, then how could Dr Vincent Tabak lock the door and leave the key in the flat???
The pic below was at the bottom of the post...
EDIT:.... This person talks like maybe they got the info from the police.... but then i realised it was more of a personal message... which begs the question, why didn't this person say that Jo had bought them a drink on the Friday????
Double EDIT:..... Another question.... How would this person know that Joanna Yeates made it home on Friday 17th December 2010??? So early on in the disappearance???????
Again.... another thought..... Did she only use the Deadlock??? I say this because if she was afraid to be home on her own the deadlock would be better... But not only that.... this would lend weight as to why they thought it was CJ... having the keys to all the flats!!!!
-
Just looking around and I found this from:... I won't say at the moment but it was on social media ... I have always said the earlier statements people have made tend to be a little more acurate:..
What time was Greg supposed to have returned home... ??? What time is late????
Now this person and Greg are Friends on this social media...
One thing of note.. this person says house 'KEY'...... I did notice two locks on Joanna Yeates door, one being yale the other being a dead lock... Also remember the photo I posted of the door and said that the Yale latch catchment was a different colour to the brass yale lock....
When was that changed????
So which lock did they use??? If it's the dead lock, then how could Dr Vincent Tabak lock the door and leave the key in the flat???
The pic below was at the bottom of the post...
EDIT:.... This person talks like maybe they got the info from the police.... but then i realised it was more of a personal message... which begs the question, why didn't this person say that Jo had bought them a drink on the Friday????
Double EDIT:..... Another question.... How would this person know that Joanna Yeates made it home on Friday 17th December 2010??? So early on in the disappearance???????
Again.... another thought..... Did she only use the Deadlock??? I say this because if she was afraid to be home on her own the deadlock would be better... But not only that.... this would lend weight as to why they thought it was CJ... having the keys to all the flats!!!!
Greg Reardon told the court that he got back to the flat about 8 p.m. on the Sunday evening. He told the court that he and Joanna normally double-locked the front door, but that he thought that he had needed to unlock only the Yale lock to get in when he returned.
Unless I am mistaken, the usual kind of Yale lock allows the door to be slammed shut without the use of a key. Once that has been done, it can be opened from the outside only by someone with a key. Reardon's testimony implies that this is what had the intruder had done. The discrepancy in the colours of the two lock components could be accounted for if the Yale lock itself had been replaced by a more modern one while the old component on the door jamb was retained.
Let us be clear what the jury found, and what it did not find. The jury found that Vincent Tabak murdered Joanna and dumped her body. However, it did NOT find that the killing took place in the flat itself. If Reardon is a credible witness, then there was a struggle inside the flat. However, the total absence of forensic evidence from the flat itself means that the jury would have to conclude that the killing took place somewhere else.
Everyone is agreed that Vincent Tabak was a liar, so there are no grounds for believing some parts of his testimony while dismissing others. His testimony is the only basis for believing that the killing took place in the flat. The court did not determine where the killing actually took place. We do not know if it were Vincent Tabak who pulled the door shut, leaving the key inside, or Joanna herself, or a third party.
As soon as she was reported missing, the police repeatedly told the public that Joanna got home to her flat on Friday 17th December evening. There is no reason for us to believe she didn't.
-
Greg Reardon told the court that he got back to the flat about 8 p.m. on the Sunday evening. He told the court that he and Joanna normally double-locked the front door, but that he thought that he had needed to unlock only the Yale lock to get in when he returned.
Unless I am mistaken, the usual kind of Yale lock allows the door to be slammed shut without the use of a key. Once that has been done, it can be opened from the outside only by someone with a key. Reardon's testimony implies that this is what had the intruder had done. The discrepancy in the colours of the two lock components could be accounted for if the Yale lock itself had been replaced by a more modern one while the old component on the door jamb was retained.
Let us be clear what the jury found, and what it did not find. The jury found that Vincent Tabak murdered Joanna and dumped her body. However, it did NOT find that the killing took place in the flat itself. If Reardon is a credible witness, then there was a struggle inside the flat. However, the total absence of forensic evidence from the flat itself means that the jury would have to conclude that the killing took place somewhere else.
Everyone is agreed that Vincent Tabak was a liar, so there are no grounds for believing some parts of his testimony while dismissing others. His testimony is the only basis for believing that the killing took place in the flat. The court did not determine where the killing actually took place. We do not know if it were Vincent Tabak who pulled the door shut, leaving the key inside, or Joanna herself, or a third party.
As soon as she was reported missing, the police repeatedly told the public that Joanna got home to her flat on Friday 17th December evening. There is no reason for us to believe she didn't.
So, if Joanna did get back to her flat, but she wasn't killed there, she must have gone out again-----either willingly or unwillingly. Is this what you are implying, Leonora?
-
A famous reporter posted this on twitter on the 24th December 2010:
Date and time of tweet: 4:32 AM - 24 Dec 2010
New info we have received today is that a neighbour has reported hearing a disturbance around midnight of the friday #helpfindjo
Leonora... does this lend anything to the 2nd witness statement or is this another neighbour?????
-
A famous reporter posted this on twitter on the 24th December 2010:
Date and time of tweet: 4:32 AM - 24 Dec 2010
Leonora... does this lend anything to the 2nd witness statement or is this another neighbour?????
That is anybody's guess. It is quite new to me. It doesn't sound as if it had anything at all to do with the landlord's 2nd witness statement, which, as I have repeatedly pointed out, remains top secret, despite his having become the subject of a Netflix release.
-
So, if Joanna did get back to her flat, but she wasn't killed there, she must have gone out again-----either willingly or unwillingly. Is this what you are implying, Leonora?
That is what at least some members of the jury would have worked out.
-
Since Vincent Tabak is not appealing his conviction there isn't much media interest in the case any more. Done and dusted as far as most are concerned.
A TV documentary in the "Judge Rinder" series, broadcast as recently as last summer, is only the latest of a long succession of examples of continuing media interest in the case itself. Although "The Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies" was made for British ITN over two years ago, this sympathetic, high-quality, but sometimes seriously inaccurate drama-documentary achieved worldwide release on Netflix only last year. So I your claim of dwindling media interest is not correct.
-
Since Vincent Tabak is not appealing his conviction there isn't much media interest in the case any more. Done and dusted as far as most are concerned.
Confronted with the most extraordinary behaviour ever of an eminent defence barrister in a murder trial, the behaviour of the media itself has also been inexplicable. Yet you are apparently comfortable with this.
1. The defence QC failed to discredit a single prosecution witness, many of whom were undoubtedly not telling the whole truth. Yet you are evidently content with this.
2. The defence QC lost no opportunity to discredit his own client and invite him to incriminate himself under cross-examination. Yet you see nothing unusual in this.
3. The jury was told that the defendant had confessed to a prison chaplain. It was grounds for a mistrial that they were not told that the witness purporting to be a chaplain was in fact a senior officer from another prison. Nowhere in his testimony did he actually state that the defendant had told him that he had killed the victim. However, in an ingenious play of words during cross-examination, the defence QC allowed the court and the press to believe that the defendant had made a confession.
4. The defendant at no time protested that he had made no such confession, nor even replaced this defence QC. Yet you see nothing curious in this.
5. The jury was not told about the 4 pumping engines and 23 fire officers needed to recover the body from the spot where the defendant claimed he had deposited the victim. Yet you see no grounds for an appeal.
6. No forensic evidence put the killing of Joanna Yeates in the flat where the court was told it took place. Obviously, she was killed somewhere else. Yet you see no grounds for a mistrial.
7. After the trial, the CPS made much of the internet research carried out by Vincent Tabak, which was evidently presented to the jury in a 1300 page timeline. Yet the witness who is supposed to have compiled this timeline did not testify to it in court, as she spoke only to confirm the identity of the web pages and films shown on the video screens.
Your eagerness to remove well-meaning and sincere posts from contributors who are trying to obey your rules surely merits an explanation?
-
And i'll add to that:..
The clothes she was obviously found in differ greatly to what she was last seen wearing...
Eyebrows should raise!!! Timelines will obviously change with this information, I also bear in mind that the prosecution made reference to Joanna Yeates being settled for the evening... Was this his admission he knew she had time to change her clothing, switch the TV on and get ready for cooking or leaving?????
-
From "Law Society Gazette", Thursday 3rd November 2011 – by Catherine Baksi, interviewing instructing solicitor Ian Kelcey
Thoughts on the case: ‘I knew from an early stage that this would be a difficult and tactically challenging case. We had to conduct it with a degree of secrecy in the office and make sure everything was securely locked away. The pressure on all of us was 24/7. If [the pornography evidence] had gone in, there is no doubt it would have prejudiced his right to a fair trial. The judge conducted the case impeccably. Tabak can have no complaints about the fairness of the process.
‘This case involved a very narrow issue – what was Tabak’s intent in those fatal few moments?’
Kelcey said the defence pathologist showed there was limited pressure on the neck, and death could have occurred within 15-20 seconds possibly from heart failure. ‘While the prosecution had said there were 43 injuries on Miss Yeates’ body, the defence pathologist showed that many of these were caused after her death.’
Dealing with the media: ‘Of the cases I’ve done, this has had the most intense media interest. I was very concerned that the media had overstepped the mark on a number of occasions. We regularly had to correct inaccurately reported details and made several complaints to the attorney general regarding contempt of court.
The media attention was too intrusive – photographers were taking pictures of jurors and everyone in the queue to get into the court. I think it was a mistake for the local authority and the police to put up barriers that gave the press a grandstand. Questions need to be asked, not only about the media’s behaviour, but about how some information got into their hands in the first place.’
-
‘This case involved a very narrow issue – what was Tabak’s intent in those fatal few moments?’
Narrow issue???? what happened to checking timelines etc.. to see if it was even possible???
Where did it say in court that she died from 'Heart Faliure"???
So they went to trial not having all the evidence (1300 pages of)and where only interested in:... Intent!!
15-20 seconds... is an awfully short time..... Is that why the Police originally asked if he tried to revive her because she was unconcious????
Tabak can have no complaints about the fairness of the process.
Well ... I disagree.....
‘I knew from an early stage that this would be a difficult and tactically challenging case. We had to conduct it with a degree of secrecy in the office and make sure everything was securely locked away.
So who advised him on his plea at the Old Bailey?????
Tactically challenging???? What were the tactics...... Let him sit there and take it????????
My God... cannot see any defence tactics here????? "they just slapped him daft (IMO)...
-
Where did it say in court that she died from 'Heart Faliure"???
See here:
www.ibtimes.co.uk/237256
-
From "Law Society Gazette", Thursday 3rd November 2011 – by Catherine Baksi, interviewing instructing solicitor Ian Kelcey
We had to conduct it with a degree of secrecy in the office and make sure everything was securely locked away. The pressure on all of us was 24/7..
Why?
Locked away from whom?
-
Confronted with the most extraordinary behaviour ever of an eminent defence barrister in a murder trial, the behaviour of the media itself has also been inexplicable. Yet you are apparently comfortable with this.
1. The defence QC failed to discredit a single prosecution witness, many of whom were undoubtedly not telling the whole truth. Yet you are evidently content with this.
2. The defence QC lost no opportunity to discredit his own client and invite him to incriminate himself under cross-examination. Yet you see nothing unusual in this.
3. The jury was told that the defendant had confessed to a prison chaplain. It was grounds for a mistrial that they were not told that the witness purporting to be a chaplain was in fact a senior officer from another prison. Nowhere in his testimony did he actually state that the defendant had told him that he had killed the victim. However, in an ingenious play of words during cross-examination, the defence QC allowed the court and the press to believe that the defendant had made a confession.
4. The defendant at no time protested that he had made no such confession, nor even replaced this defence QC. Yet you see nothing curious in this.
5. The jury was not told about the 4 pumping engines and 23 fire officers needed to recover the body from the spot where the defendant claimed he had deposited the victim. Yet you see no grounds for an appeal.
6. No forensic evidence put the killing of Joanna Yeates in the flat where the court was told it took place. Obviously, she was killed somewhere else. Yet you see no grounds for a mistrial.
7. After the trial, the CPS made much of the internet research carried out by Vincent Tabak, which was evidently presented to the jury in a 1300 page timeline. Yet the witness who is supposed to have compiled this timeline did not testify to it in court, as she spoke only to confirm the identity of the web pages and films shown on the video screens.
Your eagerness to remove well-meaning and sincere posts from contributors who are trying to obey your rules surely merits an explanation?
Despite Mr Clegg's cross examination of the "chaplain", the media and everybody else knew months before the trial that VT had pleaded guilty to killing JY. Most people would take that as meaning he had confessed----very few would stop and realise that saying you have done something is different from saying you will say you have done something!
VT's testimony is full of lies, eg the claim that he carried out the murder in JY's flat, touched the TV remote, switched off the oven, etc etc-------------but no forensics! Also, the presence of all that fire and rescue equipment and all those staff suggest that he did not leave the body where he said he did (or where the dog walkers claimed to have found it).
So, if VT can lie throughout his testimony (don't forget, his story of the "pass gone wrong" was very similar to a "possible scenario" outlined in the Daily Mirror ten days before his arrest), why should we necessarily believe in his guilty plea?
-
See here:
www.ibtimes.co.uk/237256
It's a small point, but this article is based on the Prosecution QC's and the Defence QC's closing speeches and it is dated 25 October 2011 - before the jury retired. Yet the picture caption states "Vincent Tabak enjoyed violent pornographic film videos" - an allegation that was not made public until after the jury had delivered their verdict.
-
It's a small point, but this article is based on the Prosecution QC's and the Defence QC's closing speeches and it is dated 25 October 2011 - before the jury retired. Yet the picture caption states "Vincent Tabak enjoyed violent pornographic film videos" - an allegation that was not made public until after the jury had delivered their verdict.
Well spotted. Hm-------interesting. Was the photo and the caption joined onto the article after the trial was over, I wonder? If not, somebody leaked something early----------.
-
A bit rude to comment about forum rules. Firstly no one makes you post on here and secondly it's not the moderators fault tabak admitted killing Joanna and never tried to appeal! His story may be full of holes to you but his lies could very well be his attempt to save himself from a life sentence and you don't know that isn't true!
-
it's not the moderators fault tabak admitted killing Joanna and never tried to appeal!
So who's FAULT was it!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Well spotted. Hm-------interesting. Was the photo and the caption joined onto the article after the trial was over, I wonder? If not, somebody leaked something early----------.
How is it even possible?????
The jury have been sent home and told to come back tomorrow at 10:30am for judge's summing up.
The prosecution.... Lickley also insisted that when Tabak went over the Yeates' flat in Clifton, Bristol on 17 December 2010, he had sex on his mind, explaining to the jury: "The whole incident is linked to sex. This is a killing linked to sex."
The information.... Vincent Tabak enjoyed violent pornographic film videos
So how does this stand???? If it was possible for the Jury to know about the alledged Violent Pornography??
Prejudical????
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/vincent-tabak-jo-yeates-joanna-yeates-trail-murder-investigation-court-case-walked-away-any-time-sto-237256
Vincent Tabak Trial: Joanna Yeates was Killed for Sex
October 25, 2011 15:49 BST
EDIT:.... How can they state that when it wasn't (A):... Proven
(B):.... Before the summing up and jury verdict????
-
My comments were not actually to you nine but in answer to your question about whose fault it was that has to be down to tabak
-
My comments were not actually to you nine but in answer to your question about whose fault it was that has to be down to tabak
I know... I was replying to the what's fault part....
I think he was ill advised....
-
Despite Mr Clegg's cross examination of the "chaplain", the media and everybody else knew months before the trial that VT had pleaded guilty to killing JY. Most people would take that as meaning he had confessed----very few would stop and realise that saying you have done something is different from saying you will say you have done something!
VT's testimony is full of lies, eg the claim that he carried out the murder in JY's flat, touched the TV remote, switched off the oven, etc etc-------------but no forensics! Also, the presence of all that fire and rescue equipment and all those staff suggest that he did not leave the body where he said he did (or where the dog walkers claimed to have found it).
So, if VT can lie throughout his testimony (don't forget, his story of the "pass gone wrong" was very similar to a "possible scenario" outlined in the Daily Mirror ten days before his arrest), why should we necessarily believe in his guilty plea?
We shouldn't Mrswah.... And the fact that the Guilty Plea was so public before the Trial in October would already put in the minds of a jury that they didn't really need to take much heed to what was being said..
How much did these Jury members read before the trial??? where they on any forums in relation to the case???
How unbiased were they????
Ordinarily most jurors would not have an incline of a case... but as this one had so much publicity, they couldn't fail to have preconceived ideas about it...
Everything to do with Dr Vincent Tabak and his incarcaration at the time, was timed to perfection with whatever was happening with Joanna Yeates... IE:... her burial , which coincidentally was when Dr Vincent Tabak first recieved visiting from family and girlfriend...
With a public having sympathy for the family and their tragedy..( which is only natural).. It would then lend to why people wouldn't give two figs about whether Dr Vincent Tabak had any fair treatment by this point...
Lets not forget, the sobbing girl story that probably lead to everyones imagination running wild, thinking that they must have something on Dr Vincent Tabak or they wouldn't have charged him.... (so sympathy for him at this point was ZERO..) No proof in that pudding!!!!
They had nothing , but held him on some cock and bull story (IMO)...
-
Ian Kelcey, senior partner at Bristol firm Kelcey & Hall and Law Society council member said: ‘It’s a myth that clients get the same level of service on legal aid rates as when they pay privately - that disappeared about 10 years ago.’
It's a myth??? These are peoples lives you are dealing with!!!
Well.... there's always something to make you smile.... Just sitting there feeling that everything will be done for your case if.......... You're Rich!!!!!!
Prosecution:... 15
Defence:........ love..
Speaking at the Law Society’s criminal law conference, Kelcey said there is a limit to what firms can be expected to do on legal aid rates: ‘We can’t supply a platinum level of service with base metal rates of pay.’
There's an admission if ever I heard one...
So Dr Vincent Tabak must have received a base metal service!!!! (IMO) ( he had legal aid)
Didn't even manage the bronze standard... So... how much Investigation took place to prove the Timelines???
To prove she had changed her clothes..??
A demonstration to see if it was possible....??
Witness's for the defence
Good Character witness's
Cross examination of the prosecution??
The hundred questions??
OMG... the list is endless......
What does a Base metal service actually pay for??????? WOW... maybe lawyers should produce a pamphlet on what one gets for a Base Metal Service
Starting rates: Two beads, I will answer the telephone
Three Beads, I will say hello
A shell will get you a response within 3 days excluding weekends/bank holidays
But if you chuck in a couple of groats I might arrange a meeting
And our deluxe offer of the week, because we're having a Bonanza sale:
For a lump of iron ore and my washing done for a month, I'll meet you in person....
I might not stay long, but at least you'll have seen me in person...
And a free toilet roll is also included in the service... (Do with it as you will)
The defence didn't like their client... So definatley A Base Metal Service there!!!!!!!!! (IMO)
If they didn't have the resources (platinum) to cross reference and check everything...Is this why they advised Dr Vincent Tabak to enter the plea?????
With the prosecution telling them about the confession to the chaplain, the sobbing girl and no independant analysis of Dr Vincent Tabka's computers... Did the defence just believe what the prosecution said???
He suggested that firms be open with clients about how much the government pays and explain the constraints this puts on them.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall when they try an explain that one..... ' Sorry mate'... I nearly came to a conclusion, but I ran out of money for you... .... (this is where your free Toilet roll might come in handy)
It's quite a worrying state of affairs..
Lord have mercy..... The man stood No Chance!!!!
Game set and Match to the Prosecution , before we have even had a trial (IMO)!!
All might be fair in love and war..... But Justice?????? only if you can pay for it!!!!!
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/legal-aid-equality-a-myth-says-solicitor-advocate-kelcey/65516.article
-
We shouldn't Mrswah.... And the fact that the Guilty Plea was so public before the Trial in October would already put in the minds of a jury that they didn't really need to take much heed to what was being said..
How much did these Jury members read before the trial??? where they on any forums in relation to the case???
How unbiased were they????
Ordinarily most jurors would not have an incline of a case... but as this one had so much publicity, they couldn't fail to have preconceived ideas about it...
Everything to do with Dr Vincent Tabak and his incarcaration at the time, was timed to perfection with whatever was happening with Joanna Yeates... IE:... her burial , which coincidentally was when Dr Vincent Tabak first recieved visiting from family and girlfriend...
With a public having sympathy for the family and their tragedy..( which is only natural).. It would then lend to why people wouldn't give two figs about whether Dr Vincent Tabak had any fair treatment by this point...
Lets not forget, the sobbing girl story that probably lead to everyones imagination running wild, thinking that they must have something on Dr Vincent Tabak or they wouldn't have charged him.... (so sympathy for him at this point was ZERO..) No proof in that pudding!!!!
They had nothing , but held him on some cock and bull story (IMO)...
It is likely that at least some of the jurors were discussing the case on fora, and most of them would have been reading about it-----they were local people, after all.
It is also possible that one or two are reading this thread---------you just never know!
-
The clothes she was obviously found in differ greatly to what she was last seen wearing...
I know we have discussed this, but can we be sure this is the case???
-
It is likely that at least some of the jurors were discussing the case on fora, and most of them would have been reading about it-----they were local people, after all.
It is also possible that one or two are reading this thread---------you just never know!
It is possible that one or two are reading this thread... maybe they could contribute and settle various questions..
-
I know we have discussed this, but can we be sure this is the case???
We cannot be 100% sure mrswah... but with the court drawings and the description of what she was found in, we can make an informed judgement.
Why did they not say on the missing posters what she was wearing, if they knew? It's common practice to describe what they were last seen wearing....
And I believe on the photo's I posted you can just make out her dark looking top.. (I could be wrong on that one)..
The court artist should at least get the colour of something correct... She/he drew... blue jeans... And on the helpfinjo word press, they describe her wearing grey jeans.. A different clothing item..
Why wouldn't the police give a clothing description when she originally disappeared...??? Only because they didn't know... Greg says he was tidying up to see what she might be wearing.. He knows what she wore when he last saw her... To me that statement suggest her clothing she wore on the Friday were still in the flat...
-
It is possible that one or two are reading this thread... maybe they could contribute and settle various questions..
Possibly they are not allowed to----not sure !
-
It's a myth??? These are peoples lives you are dealing with!!!
Well.... there's always something to make you smile.... Just sitting there feeling that everything will be done for your case if.......... You're Rich!!!!!!
Prosecution:... 15
Defence:........ love..
There's an admission if ever I heard one...
So Dr Vincent Tabak must have received a base metal service!!!! (IMO) ( he had legal aid)
It hardly seems fair to pour cold water on such an eloquent post, but...
Legal Services Commission FoI, 17th July 2012:
The LSC paid a total of £161,410.49 to Kelcey & Hall in relation to Vincent Tabak’s trial at the Crown Court. This can be broken down as £146,620.18 in litigation fees and £14,790.31 in disbursement costs. The LSC also paid £84,671.14 in advocacy costs.
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/234938/Joanna-Yeates-killer-s-500k-in-legal-aid
As one of Bristol's leading solicitors, Ian Kelcey is hardly unbiased when he pronounces on the subject legal aid. He is also an influential member of the Criminal Law Committee of the Law Society.
It wasn't shortage of funds that influenced the astonishing shortcomings of Vincent Tabak's defence. If the team wanted to save money, Counsel could have kept silent instead of cross-examining the "chaplain". That would have made the Prosecution look very silly! Instead of questioning the Prosecution's DNA expert witness in such a way as to show the jury how clever she was, Counsel could have asked her the same critical questions as he had asked her colleagues when he had successfully got a previous client acquitted on appeal after his conviction for the assassination of a TV presenter. Re-using his old Q&A list wouldn't have cost anything either.
-
Base Metal Service:....
That keeps going around my head....
Seriously, I didn't think they would behave in such a way... I maybe have stumbled upon the reason Dr Vincent Tabak made his plea at The Old Bailey!!
American courts and prosecutions are full of deals that they make, they believe probably foolishly that it's the best outcome for their client, even if they may be innocent...
The death penalty on the table is a very persuasive tool...
So.... I'm extremely curious... what level of service and investigation did Dr Vincent Tabak recieve???
Base Metal sounds cheap and nasty... Did they just scan over what the original Defence team found and think.. ok.. we're not gonna win this one... lets go for a plea and see where that gets us...
Manslaughter is the cheaper option??????
-
It hardly seems fair to pour cold water on such an eloquent post, but...
Legal Services Commission FoI, 17th July 2012:
The LSC paid a total of £161,410.49 to Kelcey & Hall in relation to Vincent Tabak’s trial at the Crown Court. This can be broken down as £146,620.18 in litigation fees and £14,790.31 in disbursement costs. The LSC also paid £84,671.14 in advocacy costs.
May sound a lot Leonora... but they spent Millions on the case... So £146,620.18 isn't really a great deal of money when you think about it...
How many people does that cover???? what rates do they charge ???
And in kelcey's own words... Base metal service!!!!
£146,620.18 - 6 months ..(May to Oct)... 6 months X 30 days = 180 days .... £146,620.18 divided by 180 days = £814 a day
Doesn't seem a great deal really does it!!
EDIT:.....
4 months = 120 days X £814 = £97,680... Thats how much I would have earned at that rate on my tod doing searches etc and looking at what was available on the internet...
Now if I had the 1300 page document to go through.... How many days do you believe that would take to cross reference and and what cost?????
-
We cannot be 100% sure mrswah... but with the court drawings and the description of what she was found in, we can make an informed judgement.
Why did they not say on the missing posters what she was wearing, if they knew? It's common practice to describe what they were last seen wearing....
And I believe on the photo's I posted you can just make out her dark looking top.. (I could be wrong on that one)..
The court artist should at least get the colour of something correct... She/he drew... blue jeans... And on the helpfinjo word press, they describe her wearing grey jeans.. A different clothing item..
Why wouldn't the police give a clothing description when she originally disappeared...??? Only because they didn't know... Greg says he was tidying up to see what she might be wearing.. He knows what she wore when he last saw her... To me that statement suggest her clothing she wore on the Friday were still in the flat...
Don't forget the ski sock! Why on earth would Joanna have been wearing ski socks on a day when she was going to be indoors nearly all day and, furthermore, in a warm crowded pub for 2 hours?
It's the removal of the colour component from the CCTV clips in the Bristol Ram that proves that the Prosecution didn't want anyone to see the colour of the clothes she was wearing. We can be sure that originally these CCTV clips were in colour. Just as we can sure there were timestamps on the Asda clips - and that these have been deliberately made illegible.
[ speculation removed ]
-
Don't forget the ski sock! Why on earth would Joanna have been wearing ski socks on a day when she was going to be indoors nearly all day and, furthermore, in a warm crowded pub for 2 hours?
It's the removal of the colour component from the CCTV clips in the Bristol Ram that proves that the Prosecution didn't want anyone to see the colour of the clothes she was wearing. We can be sure that originally these CCTV clips were in colour. Just as we can sure there were timestamps on the Asda clips - and that these have been deliberately made illegible.
To me it look more like it is a Black and White CCTV Video.. with a colour hew added!!
-
May sound a lot Leonora... but they spent Millions on the case... So £146,620.18 isn't really a great deal of money when you think about it...
How many people does that cover???? what rates do they charge ???
And in kelcey's own words... Base metal service!!!!
£146,620.18 - 6 months ..(May to Oct)... 6 months X 30 days = 180 days .... £146,620.18 divided by 180 days = £814 a day
Doesn't seem a great deal really does it!!
EDIT:.....
4 months = 120 days X £814 = £97,680... Thats how much I would have earned at that rate on my tod doing searches etc and looking at what was available on the internet...
Now if I had the 1300 page document to go through.... How many days do you believe that would take to cross reference and and what cost?????
Well if it were up to Joanna's parents, all of his legal bill should have been footed by Vincent Tabak's family!
‘It’s ridiculous he should get that level of legal aid,’ her father David, 63, said yesterday. ‘He comes from a wealthy background and he showed contempt to the court, to us, to his girlfriend and her family.
‘He should never have received taxpayers’ money to defend himself.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2100235/Jo-Yeates-murder-Her-parents-hit-killer-Vincent-Tabaks-legal-aid-cost-taxpayers-hundreds-thousands.html
Some of the comments at the foot of this article are, er, instructive. My respect for Joanna's parents is influenced by their lack of consideration for the Tabak family, who have lost a son/brother through no fault of their own.
-
Britain's top lawyers charge staggering £5,000 per hour
See.... now we can see where it goes.....
£146, 620 divided by £5000 = 29. 324 hours.... not days...
How much do they charge an hour??????
And clients hoping to save millions on their tax bills are now ready to pay as much as £50,000 for a day in conference with an expert barrister - although the fee involves advance preparation by the lawyer as well as his day's work.
So at £50,000 a day 180 days = 9 million
The disclosure that lawyers' fees are reaching unprecedented new heights comes in the wake of promises from ministers to end the scale of state payments that have meant barristers can earn £1 million in a year from legal aid.
So the figures quoted for Dr Vincent Tabak are really a poultry sum!!!! (IMO)
Even the most junior commercial barristers can expect to be paid at up to £125 an hour.
Say 8hrs a day x 180 days = £180,000 And thats for a JUNIOR!!!
For a 6.5 hr day a Junior might just be able to charge... £146,620
EDIT:... The point I'm making really, Is what did the charges actually pay for, what was the rate of pay?? and what amount of time was put in to look into Dr Vincent Tabak's case?????
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-401488/Britains-lawyers-charge-staggering-5-000-hour.html#ixzz4aRIAY9yJ
-
There is more weight to the people who believe in his guilt as Tabak too says exactly the same! no conspiracy theories offered nothing
Anyone who has to start making digs at how the family of a murdered young girl would or should react to the conviction and who should or shouldn't pay shows what dodgy ground you are on!
They are entitled to hold whatever belief they want as he had NO right to end their Daughter's life. His sorry at a time when he faced a life sentence may well have been genuine but would not have offered any comfort whatsoever
Seeing the changes in funding since this happened, the family are not alone in their thoughts about who should pay!
-
I try to stay away from the family as much as possible... I believe it's not fair to make judgements on people who have lost a loved one in tragic circumstances..
It was reported at one stage that they wished the death penalty was available..
Now I personally am against the death penalty... But I can understand the families wishes with the loss and heartache that they felt and still feel...
Again.. If Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent as I believe, then such an action could never be rectified....
-
I agree totally Nine. Not a place we should be taking this discussion. Im sure we would all feel very similar should this happen to us.
The death penalty in never the answer even though is grief and angry I understand why they could think that
-
To me it look more like it is a Black and White CCTV Video.. with a colour hew added!!
That is what you get when you photofinish the hue (chroma) in a colour image to zero, or close to zero, but don't change the mode from colour to b&w.
-
I try to stay away from the family as much as possible... I believe it's not fair to make judgements on people who have lost a loved one in tragic circumstances..
That is my point. The Tabak family have also lost a loved one in tragic circumstances. The Yeates family would have been advised to stay away from criticising them.
Since they showed so much dignity in the early days of the investigation, I suspect that Joanna's parents have been manipulated into making the kind of pronouncements that suit the police and the Daily Mail in order to distract public attention from the self-evident falseness of the entire case against Vincent Tabak. Obviously, both the police and the Daily Mail know all about the four fire engines needed to recover the body - yet they don't seem to have mentioned these to Joanna's parents.
-
That is my point. The Tabak family have also lost a loved one in tragic circumstances. The Yeates family would have been advised to stay away from criticising them.
I totally agree leonora.... The Tabak family could at the very least have him over in Holland so they can visit him...
-
There is more weight to the people who believe in his guilt as Tabak too says exactly the same! no conspiracy theories offered nothing
One of the few correct things the judge told the jury was that they should base their verdict on the evidence alone. If I sat on a jury, one of my biggest problems would be my irritation with other members who might behave as you have done on this thread - namely, to insist that the defendant is guilty throughout, without any regard to the judge's words.
You refuse to consider the evidence - or rather, the lack of it. There was no evidence against Vincent Tabak.
You refuse to consider the manipulation of the jury by the defence. No normal person would have been able to avoid being taken in by the cross-examination of the "chaplain" within the short period of the trial.
Innocence or guilt is not a matter of "belief" - it is a matter of EVIDENCE (as the judge said). All your posts are based on BELIEF.
-
Don't forget the ski sock! Why on earth would Joanna have been wearing ski socks on a day when she was going to be indoors nearly all day and, furthermore, in a warm crowded pub for 2 hours?
It's the removal of the colour component from the CCTV clips in the Bristol Ram that proves that the Prosecution didn't want anyone to see the colour of the clothes she was wearing. We can be sure that originally these CCTV clips were in colour. Just as we can sure there were timestamps on the Asda clips - and that these have been deliberately made illegible.
So yes, of course Joanna changed her clothes - and of course Joanna was still alive when Vincent Tabak collected his girlfriend from the coach.
I agree with everything you say regarding the CCTV.
It is likely that Joanna changed her clothes, but we cannot be sure, IMO.
We also cannot be sure that she was still alive when VT collected his girlfriend from the coach-----although she may well have been.
As for the ski socks, Joanna might well have worn these if her boots were slightly too big-----I have borrowed my hubby's thick socks in that situation!!
-
One of the few correct things the judge told the jury was that they should base their verdict on the evidence alone. If I sat on a jury, one of my biggest problems would be my irritation with other members who might behave as you have done on this thread - namely, to insist that the defendant is guilty throughout, without any regard to the judge's words.
You refuse to consider the evidence - or rather, the lack of it. There was no evidence against Vincent Tabak.
You refuse to consider the manipulation of the jury by the defence. No normal person would have been able to avoid being taken in by the cross-examination of the "chaplain" within the short period of the trial.
Innocence or guilt is not a matter of "belief" - it is a matter of EVIDENCE (as the judge said). All your posts are based on BELIEF.
You talk about no normal person, anyone posting on here is connected to the family etc
My last comment to you is we as in the people who believe in his guilt all AGREE with Tabak himself so how is it that WE are wrong but everything YOU post whether real or make believe is acceptable?
-
AS for saying sorry for saying a man who himself says he is guilty and I agree, that just isn't gonna happen!
-
I totally agree leonora.... The Tabak family could at the very least have him over in Holland so they can visit him...
Maybe Nine he told them the truth and they believe it and don't want to visit him
-
It's a myth??? These are peoples lives you are dealing with!!!
Well.... there's always something to make you smile.... Just sitting there feeling that everything will be done for your case if.......... You're Rich!!!!!!
Prosecution:... 15
Defence:........ love..
There's an admission if ever I heard one...
So Dr Vincent Tabak must have received a base metal service!!!! (IMO) ( he had legal aid)
Didn't even manage the bronze standard... So... how much Investigation took place to prove the Timelines???
To prove she had changed her clothes..??
A demonstration to see if it was possible....??
Witness's for the defence
Good Character witness's
Cross examination of the prosecution??
The hundred questions??
OMG... the list is endless......
What does a Base metal service actually pay for??????? WOW... maybe lawyers should produce a pamphlet on what one gets for a Base Metal Service
Starting rates: Two beads, I will answer the telephone
Three Beads, I will say hello
A shell will get you a response within 3 days excluding weekends/bank holidays
But if you chuck in a couple of groats I might arrange a meeting
And our deluxe offer of the week, because we're having a Bonanza sale:
For a lump of iron ore and my washing done for a month, I'll meet you in person....
I might not stay long, but at least you'll have seen me in person...
And a free toilet roll is also included in the service... (Do with it as you will)
The defence didn't like their client... So definatley A Base Metal Service there!!!!!!!!! (IMO)
If they didn't have the resources (platinum) to cross reference and check everything...Is this why they advised Dr Vincent Tabak to enter the plea?????
With the prosecution telling them about the confession to the chaplain, the sobbing girl and no independant analysis of Dr Vincent Tabka's computers... Did the defence just believe what the prosecution said???
I'd love to be a fly on the wall when they try an explain that one..... ' Sorry mate'... I nearly came to a conclusion, but I ran out of money for you... .... (this is where your free Toilet roll might come in handy)
It's quite a worrying state of affairs..
Lord have mercy..... The man stood No Chance!!!!
Game set and Match to the Prosecution , before we have even had a trial (IMO)!!
All might be fair in love and war..... But Justice?????? only if you can pay for it!!!!!
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/legal-aid-equality-a-myth-says-solicitor-advocate-kelcey/65516.article
There is a misconception within the public at large that Legal Aid will provide a proper defence. In fact Legal Aid will get you an absolute basic representation and with a lawyer or barrister (if the case is serious enough) who are used to dealing with such cases. A lawyer who is acting on the basis of legal aid will not do any investigative work, if tests are required or an expert needed to testify the lawyer has to write to the Legal Aid Board making a case for such expenditure. On the other hand, the prosecution can have all the witnesses they want and pay them handsome expenses for their trouble. They can have experts galore and bring them to the UK from just about anywhere. Not exactly a level playing field I agree, the justice system is loaded in favour of the prosecution from the getgo.
-
It is possible that one or two are reading this thread... maybe they could contribute and settle various questions..
Jurors are forbidden from discussing cases, it's called contempt of court.
Don’t post comments about the trial on social media websites like Facebook or Twitter - even after the trial’s finished. This is contempt of court and you can be fined or sent to prison.
https://www.gov.uk/jury-service/discussing-the-trial
-
You talk about no normal person, anyone posting on here is connected to the family etc
My last comment to you is we as in the people who believe in his guilt all AGREE with Tabak himself so how is it that WE are wrong but everything YOU post whether real or make believe is acceptable?
I am not the only poster who has "come with a big list". Every list posted has been composed of facts - not opinions. You may disagree with opinions, but you may NOT dismiss facts (evidence) without explaining yourself. Anything less is disrespectful to those who posted the lists and those who took the trouble to read them.
It seems to me that your are the one fearlessly walking the "dangerous line". You repeatedly assert that you think Vincent Tabak guilty because he said he did it (or words to that effect). In the context of this thread, that is disrespectful behaviour, since there can be many reasons why he should not have been telling the truth in this particular situation, and as already discussed, his account was exceptionally lacking in credibility.
An astonishing number of witnesses and lawyers walked what you call the "dangerous line" during the trial, and some of us are trying to work out why.
-
Jurors are forbidden from discussing cases, it's called contempt of court.
Don’t post comments about the trial on social media websites like Facebook or Twitter - even after the trial’s finished. This is contempt of court and you can be fined or sent to prison.
https://www.gov.uk/jury-service/discussing-the-trial
"Don’t discuss the trial with anyone until it’s finished, except with other jury members in the deliberation room. After the trial you mustn’t talk about what happened in the deliberation room, even with family members. You can talk about what happened in the courtroom."
In other words, any juror is legally free to post on this thread, for example to correct any inaccuracies in the reporting of what took place in open court during this trial. It is only the deliberations by the jury that must remain secret.
-
Some pointers guys.
Firstly, I have previously asked that posters keep comments constructive and amiable, please take heed.
Secondly, jurors are prevented from discussing their trial even after it has finished. Breach of this requirement could land them a contempt of court charge. We take this matter seriously so any member actively seeking to encourage a juror to do this will be suspended.
Lastly, please do not post personal comments as if they are fact. You may speculate but please add the words "in my opinion" to your comments.
-
"Don’t discuss the trial with anyone until it’s finished, except with other jury members in the deliberation room. After the trial you mustn’t talk about what happened in the deliberation room, even with family members. You can talk about what happened in the courtroom."
In other words, any juror is legally free to post on this thread, for example to correct any inaccuracies in the reporting of what took place in open court during this trial. It is only the deliberations by the jury that must remain secret.
Anyone can post on this forum anonymously.
What was the reason given for the four Fire Service appliances which attended the scene?
-
I agree with everything you say regarding the CCTV.
It is likely that Joanna changed her clothes, but we cannot be sure, IMO.
We also cannot be sure that she was still alive when VT collected his girlfriend from the coach-----although she may well have been.
As for the ski socks, Joanna might well have worn these if her boots were slightly too big-----I have borrowed my hubby's thick socks in that situation!!
On the contrary, we CAN be sure that she WAS still alive - at least with 75% confidence. All the other indoor CCTV clips were in colour, and we also KNOW that at least some of the other clips had been tampered with to remove information about the time and/or date. Therefore it is more than 90% certain that someone removed the colour from the CCTV clips from the Ram pub. Why would they bother to do that, unless it was to prevent us from knowing the colour of Joanna's clothes? Why would they not want us to know that? - It can ONLY be because they don't want us to know that she changed her clothes before she was killed. Why don't they want us to know that she changed her clothes? - It can only be to prevent us from working out that she was killed AFTER Vincent Tabak obtained a solid alibi.
Joanna was wearing her boots only outdoors. Even if they were a shade too large, why lumber herself with thick ski socks for the rest of the day? Why would a smart young woman like her wear boots that were too big anyway? There are much more plausible explanations for the single ski sock found on her body, but these depend on the probability that her killing was personal rather than random. The police (and the media) were always so eager to convince us that it was not personal, especially by their arrest of the landlord.
-
Witholding color images is standard police procedure. Only Joanna's killer would know what colour of garments she wore so withholding this vital information from the public was a no brainer.
-
Witholding color images is standard police procedure. Only Joanna's killer would know what colour of garments she wore so withholding this vital information from the public was a no brainer.
What about withholding time stamps from CCTV?
-
Joanna was wearing her boots only outdoors. Even if they were a shade too large, why lumber herself with thick ski socks for the rest of the day? Why would a smart young woman like her wear boots that were too big anyway?
Well------just an attempt to introduce a little light-heartedness-------why would a smart older woman like me wear boots that were too big??? Answer: it isn't always easy to obtain exactly the right size!!!
-
Anyone can post on this forum anonymously.
What was the reason given for the four Fire Service appliances which attended the scene?
"Recovery of body". There were evidently eight appliances in all, the others including a crane, a rescue tender, and a safety boat. Only the Daily Mail and ITN made public visually the scale of the turn-out, but all the other journalists must have seen the convoy arriving. If the journalists asked for an explanation, they never made it public.
-
Witholding color images is standard police procedure. Only Joanna's killer would know what colour of garments she wore so withholding this vital information from the public was a no brainer.
Yes John, but the police were not supposed to know that she was dead when they first appealed for her safe return! In any case, the colour CCTV clips from Waitrose, Bargain Booze and Tesco were made public in colour even before her body was found, whereas the b&w CCTV clips from the Bristol Ram pub were first shown during the trial itself. I stand by my argument that the colour was removed so as to prevent it from being obvious that Joanna was not wearing the same clothes in the pub.
-
Witholding color images is standard police procedure. Only Joanna's killer would know what colour of garments she wore so withholding this vital information from the public was a no brainer.
Originally she was supposed to be just a missing person... The early missing poster did not state what she was last seen wearing...
Obviously if they with-held that information from the public, because the killer would know, then they must have believed she was already dead when asking about here going missing.....
-
Jurors are forbidden from discussing cases, it's called contempt of court.
Don’t post comments about the trial on social media websites like Facebook or Twitter - even after the trial’s finished. This is contempt of court and you can be fined or sent to prison.
https://www.gov.uk/jury-service/discussing-the-trial
Sorry John... wasn't trying to cause an issue.. Hadn't really thought that one through..
-
"Recovery of body". There were evidently eight appliances in all, the others including a crane, a rescue tender, and a safety boat. Only the Daily Mail and ITN made public visually the scale of the turn-out, but all the other journalists must have seen the convoy arriving. If the journalists asked for an explanation, they never made it public.
Has anyone found out WHY?? these Fire Applicances were used... And those on the guilty camp, have you no questions regarding the use of this equipment???
-
What about withholding time stamps from CCTV?
Possibly, only investigators will know the reason. However, the defence team has a right to see all original CCTV footage if they so wish.
-
Originally she was supposed to be just a missing person... The early missing poster did not state what she was last seen wearing...
Obviously if they with-held that information from the public, because the killer would know, then they must have believed she was already dead when asking about here going missing.....
The police would have considered it as a strong possibility since she had left home without her personal possessions, jacket, boots etc in very suspicious circumstance.
-
Has anyone found out WHY?? these Fire Applicances were used... And those on the guilty camp, have you no questions regarding the use of this equipment???
I wonder if you will ever get an answer to this question. If someone didn't make a noise about it at the time im sure the answers would be even harder to get so long after the event.
As you say not much mention of it
-
I wonder if you will ever get an answer to this question. If someone didn't make a noise about it at the time im sure the answers would be even harder to get so long after the event.
As you say not much mention of it
Surley it would be possible to get the information from the 23 plus firemen/women who attended the scene, unless its part of some offical secrets act, someone from the fire service may be able to shed some light on this...
The other thing is the coordinates... for some reason part of these coordinates have been redacted, that begs the question WHY?? If Joanna Yeates was where the Offical line says she was,, why hide the coordinates???
The pdf that mrswah posted early on in the thread shows only part of the coordinates, I believe it was released under the freedom of information act...
-
Surley it would be possible to get the information from the 23 plus firemen/women who attended the scene, unless its part of some offical secrets act, someone from the fire service may be able to shed some light on this...
The other thing is the coordinates... for some reason part of these coordinates have been redacted, that begs the question WHY?? If Joanna Yeates was where the Offical line says she was,, why hide the coordinates???
The pdf that mrswah posted early on in the thread shows only part of the coordinates, I believe it was released under the freedom of information act...
Ok, since it was me who started the thread, I am volunteering to write to Avon Fire and Rescue Service!!!
Frankly, I think it will be a waste of time, but I will try------they can only say no!!!
-
Could it be possible that you could find out which firemen worked that shift?? Maybe if you know who the firemen are you could ask them..
Where they all real firemen?! Just a suggestion....
-
Surley it would be possible to get the information from the 23 plus firemen/women who attended the scene, unless its part of some offical secrets act, someone from the fire service may be able to shed some light on this...
The other thing is the coordinates... for some reason part of these coordinates have been redacted, that begs the question WHY?? If Joanna Yeates was where the Offical line says she was,, why hide the coordinates???
The pdf that mrswah posted early on in the thread shows only part of the coordinates, I believe it was released under the freedom of information act...
"Fire brigade surround the area where Joanna was discovered close to a quarry. They used a crane to shift the body from the scene":
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1341676/Missing-architect-Joanna-Yeates-We-assume-shes-dead--lives-gone-say-parents.html
"The Avon Fire Service helped police remove the body from the scene, which was clothed and covered in snow, in order to preserve the site for a thorough forensic examination."
-
Could it be possible that you could find out which firemen worked that shift?? Maybe if you know who the firemen are you could ask them..
Where they all real firemen?! Just a suggestion....
Real firemen?
The fact that several appliances attended the recovery is not anything unusual since there are a multitude of reasons why this occurred. To satisfy curiosity a request for clarification is a reasonable suggestion.
-
"Fire brigade surround the area where Joanna was discovered close to a quarry. They used a crane to shift the body from the scene":
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1341676/Missing-architect-Joanna-Yeates-We-assume-shes-dead--lives-gone-say-parents.html
"The Avon Fire Service helped police remove the body from the scene, which was clothed and covered in snow, in order to preserve the site for a thorough forensic examination."
And when Policeman Andrew Mott took the stand.. he said they removed her with broom handles and straps... But the prosecution could not produce the photographic evidence of them removing her from the scene in this manner or any other manner...
-
And when Policeman Andrew Mott took the stand.. he said they removed her with broom handles and straps... But the prosecution could not produce the photographic evidence of them removing her from the scene in this manner or any other manner...
When a number of firemen are needed to accomplish a task they go out in their appliances in case they get an emergency call while tasked. That could well explain why a number of vehicles attended the scene.
-
When a number of firemen are needed to accomplish a task they go out in their appliances in case they get an emergency call while tasked. That could well explain why a number of vehicles attended the scene.
8 appliances is rather a lot, wouldn't you say....
-
Ok, since it was me who started the thread, I am volunteering to write to Avon Fire and Rescue Service!!!
Frankly, I think it will be a waste of time, but I will try------they can only say no!!!
The Fire Service will probably answer. One of my sons who worked for The Fire Service say that there is nothing odd about this as The Fire Service are mostly the First Responders.
-
Could it be possible that you could find out which firemen worked that shift?? Maybe if you know who the firemen are you could ask them..
Where they all real firemen?! Just a suggestion....
No chance of getting the names of anyone.
-
The Fire Service will probably answer. One of my sons who worked for The Fire Service say that there is nothing odd about this as The Fire Service are mostly the First Responders.
But they were not summoned to the scene until 4 hours after she was discovered...
-
But they were not summoned to the scene until 4 hours after she was discovered...
Perhaps there was a problem with removing the body, and I am told that there would be a problem with that, considering that the body was off road and in some sort of ditch. This would take more than one appliance.
Nothing really odd about this, as far as I understand.
-
Perhaps there was a problem with removing the body, and I am told that there would be a problem with that, considering that the body was off road and in some sort of ditch. This would take more than one appliance.
Nothing really odd about this, as far as I understand.
Well the Offical line is that she was on a flat grass narrow verge next to the road..
How do you know the body was off road???
-
Well the Offical line is that she was on a flat grass narrow verge next to the road..
How do you know the body was off road???
In so far as I remember someone had tried to tip the body further off the road than it actually fell. But it doesn't really matter.
The point is that it required The Fire Service, as an Ambulance would be completely unable to recover a dead body, and that isn't in their remit anyway.
This is just another pile of rubbish.
I personally don't have the time or the patience to argue his guilt or innocence. I thought that A Court has already done this.
-
In so far as I remember someone had tried to tip the body further off the road than it actually fell. But it doesn't really matter.
The point is that it required The Fire Service, as an Ambulance would be completely unable to recover a dead body, and that isn't in their remit anyway.
This is just another pile of rubbish.
I personally don't have the time or the patience to argue his guilt or innocence. I thought that A Court has already done this.
Yes, you're right Eleanor----a court has. However, a court has already determined the guilt of every possible MOJ victim !!!
I also agree that some help from the fire and rescue service would have been needed, as Joanna's body was frozen to the ground, but rather a lot of vehicles, apparatus and personnel were involved in this case. It appears disproportionate, in the recovery of only one victim (one victim too many, I know).
What is very odd, is that the jury was not told about this rescue operation, and it had very little coverage in the media.
-
Yes, you're right Eleanor----a court has. However, a court has already determined the guilt of every possible MOJ victim !!!
I also agree that some help from the fire and rescue service would have been needed, as Joanna's body was frozen to the ground, but rather a lot of vehicles, apparatus and personnel were involved in this case. It appears disproportionate, in the recovery of only one victim (one victim too many, I know).
What is very odd, is that the jury was not told about this rescue operation, and it had very little coverage in the media.
Agreed mrswah.... But they didn't apparently use the Fire Service.... Andrew was busy wielding his trusty broom handle and did not need the experience of the firemen...
Another problem is the fact the Fire Appliances where used for 4 days, when the body had already been removed,...
Think someone needs to explain that one!!!
-
Agreed mrswah.... But they didn't apparently use the Fire Service.... Andrew was busy wielding his trusty broom handle and did not need the experience of the firemen...
Another problem is the fact the Fire Appliances where used for 4 days, when the body had already been removed,...
Think someone needs to explain that one!!!
Sometimes the Fire Service and police incorporate taskings within operational training.
-
I was just writing something about the sexually motivated attack that Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have done..
It made me think.... The whole premise of the prosecution was that Dr Vincent Tabak was looking for sexual gratification...
They used the porn and the prostitutes after the case had finished to highlight to the public, just what type of deviant he was.....
So.... Just for the moment, lets think about that... if he had employed prostitutes for his gratification and played the sex games that he did, then his experience in such matter must be top notch....
Which makes their sexual gratification theory fall flat on it's face....
I'm assuming going from the various real crime documentaries I have seen, that people who commit this type of murder take their time... They enjoy the build up..... That's where their excitement comes from...
Surley he would have restrained Joanna Yeates so he could complete his fantasy... not just attack her in the manner they claim he did....
If it only took 20 seconds as the prosecution claimed, then Dr Vincent Tabak must have suffered from premature ejaculation.. and if that was the case , why didn't the prosecution bring the evidence to support this ???
Why didn't the defence explore this avenue to put paid to the prosecutions claims it was sexually motivated?
There is so much of this case I don't buy.... The only thing I buy is that he was her neighbour...
"David Parker Ray being a case in point'....
The prosecution and the Defense had said Dr Vincent Tabak had knowledge of Greg being away... So he had no need to rush anything, he had no need to visit Asda, he could have spent that time getting his kicks...
There have been psychologist who have made statements that Dr Vincent Tabak was a serial killer in the making, then you would think he would have taken a lot more time than he did and not bothered with the Asda trip..
He would have had a rough idea as to what time Tanja was due home... So really he had hours to fullfill any fantasy he may have had....
-
If Tanja Morson is Bilingual ... English and German
And Dr Vincent Tabak is Trilingual.. English German and Dutch....which langauage did they converse in??
Not only that did they text ... email or anything else in German ???
If there were things they wanted to keep private, they could have conversed in German....
Where there any German correspondence between Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson??
Just a thought
Edit:.... which brings me to another thought.... When at the 6 hour interview in Holland, did at any time Tanja or his sister converse with him in any other language than English?????.. I had not really thought of this before because I assume Tanja would need to be in the loop and I assumed she just spoke english...But I have discovered she's bilingual... (maybe I forgot about it??)...
I'm sure Dr Vincent Tabak sister also speaks German..... So What accutally was said in that room with 3 German speaking people?????? (If it was only an interview with a witness and NOT a SUSPECT!!)
I bet the Detective didn't translate any of that information!!!
-
I was just writing something about the sexually motivated attack that Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have done..
It made me think.... The whole premise of the prosecution was that Dr Vincent Tabak was looking for sexual gratification...
They used the porn and the prostitutes after the case had finished to highlight to the public, just what type of deviant he was.....
So.... Just for the moment, lets think about that... if he had employed prostitutes for his gratification and played the sex games that he did, then his experience in such matter must be top notch....
Which makes their sexual gratification theory fall flat on it's face....
I am sorry to disappoint you, but Mr. Justice Richard Field questioned whether paying for the services of escort girls on two occasions made him a “sexual sophisticant”, and ruled the evidence too prejudicial for the jury to hear.
It was never suggested by the Prosecution that VT employed prostitutes on any occasions except when he was away from home. Presumably (like the well known English film actor who some 20 years ago was convicted of disorderly behaviour in his car in Los Angeles for having sex with a prostitute, even though he had a very lovely long-term girlfriend at home in the UK), VT normally enjoyed a sexual relationship with his girlfriend that was mutually gratifying when he was at home. This is nevertheless an extremely private matter, and I am astonished that the more serious news media showed such bad taste as to publish such intrusive details at all.
They used silly phrases like his "secret life", as if there were anything devious about that. But, obviously, no one normally tells their friends and relations that they e.g. watch porn or e.g. how often they have sex with their spouse. Everyone has a "secret life", just as everyone has bacon & egg or muesli for breakfast.
-
Ms Farmery only spoke to confirm the images displayed as the jury was shown dozens of internet pages said to have been viewed by Tabak.
I found this a little interesting...
So her film was of the pages????? Not of the HISTORY!!
That almost makes me laugh.... Please let me see the film that Lyndsey Farmery should the Jury..
I especially want to see how she got to 'DOODSLAG"!!!!!
Because I do not believe that it was what Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have looked at.... Did she go to the 'DUTCH WIKI'?????
Did the JURY see this DUTCH PAGE!!!!!!!!!!!
Mr Lickley described Tabak's online activity as "hourly, perhaps constant viewing".
Now we know this is complete rubbish... we have worked the timelines out, if it was hourly then there would have been thousands of Timelines , instead of the 566
On a more serious note... If she showed the jury the pages he apparently viewed, how did she do that???
These pages she is showing the jury are not the 'INTERNET HISTORY'... did she back up these images with the actual internet history and not pages of what he was supposed to have viewed????
This is concerning... Did she 'Screenshot' these supposed pages???? That would be quite a bit more visual than a list of internet history...
Can anyone confirm that this is what she did???????? OMG... the more I think about it the more I believe it is quite possible.... So how is this evidence??????
That is in NO WAY PROOF, that Dr Vincent Tabak did these searches!!!!
So Lyndsey Love, You're not bilingual... You internet history film show doesn't prove Jack donkey doo!!!
Are people seriously going to believe that this is supposed to be a fair trial???? They could have shown anything and contributed it to Dr Vincent Tabak....
That is why i believe we get the 'sexual conduct' as a search... (IMO) someone made a complete mess there... 'sexual conduct is a legal term, and NOT something Dr Vincent Tabak would have searched for!!!
Edit:.... Infact show me the film picture of that search... because it will come up with sexual misconduct... so what did the film image look like for that search?????????
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/vincent-tabaks-internet-use-analysed-2372832.html
-
Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Jury shown photographs of the inside of Joanna Yeates' flat. They show her boots she wore the night she was killed and purse on the table
Now... I thought that the PURSE was supposed to be in the RUCKSACK?????
I went through her rucksack, that was packed full and sitting on the table, and found her glasses, purse and keys.
http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/joanna-yeates-8217-boyfriend-greg-speaks-agony/story-14143998-detail/story.html#yFDbyJM1hAClWzLH.99
-
Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
On Jan 2 #VincentTabak and girlfriend returned to flat to collect items. They showed ID and were allowed to visit.
Why had they not been allowed into there own home... The police made it impossible for them to live at their own address.. their flat was not the murder scene... But the Police would have had full access to their flat when they were not there because they had the keys from the landlord...
That is really weird!!!!!
Twitter
skymartinbrunt
@skymartinbrunt
Joanna Yeates murder trial: [ censored word ] says police let Tabak remove items from his flat on 2 January
Let him???? Not surprised they moved out... the police made it impossible for them to stay.... And when it comes to Dr Vincent Tabak saying at work that he was finding it all upsetting ,you can see why... police constantly around the building, who obviously didn't want them around!!!
-
Martin Evans
@evansma
Follow
More
Judge tells jurors to concentrate on bruises rather than abrasions because the bruises were caused while #JoYeates was still alive.
3:05 AM - 26 Oct 2011
So how many injuries did she sustain????? because it cannot be 43... where the abrasions that Broom Handle?????
-
Martin Evans
@evansma
Follow
More
Court hear that #VincentTabak's girlfriend detected nothing unusual in his demeanour when he picked her up hours after killing #JoYeates
2:59 AM - 21 Oct 2011
Did Tanja Morson make a statement???????? why wasn't she in court!!!!
-
Jerry Lawton
@JerryLawton
Follow
More
On missing #joyeates pizza - Tabak said he took it from her flat to hide evidence but binned it and didn't eat it
10:12 AM - 20 Oct 2011
How would he know that was Evidence????? Especially as he had apparently gone round the flat turning things off... not forgetting the coat stand is still at the crime scene that he was supposed to have touched!!
How would he KNOW she had just bought it.... if so why NOT take the CIDER!!!!
-
Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
DNA mouth swabs were taken. As was #VincentTabak's car from flat on Aberdeen Road. #JoannaYeates
Why take his DNA again if they had already taken a sample from him in HOLLAND??
Did they take a sample in Holland??
This is from the trial ..
-
Was just looking at twitter and thought I'd post some tweets from the trial....
Dr Harriet Tolputt
@HarrietTolputt
Follow
More
Ms Lennen describes how she took blood stained swabs from #joannayeates' chest. #VincentTabak
That surprised me...'Blood Stained swabs????'
Isabel WebsterVerified account
@SunriseIsabel
Follow
More
Judge Mr Justice Field: "I think there was a sexual element to this killing" #JoYeates #VincentTabak
Now do you not think he should KNOW!! You influence the jury... der... (IMO)
(I think in our vast universe that the probability of life no matter how small is a possibility... But I don't KNOW!!)...
Martin Evans
@evansma
Follow
More
Judge is taking jury through #VincentTabak's defence statement reminding them of certain facts he left out.
What facts he left out???
Jane Onyanga-Omara
@janeomara
Follow
More
Judge reading out #vincenttabak's statement of what happened on the night of 17 December 2010.
2:49 AM - 26 Oct 2011
Anyone got a copy or know what was in this statement????? Is this normal practice for the Judge to read out a defendants statement???
Andrew Plant
@BeebJournalist
Follow
More
#Tabak defence: "the independent evidence is in favour of 9:35, but cannot exclude 8:45", on what time #VincentTabak entered Jo's flat.
6:07 AM - 25 Oct 2011
Now this is where I have a problem.... The Prosecution have Dr Vincent Tabak in his flat for an hour before he went to Asda.. The Defence themselves say he was in his flat till 9:29pm... So why cannot he exclude 8:45pm as a time for Dr Vincent Tabak entering the flat???
Had Joanna Yeates actually entered her flat by 8:45pm??
Martin Evans
@evansma
Follow
More
#VincentTabak's account of how he got into her flat that night is supported by the evidence, Mr Clegg says.
6:06 AM - 25 Oct 2011
This is because of NO forced entry... what happened to him being in his flat?? I'm still not seeing Joanna Yeates letting a complete stranger into her home on a night she was frightened to be left on her own!!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/vincent-tabaks-internet-use-analysed-2372832.html
-
I alway love it when I find statements that the Defence made about their client ..
Clegg said Tabak's behaviour showed he was a very calculating person trying to wriggle out of his responsibility.
Now.. this is apparently on his opening speech... OMG.... OMG again...
What is he actually telling the Jury here?? If his plea is guilty to Manslaughter then how is he trying to 'Wriggle Out Of His Responsibility'???
why is he painting his client as CALCULATING"??? Shouldn't that be a conclusion that the jury come to after hearing the evidence not from the DEFENCE!!!
The conduct of the defence is appauling (IMO)... How is this fair??
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/19/vincent-tabak-joanna-yeates-court
-
https://audioboom.com/posts/605622-dean-armstrong-lawyer-for-vincent-tabak-on-impact-of-social-media-in-high-profile-court-cases-the-world-at-one-bbc-radio-4
If this guy represented Dr Vincent Tabak in the Murder trial of Joanna Yeates and their defence showed their utter distain for their client.... Then why did he represent him in the Child Porn charges?????
Something NOT right (IMO)...
Dean Armstrong QC had argued that his client could not receive a fair trial due to his notoriety and the portrayal of him during the two-part ITV drama The Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies. But the judge ruled: “I take the view that it will be possible for Mr Tabak to have a fair trial.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/02/vincent-tabak-admits-possessing-indecent-images-of-children
-
At the Joanna Yeates trial, William Clegg QC represented VT. Dean Armstrong QC is from the same chambers, and represented VT at the "indecent images" trial.
-
At the Joanna Yeates trial, William Clegg QC represented VT. Dean Armstrong QC is from the same chambers, and represented VT at the "indecent images" trial.
Dean Armstrong had also made a brief appearance on the eleventh day of the trial of Vincent Tabak for murder. His only reported role was to read out to the court the only statement from the only defence witness not to appear in person, namely Geoffrey Hardyman, the elderly retired schoolteacher living at 44 Canynge Road who heard nothing but confirmed that Joanna Yeates and her boyfriend were a pleasant, cat-loving couple.
A statement read out by a barrister does not carry the same weight as a personal testimony, since the witness cannot be cross-examined, and the barrister, not being under oath, can omit sentences or paragraphs that do not suit him/her without the jury being any the wiser. Many statements from prosecution witnesses were read out by junior barrister Nicholas Rowland QC in the course of the presentation of the prosecution's case at the murder trial.
None of the newspaper reports of the trial of Vincent Tabak for possessing images of child abuse report any testimony from any witness that images of child abuse had been found on the defendant's computer.
-
Dean Armstrong had also made a brief appearance on the eleventh day of the trial of Vincent Tabak for murder. His only reported role was to read out to the court the only statement from the only defence witness not to appear in person, namely Geoffrey Hardyman, the elderly retired schoolteacher living at 44 Canynge Road who heard nothing but confirmed that Joanna Yeates and her boyfriend were a pleasant, cat-loving couple.
A statement read out by a barrister does not carry the same weight as a personal testimony, since the witness cannot be cross-examined, and the barrister, not being under oath, can omit sentences or paragraphs that do not suit him/her without the jury being any the wiser. Many statements from prosecution witnesses were read out by junior barrister Nicholas Rowland QC in the course of the presentation of the prosecution's case at the murder trial.
None of the newspaper reports of the trial of Vincent Tabak for possessing images of child abuse report any testimony from any witness that images of child abuse had been found on the defendant's computer.
Statements are merely a pretrial guide, it is testimony that counts.
-
Statements are merely a pretrial guide, it is testimony that counts.
In this case, witness statements read out in court played a much larger role in the prosecution case. Only one colleague of Joanna's testified in person to her behaviour at the Ram pub, but the court also heard statements from several other colleagues who had been at the pub with her but did not testify in person.
Two or three party goers who had been at 53 Canynge Road and a neighbour at Percival Court testified in person to having heard screams, and, in addition, several statements about the screams they heard or did not hear were read to the court from other party goers who did not testify in person.
Statements were read to the court from several witnesses who did not testify in person and who described the behaviour of Vincent Tabak and his girlfriend at two parties they attended. One of these stated that the defendant had described Joanna's presumed killer as "a crazy detached person" in the course of a dinner party. Counsel for the Prosecution made much of this phrase, so it is curious that Counsel for the Defence never asked his client during his cross-examination whether he had in fact used the phrase.
Important prosecution statements were also read out from expert witness Karl Harrison and the defendant's employer Shrikant Sharma. It is curious that neither of these was called to testify in person.
-
I found this a little interesting...
So her film was of the pages????? Not of the HISTORY!!
That almost makes me laugh.... Please let me see the film that Lyndsey Farmery should the Jury..
I especially want to see how she got to 'DOODSLAG"!!!!!
I would call it a Powerpoint presentation rather than a "film". The only moving pictures shown during Lyndsey Farmey's testimony was an accelerated video of body decomposition at a "body farm". She has a relatively unusual name, but I have not being able to find any evidence in any other context that she has any expert knowledge of computer use analysis.
-
I would call it a Powerpoint presentation rather than a "film". The only moving pictures shown during Lyndsey Farmey's testimony was an accelerated video of body decomposition at a "body farm". She has a relatively unusual name, but I have not being able to find any evidence in any other context that she has any expert knowledge of computer use analysis.
Do you not think that weird leonora..... why would she show an accelerated video at a body farm??????? That is WRONG on all levels..... She was supposed to be showing his search history, not the videos he may have viewed, that a different territory altogether...
At Lines 311 (a to g) of the prosecution chart (on 23 December 2010)
Tabak searched Wikipedia for the terms
‘decomposition’
‘ how fast does body decompose’
‘ film of body decomposing’
‘what takes place from hour to hour after death’
‘what happens to human body after death’
A few problems here... does wiki have such films?????? what were the times of these supposed searches and viewings??? He was at Tanja Morsons parents house on that day as far as I can remember......
Must be before 4:00pm...
At Line 318 of the prosecution chart
Tabak searched the words
‘penalty for manslaughter’
At Line 321 of the prosecution chart
Tabak Googled the words
‘Jo Yeates’
‘weather’
On 23 Dec 2010 at 4.00 pm
Tabak searched the Dutch Wikipedia for the words
‘extradition’
‘Yeates’
‘missing persons’
‘% of grey cars in UK’
‘Renault Megan cars in UK’
So where was he to look at this and which laptop are they talking about, because apparently they just lumped all these laptops together.... was it his own??? Buro Happold's ???? which laptops are each of these searches from !!!!!!!!
Also if he looks up extradition of a Dutchman before he went to Holland.... why did he not just stay there when he went a week later???????
Why would he search the dutch wiki for cars etc at 4:00pm????..... That must have been in DUTCH!!!!! come on Lyndsey my love.... wheres your translations of the DUTCH TEXT!!!!!!!!!!!
(He wouldn't be writing the english word 'EXTRADITION' in a Dutch wiki)... because he wouldn't get the answer!!! He should have searched the word 'uitlevering" Dutch for extradition!!!!
At Lines 311 (a to g) of the prosecution chart (on 23 December 2010)
Tabak searched Wikipedia for the terms
‘decomposition’‘decomposition’
‘ how fast does body decompose’
‘ film of body decomposing’
‘what takes place from hour to hour after death’
‘what happens to human body after death’
Wiki doesn't have film of bodies decomposing.... so what did she SHOW!!!!???????? He didn't look at a film from a body farm.... How can she use that as EVIDENCE!!!!!
POWERPOINT PRESENTATION..... What the diddly What!!!
-
POWERPOINT PRESENTATION..... What the diddly What!!!
In the 20th century, a succession of still images projected on to a screen was called a "slide show". However, in the 21st century, slide transparencies were replaced by Powerpoint presentations. During the pre-trial hearing before judge Martin Picton on 20th September, Counsel for the Prosecution stated that the trial would include a "digital display". Is that less "diddly tw.." for you?
I don't supposed the witnesses themselves had to fumble for the images they wanted to show the court. According to most of the reporters in court, "Ms Farmery only spoke to confirm the images displayed as the jury was shown dozens of internet pages said to have been viewed by Tabak":
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/vincent-tabaks-internet-use-analysed-2372832.html
Each of the journalists reported a selection of the web pages actually displayed. The 1300 page timeline from which Sally Ramage quotes identifies the searches that the Prosecution alleged the defendant made (not the pages he viewed). I do not dispute the grounds for which you are sceptical about these. It is clear from the media reports that it was Counsel for the Prosecution who opened his mouth to expand on the timings of the searches. He was not under oath. Can you find any report that the witness herself confirmed that the timeline was a true record of the searches conducted by the defendant?
-
Did Tanja Morson make a statement???????? why wasn't she in court!!!!
While aggressively cross-examining the defendant at the end of his first day in the witness box, Counsel for the Prosecution asked him what he and his girlfriend did after they got back to their flat together early on the morning of 18th December 2010. "Did you have sex?" he asked. It was probably the defendant himself who told the court during this part of his cross-examination that his girlfriend didn't notice anything out of the ordinary about his behaviour.
We have been persuaded that the police were not very bright, e.g. in arresting the hapless landlord and then being forced to release him again. We are supposed to believe that Vincent Tabak was not as clever as he thought he was in believing that he could escape the long arm of Avon & Somerset's Detective Plod. And we are supposed to content ourselves with the conclusion that his girlfriend was blind to his "crazy, detached" personality. However, it is all nonsense.
Why did she not testify? - I don't believe the "treasury analyst" from Dyson is stupid, I don't believe she could not see through this crazy prosecution, so I suspect she fled for the duration of the trial to Chile, where a summons from Avon & Somerset to appear as a witness presumably carries no legal force. On the contrary, I am sure she was furious with the police and the CPS over having had her life so seriously and permanently disrupted. Not being stupid either, I think the CPS, on the other hand, worked out that letting her anywhere near the court would have put a serious spoke in the wheel of their case.
-
In the 20th century, a succession of still images projected on to a screen was called a "slide show". However, in the 21st century, slide transparencies were replaced by Powerpoint presentations. During the pre-trial hearing before judge Martin Picton on 20th September, Counsel for the Prosecution stated that the trial would include a "digital display". Is that less "diddly tw.." for you?
I don't supposed the witnesses themselves had to fumble for the images they wanted to show the court. According to most of the reporters in court, "Ms Farmery only spoke to confirm the images displayed as the jury was shown dozens of internet pages said to have been viewed by Tabak":
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/vincent-tabaks-internet-use-analysed-2372832.html
Each of the journalists reported a selection of the web pages actually displayed. The 1300 page timeline from which Sally Ramage quotes identifies the searches that the Prosecution alleged the defendant made (not the pages he viewed). I do not dispute the grounds for which you are sceptical about these. It is clear from the media reports that it was Counsel for the Prosecution who opened his mouth to expand on the timings of the searches. He was not under oath. Can you find any report that the witness herself confirmed that the timeline was a true record of the searches conducted by the defendant?
On saying that leonora.. should she be able to PROVE he viewed the webpages??? Not just show a selection of webpages that he was supposed to have viewed???
A 10 year old could have done her job!!!! That's ridiculous... she is supposed to explain how when and where Dr Vincent Tabak viewed this material... So a man who has qualifications in Computer Science didn't delete his search history???
He would know to keep this clean as it tends to slow down your computer function.... So when did she retrieve this data???
I have the problem with which computers each of these images and searches came from.... where was the clarity on that!!!!
My God... they tricked the jury good and proper, she's a novice (IMO)... Why on earth didn't the DEFENCE challenge Anything?????..
Not being rude... Well maybe I am.... But.. what defending did the defence DO????
There's a myriad of reasons for an unfair trial.....
-
Why take his DNA again if they had already taken a sample from him in HOLLAND??
Did they take a sample in Holland??
This is from the trial ..
This was part of an elaborate deception to trick the duty solicitor and the barrister she subsequently instructed, Paul Cook QC. The public and the duty solicitor were given to believe that Vincent Tabak's arrest was made on the basis of an anonymous telephone tip-off from a crying girl who had seen the TV appeal from Joanna's parents broadcast on 17th January 2011. The duty solicitor knew nothing about the Shiphol interview, which would be represented just before the abortive bail hearing as a serious attempt to incriminate the hapless landlord. Nor did she knew that the police already had her client's DNA from Schiphol. The swab taken by the duty nurse was a charade, so that the detectives could proudly flourish a match to DNA on the body when they arrived for the second day of interviewing.
-
This was part of an elaborate deception to trick the duty solicitor and the barrister she subsequently instructed, Paul Cook QC. The public and the duty solicitor were given to believe that Vincent Tabak's arrest was made on the basis of an anonymous telephone tip-off from a crying girl who had seen the TV appeal from Joanna's parents broadcast on 17th January 2011. The duty solicitor knew nothing about the Shiphol interview, which would be represented just before the abortive bail hearing as a serious attempt to incriminate the hapless landlord. Nor did she knew that the police already had her client's DNA from Schiphol. The swab taken by the duty nurse was a charade, so that the detectives could proudly flourish a match to DNA on the body when they arrived for the second day of interviewing.
Is there evidence that the duty solicitor knew nothing about the Schiphol interview?
-
I keep trying to find information relating to the dates between 16th December 2010 and 20th January 2011..
I thought i'd look at facebook and people who knew Joanna Yeates and Greg Reardon...
What I find strange is that time is missing from facebook... Take Helen Reardon for instance... Her facebook timeline misses those years, but shows posts from 2008.... so between 2008 and 2012 there are no posts... why would that be??????
EDIT...... why are there so many peoples facebook accounts missing the vital timelines?????????
-
Is there evidence that the duty solicitor knew nothing about the Schiphol interview?
Her client may have told her that it took place, but its significance wouldn't have been apparent to her thanks to the extensive smokescreen, consisting of the barrage of questions put to her client by the detectives plus the huge succession of news reports fed to the media by the police themselves and the forensics company's public relations officer. The fact that Paul Cook QC declared that his client was going to apply for bail, and then the very next day he changed his mind, is evidence of the efficacy of this smokescreen.
-
Her client may have told her that it took place, but its significance wouldn't have been apparent to her thanks to the extensive smokescreen, consisting of the barrage of questions put to her client by the detectives plus the huge succession of news reports fed to the media by the police themselves and the forensics company's public relations officer. The fact that Paul Cook QC declared that his client was going to apply for bail, and then the very next day he changed his mind, is evidence of the efficacy of this smokescreen.
Has anyone approach Paul Cook about this question of BAIL????
-
Has anyone approach Paul Cook about this question of BAIL????
Yes, I did, on 6th January 2012. When he didn't reply to my e-mail, a well-known person with actual experience of criminals and innocent people who had got wrongly imprisoned e-mailed the following:
"Hi Paul Cook - I am writing to you about your former client Vincent Tabak. You did act for him in the beginning of his arraignment before Michael Fitton took the brief. Therefore you are also responsible for this man's stitch up and mistreatment by the police. I have put Mr Fitton on notice below and the same comments could be addressed to you. I hope you both put your heads together and rectify this crime otherwise it will develop into another Stefan Kiszko fiasco and you will be forever tainted with the crime."
He did not reply. It would probably be more effective to find out which pub he or his clerk drinks in, and offer to buy him a drink.
-
I keep trying to find information relating to the dates between 16th December 2010 and 20th January 2011..
I thought i'd look at facebook and people who knew Joanna Yeates and Greg Reardon...
What I find strange is that time is missing from facebook... Take Helen Reardon for instance... Her facebook timeline misses those years, but shows posts from 2008.... so between 2008 and 2012 there are no posts... why would that be??????
EDIT...... why are there so many peoples facebook accounts missing the vital timelines?????????
The material has been expunged.
-
Yes, I did, on 6th January 2012. When he didn't reply to my e-mail, a well-known person with actual experience of criminals and innocent people who had got wrongly imprisoned e-mailed the following:
"Hi Paul Cook - I am writing to you about your former client Vincent Tabak. You did act for him in the beginning of his arraignment before Michael Fitton took the brief. Therefore you are also responsible for this man's stitch up and mistreatment by the police. I have put Mr Fitton on notice below and the same comments could be addressed to you. I hope you both put your heads together and rectify this crime otherwise it will develop into another Stefan Kiszko fiasco and you will be forever tainted with the crime."
He did not reply. It would probably be more effective to find out which pub he or his clerk drinks in, and offer to buy him a drink.
If you are expecting a response from a lawyer you will have a long wait.
-
The material has been expunged.
There's seems to have been far too much expunging in this case..... I remember the Greg Reardon Facebook posts That I found from 16th October 2010 not too long ago... The ones where he is giving away his ski gear from Canygne Road.. They too seem to have been "expunged"...
My My My..... I find this whole case one expunction after another... Dr Vincent Tabak expunged from the face of the earth, no one cares... Everyone involved in this case getting on with their lives, (I'm not including the Yeates family).... People who have told Untruth after untruth after untruth... Whom we are supposed to respect... We bring our children up to respect the laws of the land, but when the law is not truthful, then what are we supposed to do???
If due process had taken place in this country an Innocent man would not be sat behind bars... For whatever reason people decided it was best to put this case to bed, I hope they accept that they knowingly allowed someone to go free (IMO) who if they have done this once they could do this again...
Expunging.... Things like Timestamps.... Where are the Timestamps on the Video's from Asda???? Why the need not to be clear and honest and upfront... why the need to bring to court late the 1300 pages of evidence that the defence made no attempt to have a delay made (IMO)... why a prominent Lawyer would put his reputation on the line and do virtually nothing for his client but disparage him...(IMO)
I have sat here for days.. months.. frustrated at what has taken place, even my husband has remarked on what they did to the Dutchman....
(IMO) They can't even keep the story straight between them, I have found this from the various video of people talking who's memories are clearly failing them (IMO)... The years pass and backslaps all round, and the pride people must feel for their achievements is beyond words...
This case was a mess from start to finish.. There was no conclusion.. there was a punishment, plain and simple.. Someone has to pay... And many an Innocent person has been paying for years....
Open... Fair... Honest... It's not much to ask for... we expect this from a system that is there to protect us from the evil in the world.. But, it doesn't appear to be what we get (IMO).... We shouldn't even be here if that was the case..We shouldn't have to set up forums and argue for years about the Miscarriages of justice that have taken place... But we are...And we do... Which just shows that are system is not Open Fair and honest... (IMO)
I cannot tell you why I cannot leave this case alone, why Dr Vincent Tabak swims around my head, I'm not the loony some have portrayed me as... I'm a concerned citizen, that is all, and just like the media frenzy that took place in the begining, I too got hooked on what was happening....
Do we come to a point in our lives where we have to account for every movement that we do and every search we have ever made and justify it??? My God... the searches I have made.. someone could have a field day with it.... Ask me what I did 2 weeks ago and I probably can't remember... Does that mean I have done something??
The evidence should be just that... 'Evidence... there should be no hiding, no untruths , it should be laid out for all to see... And if you haven't got the evidence then.. that's that... I've gone through a range of emotions on this thread, from the vein hope that maybe someone was actually taking notice of what had been said and in my imagination where actually going to do something about it.... To feeling sad.. hopeless... dejected a feeling that what I say is futile... The public's minds have been poisoned by a media content with selacious headlines, and they are ready to string him up...
I was reading through a load of twitter tweets the other day, people wanted to hang him, put him in a room with them.. do unspeakable things... And all this was before the jury were asked to retire.. It may have seemed like a fabulous idea to tweet the entire proceedings, But again that only added to the public's contempt for a man they knew nothing about... So by the time the pornography and prostitutes came to the headlines, you had a public who believed they knew and understood what had happened in a court room in England..
Tweets are 49 characters.... It takes 49 characters to tell the public what is happening in a high profiled murder trial... It's almost laughable if it wasn't so serious... Say they hadn't managed the plea... 49 characters would only tell the public the basics, and whats more.. The Judge failed to realise that the Jury had families who could say anything they wanted to them... the jurors wouldn't have to mention anything, but their families could quite easily have given their opinion on Dr Vincent Tabak's guilt.....And who's to say what sway that had on a Jurors knowledge, they may not read anything... but it didn't stop a public telling them what they had read on twitter!!!
So how many Jurors are in the room now..... the whole country had become jurors... without the evidence to prove to them otherwise... Without knowing the Time Stamps where missing... Without the 1300 page document of timelines.... without realising that Joanna Yeates clothes were different... Without witness's who could state many things about Dr Vincent Tabak.... But they all put 2 and 2 together and made 5...
What can you say in 49 characters??? I always find I never have enough... 49 characters that changed a person life, and a nations opinion... They should have had the cameras in if they were allowing tweets.. Lets us see everything... not just what 49 characters will allow us to say....
Leonora mentioned the amount of statements..
How many statements where read out???????? Far too many IMO... get those people on the stand, don't let them hide behind a piece of paper... Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't allowed to hide behind his statement...Oh No... they wanted him on the witness stand for all to see, for the world to cast judgement, without the true facts of this crime...
People have obviously been trying for years to have questions answered about this case and have been knocked back at every turn.... WHY???
Why if they are ALL so confident that 'The Dutchman' did it, do they not just answer the questions of a few individuals????? Because I cannot believe that the 10 or so people who have grave concerns with the conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak are going to make any waves if the truth has been told....(IMO)
I cannot believe that these 10 individuals will bring the law to it's knees.. Ordinary people who dare to ask questions relating to Dr Vincent Tabak and how on gods earth he had the time to do what they said he did... Get me the video's of the police interviews.. the phone call from holland.... 1300 pages... lets see what is hidden in these things.... And stop hiding behind the data protection act.... that one's a blinder, can be applied at will..... (IMO)
I will keep saying that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent, because I believe he is... And unless you show me properly that he isn't.. my mind is not changing...
Edit:... I have a challenge.... everyone try to reply or post with 49 characters.... lets just see how much information you can get out there on any case!!!!!
I think one of the major problems with this case is 'The Trip to Holland'..... Everyone should ask themselves that question... WHY?????????
-
Her client may have told her that it took place, but its significance wouldn't have been apparent to her thanks to the extensive smokescreen, consisting of the barrage of questions put to her client by the detectives plus the huge succession of news reports fed to the media by the police themselves and the forensics company's public relations officer. The fact that Paul Cook QC declared that his client was going to apply for bail, and then the very next day he changed his mind, is evidence of the efficacy of this smokescreen.
I agree Leonora... she wouldn't have realised that Dr Vincent Tabak was interviewed as a suspect,(IMO) she would be unlikely to check the laws in Holland in regards to the 6 hour detention of a suspect... (IMO)
The tricks that were used to gain information is beyond belief...
Shouldn't she have asked ;... what was so urgent that the police felt the need to fly out to Holland????? and not wait for Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morsons return?????
Why weren't simple questions asked in this case?????
-
I think one of the major problems with this case is 'The Trip to Holland'..... Everyone should ask themselves that question... WHY?????????
I have been shouting the answer to this question from the rooftops, so to speak, but you don't seem to want to believe me.
The trip to Holland was very important because the landlord's 2nd witness statement was also VERY IMPORTANT. They are like Statler and Waldorf in the Muppet shows. They belong together. The Shiphol interview arose in the wake of the doorstepping of the landlord. The contents of the statement and the interview must be substantially similar - they have to do with what and whom the landlord saw, which we are not allowed to know. I can guess, but you won't even accept that any guessing is necessary.
Getting the text of the Schiphol interview out of Avon & Somerset Constabulary would be like getting blood out of a stone, as Mrs. N. Osey discovered. But the police do not have the same exclusive rights to the landlord's 2nd witness statement as they do to the Schiphol interview. The world is full of organisations who ought to be interested in being the first to persuade the landlord to make his 2nd witness statement public. Maybe they haven't got the message yet. I fear that his price will be above rubies.
-
From The Leveson enquiry:...
On Tuesday 21 st December 2010 I provided a statement to the police who were at that
time searching the entire house and all the flats in it and taking statements from all the
residents. I was not being treated as a suspect. At the time the police said to all of us
that if we subsequently remembered anything that could be material we should get
back in touch, That evening I remembered something else that I had not mentioned to
the police that I thought could possibly be material. This was that one evening, which
might have been Friday 17 December 2010, as I was coming back from the gym at
about 9pm, I had parked my car on the road and was just walking through the gates of
the main driveway, when I became aware of what sounded like two or perhaps three
people leaving by the side gate on the other side of the house which I could not see as
there is a hedge in between and it was dark, I duly telephoned the police and relayed
this.
This part could mean if it was Joanna Yeates she left her flat ... but he doesn't say that... and would change the timeline.
If people no matter who was at the gate, that would suggest at least visitors if not Joanna Yeates..
Also slightly confused here... I thought that Tanya Morson and Dr Vincent Tabak had seen the car in the driveway??? because I thought that is when they gave it a push because it was stuck????
On the Lost Honour of CJ.. they depict Dr Vincent Tabak pushing the car from the drive in daylight.... So where was the car??????
So.... this is a reason that CJ should have been on the stand.... where was the car??? he says road .... and I'm sure that in Dr Vincent Tabak's early statement he said that he and tanja helped him
I had parked my car on the road and was just walking through the gates
On The Road...
"The police had phoned us at least twice while we were there. Tanja and I discussed the business of being asked to help move his car in the icy drive on Saturday December 18.
Why would he say Drive if that wasn't the case??? He gets no benefit from saying it was on the drive, he could have said the position had changed when he passed it in the road... This is why the Police got excited IMO... because by mentioning the drive, it was different to what CJ had said... It wasn't the position changing.. which they told untruths.. It was WHERE the car actually was!!!!!
That..... even though it doesn't show Tanja moving the car.. in The Lost Honour of CJ... it shows the car being moved from the drive....
So explain that one..... was it on the road Or the drive?????? So was Dr Vincent Tabak lying about the car??? I don't think he was... it was an observation he and Tanja made... And in CJ own words the car was on the road... But we had 2 examples of the car being on the drive?? go figure!!
The car had moved...... so where was the lie that Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to be incriminating the Landlord??
CJ also states they searched all the flats at this point too....
The next day, Wednesday 22 December 2010, the same officer who had taken my
first statement came back to my fiat and took a second statement about this. The
officer asked me if one of the voices could have been a woman’s voice. I responded
that it could have been but that I could not say either way. The police have since
confirmed to me that the fact that I gave a supplementary statement raised their
suspicions in relation to me. On the basis of what ensued, I believe it is likely that the
police passed these suspicions on to the media.
Whether or not he could verify this we will never know... but we can see with the above quotes that something is amiss... It's a case of who you believe and why Dr Vincent Tabak says about the drive and so did the Documentary...
Why would the documentary show Dr Vincent Tabak moving the car if it was correct?? There's no real advantage in that scene being changed, especially as it conflicts with CJ's leveson statement!!! So.. I believe the car was on the drive, and if that was the case... the car DID in fact MOVE!!!!
When making the Documentary , they probably never thought anyone would question it's content!!!
EDIT:..... why has this NOT been questioned before?????
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-trial-vincent-275169
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http:/www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf
-
From The Leveson enquiry:...
This part could mean if it was Joanna Yeates she left her flat ... but he doesn't say that... and would change the timeline.
If people no matter who was at the gate, that would suggest at least visitors if not Joanna Yeates..
Also slightly confused here... I thought that Tanya Morson and Dr Vincent Tabak had seen the car in the driveway??? because I thought that is when they gave it a push because it was stuck????
On the Lost Honour of CJ.. they depict Dr Vincent Tabak pushing the car from the drive in daylight.... So where was the car??????
So.... this is a reason that CJ should have been on the stand.... where was the car??? he says road .... and I'm sure that in Dr Vincent Tabak's early statement he said that he and tanja helped him
On The Road...
Why would he say Drive if that wasn't the case??? He gets no benefit from saying it was on the drive, he could have said the position had changed when he passed it in the road... This is why the Police got excited IMO... because by mentioning the drive, it was different to what CJ had said... It wasn't the position changing.. which they told untruths.. It was WHERE the car actually was!!!!!
That..... even though it doesn't show Tanja moving the car.. in The Lost Honour of CJ... it shows the car being moved from the drive....
So explain that one..... was it on the road Or the drive?????? So was Dr Vincent Tabak lying about the car??? I don't think he was... it was an observation he and Tanja made... And in CJ own words the car was on the road... But we had 2 examples of the car being on the drive?? go figure!!
The car had moved...... so where was the lie that Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to be incriminating the Landlord??
CJ also states they searched all the flats at this point too....
Whether or not he could verify this we will never know... but we can see with the above quotes that something is amiss... It's a case of who you believe and why Dr Vincent Tabak says about the drive and so did the Documentary...
Why would the documentary show Dr Vincent Tabak moving the car if it was correct?? There's no real advantage in that scene being changed, especially as it conflicts with CJ's leveson statement!!! So.. I believe the car was on the drive, and if that was the case... the car DID in fact MOVE!!!!
When making the Documentary , they probably never thought anyone would question it's content!!!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-trial-vincent-275169
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http:/www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf
Very long posts are difficult to comment on and this one is really, really tiresome.
Why should the landlord have taken the stand? - because we know from that he told the police he saw two or three people on Joanna's front path just after 9 p.m. one evening which might have been the 17th December 2010. That is what he told Leveson - but what he told Leveson was a smokescreen. How many times do I have to emphasise this? The other reason why he should have been called was to corroborate the claim about the direction in which the car was facing. You have already long ago posted this argument. So CJ should have taken the stand not to please you, but to ensure that it was a fair trial.
But the question of the car and his Leveson testimony pale into insignificance beside his 2nd witness statement. The only reason that he didn't testify and that the world has NEVER heard his 2nd witness statement HAS TO BE because he saw definite persons on the front path AND he saw signs of activity on the Saturday and Sunday when Joanna was supposed to be dead. Technically this is inference, but it is based on very strong evidence. Why can't you see how important it is?
The Lost Honour team were not allowed to see the 2nd Witness Statement even though I wrote to them begging and pleading and putting to them the essentially irrefutable arguments I have posted here.
-
Very long posts are difficult to comment on and this one is really, really tiresome.
I'm surprised at you Leonora... that isn't very helpful... I apologise for my tiresome posts..... at this point I bid you good day!! I'll remember in future to keep it to 49 characters or maybe not bother at all...
For a staunch supporter of Dr Vincent Tabak, I do not understand why you would wish to Alienate the few supports of The Dutchman!!!!
-
I'm surprised at you Leonora... that isn't very helpful... I apologise for my tiresome posts..... at this point I bid you good day!! I'll remember in future to keep it to 49 characters or maybe not bother at all...
For a staunch supporter of Dr Vincent Tabak, I do not understand why you would wish to Alienate the few supports of The Dutchman!!!!
I will explain why I came to Alienate a supporter of TRUTH and a FAIR TRIAL. It is because I got out of bed the wrong side. It is not a GOOD DAY at all. So when I encountered a supporter of The Dutchman posting like one of Sir Isaac Newton's children, turning over the pebbles on the beach, while the vast ocean of TRUTH still lay undiscovered just a few yards away, I went involuntarily into wind-up mode. I failed to notice that the pebble you turned over was a gem.
-
I will keep saying that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent, because I believe he is... And unless you show me properly that he isn't.. my mind is not changing...
I have quoted a very small part of your post Nine but the rest was excellent.
I'm afraid I don't have your confidence in his innocence when he himself admitted to killing Joanna. If it helps I believe it was an accidental killing just as VT claimed after things just got out of hand. I can't see any evidence that he set out that night to murder her so a conviction for murder imo is a MOJ.
-
I'm surprised at you Leonora... that isn't very helpful... I apologise for my tiresome posts..... at this point I bid you good day!! I'll remember in future to keep it to 49 characters or maybe not bother at all...
For a staunch supporter of Dr Vincent Tabak, I do not understand why you would wish to Alienate the few supports of The Dutchman!!!!
I have previously requested that post content is kept brief and to the point so that they can be replied to. TY
-
From The Leveson enquiry:...
This part could mean if it was Joanna Yeates she left her flat ... but he doesn't say that... and would change the timeline.
If people no matter who was at the gate, that would suggest at least visitors if not Joanna Yeates..
Also slightly confused here... I thought that Tanya Morson and Dr Vincent Tabak had seen the car in the driveway??? because I thought that is when they gave it a push because it was stuck????
On the Lost Honour of CJ.. they depict Dr Vincent Tabak pushing the car from the drive in daylight.... So where was the car??????
So.... this is a reason that CJ should have been on the stand.... where was the car??? he says road .... and I'm sure that in Dr Vincent Tabak's early statement he said that he and tanja helped him
On The Road...
Why would he say Drive if that wasn't the case??? He gets no benefit from saying it was on the drive, he could have said the position had changed when he passed it in the road... This is why the Police got excited IMO... because by mentioning the drive, it was different to what CJ had said... It wasn't the position changing.. which they told untruths.. It was WHERE the car actually was!!!!!
That..... even though it doesn't show Tanja moving the car.. in The Lost Honour of CJ... it shows the car being moved from the drive....
So explain that one..... was it on the road Or the drive?????? So was Dr Vincent Tabak lying about the car??? I don't think he was... it was an observation he and Tanja made... And in CJ own words the car was on the road... But we had 2 examples of the car being on the drive?? go figure!!
The car had moved...... so where was the lie that Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to be incriminating the Landlord??
CJ also states they searched all the flats at this point too....
Whether or not he could verify this we will never know... but we can see with the above quotes that something is amiss... It's a case of who you believe and why Dr Vincent Tabak says about the drive and so did the Documentary...
Why would the documentary show Dr Vincent Tabak moving the car if it was correct?? There's no real advantage in that scene being changed, especially as it conflicts with CJ's leveson statement!!! So.. I believe the car was on the drive, and if that was the case... the car DID in fact MOVE!!!!
When making the Documentary , they probably never thought anyone would question it's content!!!
EDIT:..... why has this NOT been questioned before?????
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-trial-vincent-275169
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http:/www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf
Why didn't I see that before? Why didn't I even see it when you spelt it out? The landlord HAD to park his car on the road, otherwise he would never have made his way up the drive and become aware of people on Joanna's front path.
It isn't easy to find a place to park on Canynge Road. Why would the landlord or anyone else living at No. 44 park their car on the street, when they have private off-road parking? We know that getting a car out of the private parking space is difficult after a heavy snow-fall, especially if you are a very unpractical person like the landlord, who wouldn't know about the techniques a driver needs to use for dealing with slippery conditions.
So the explanation has to be that the landlord decided to park his car on the road, after his tiresome experience on the morning of Saturday 18th December 2010, when he had to ask his tenant to help him by pushing. The incident in which he became aware of persons on Joanna's front path must therefore have occurred no earlier than the evening of Saturday 18th December 2010. In his Leveson statement he only states that it "miight have been Friday 17th December 2010". This makes it very important indeed. Who could have been going to and fro on Joanna's path on the Saturday or Sunday evenings? Was it Greg Reardon, Mr. & Mrs. Yeates, Vincent Tabak, his girlfriend, or who? The possibilities are endless. Only the publication of the landlord's actual 2nd witness statement to the police can answer this question.
-
I have quoted a very small part of your post Nine but the rest was excellent.
I'm afraid I don't have your confidence in his innocence when he himself admitted to killing Joanna. If it helps I believe it was an accidental killing just as VT claimed after things just got out of hand. I can't see any evidence that he set out that night to murder her so a conviction for murder imo is a MOJ.
I agree!
-
I have quoted a very small part of your post Nine but the rest was excellent.
I'm afraid I don't have your confidence in his innocence when he himself admitted to killing Joanna. If it helps I believe it was an accidental killing just as VT claimed after things just got out of hand. I can't see any evidence that he set out that night to murder her so a conviction for murder imo is a MOJ.
When Vincent Tabak was tried for the possession of illegal images of child abuse, he was still represented by the same chambers, instructed by the same firm of solicitors, as at his trial for murder. So the inescapable conclusion is that he was not dissatisfied with his defence team.
On the other hand, we know, from examining the murder trial, both at very close hand, and also from afar, that his lawyers provided the worst possible defence that history has ever seen, against one of the weakest cases any prosecutor has ever brought. There was in fact no evidence against him, except, as you keep on saying, that he himself admitted to killing Joanna. Yet he never sacked this defence team.
Therefore the inescapable conclusion HAS TO BE that he was offered, and took, a very large reward indeed for going along with this entire charade - including pretending to have been in her flat and conceding, as you put it, that "things got out of hand". The only possible reward has to be a secret amnesty and a new identity in a country where the name "Joanna Yeates" means nothing. Another inescapable conclusion is that her actual killer has not been subject to the due process of law.
Surely the public has a right to know?
-
When Vincent Tabak was tried for the possession of illegal images of child abuse, he was still represented by the same chambers, instructed by the same firm of solicitors, as at his trial for murder. So the inescapable conclusion is that he was not dissatisfied with his defence team.
On the other hand, we know, from examining the murder trial, both at very close hand, and also from afar, that his lawyers provided the worst possible defence that history has ever seen, against one of the weakest cases any prosecutor has ever brought. There was in fact no evidence against him, except, as you keep on saying, that he himself admitted to killing Joanna. Yet he never sacked this defence team.
Therefore the inescapable conclusion HAS TO BE that he was offered, and took, a very large reward indeed for going along with this entire charade - including pretending to have been in her flat and conceding, as you put it, that "things got out of hand". The only possible reward has to be a secret amnesty and a new identity in a country where the name "Joanna Yeates" means nothing. Another inescapable conclusion is that her actual killer has not been subject to the due process of law.
Surely the public has a right to know?
I think you have been watching too many movies. That sort of thing doesn't happen in the UK where foreign nationals are concerned. Tabak will serve his sentence or part of it and then be deported to Holland.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg389908#msg389908
You see Leonora,... I write the way I do because, whether you agree or not, people skim over the information that they have read several times without really reading it.....
My tedious post actually supports what you have said about the second witness statement... because if CJ is not telling an untruth as regards that his car was on the road after the gym... Then that in itself suggests it could be another day other than Friday!!!!!
If the car has changed positions after the GYM and it was on the road, would Tanja and Dr Vincent Tabak know?? There attention was drawn to the car on the Saturday daytime.. Because it must have been in the carpark on Friday night on their return....
So Saturday MUST be the day that CJ.. went to the GYM!!!
Has anyone confirmed his GYM attendance, because that would give you the day that his car was on the road... therefore, whoever he heard at the gate must have come from Joanna Yeates flat...
Which raises the question I have said many times... Why would it be a problem as to who is at the gate?????
Firstly... it SHOULD be someone from Joanna Yeates flat,.... he didn't even suggest that it was Dr Vincent Tabak!!!! Which brings me back to the fact...
I do not believe Dr Vincent Tabak used the small gate to exit the building!!!
So whatever people he did hear was not Dr Vincent Tabak.... because they would have jumped on it.. And as they always believed that Joanna Yeates was taken over Clifton Suspension Bridge, maybe that car went over in the evening....
Do we know CJ's movements for Saturday... NO!!! (I'm not suggesting anything about CJ)... Maybe plain and simple is that CJ"S second witness statement relates to the Saturday and NOT the Friday!!!!!
It is not until we have Dr Vincent Tabak in view does Friday become the day of interest!!! Up until that point everything they said and did was to do with the Saturday!!!
If we think about the Holland statement, they say that Dr Vincent Tabak said the car had changed position the night before....
Yes it did... thats why they noticed it in the carpark when asked to help move it.... and we believe CJ's Leveson statement to be true.. then the night he heard people at the gate has to be Saturday..... That's why he is vague in his response at the Leveson about the evening.... HE SHOULD KNOW!!!!!!!!
If it was Saturday... and Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson supposedly used the little gate all the time, why could it not have been them??????
Did anyone check what time they left for their evenings entertainment???? Or were they already OUT!!
I will say again......I cannot see why Tanja Morson and Dr Vincent Tabak would use the little gate and go past Joanna Yeates and Greg Reardons private space when they had their own private entrance!!
Anyone could have been at the Gate on the Saturday... whether Joanna Yeates died the Friday or NOT!!!!
EDIT:............. It has to be Saturday that CJ parked his car on the ROAD.... because he had problems moving it in the daytime on the early part of Saturday(Icy Drive)... So therefore that would be the reason he LEFT IT ON THE ROAD!!!... instead of taking it into the drive!!!!
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg389908#msg389908
You see Leonora,... I write the way I do because, whether you agree or not, people skim over the information that they have read several times without really reading it.....
My tedious post actually supports what you have said about the second witness statement... because if CJ is not telling an untruth as regards that his car was on the road after the gym... Then that in itself suggests it could be another day other than Friday!!!!!
...
Please accept my grovelling apologies for responding so rudely to your brilliant revelation. Your posts are never tedious, but I am guilty as charged, a skimmer.
That the landlord revealed to Leveson, but not to the jury, that he sometimes parked his car on the road, is yet another black mark against VT's defence lawyers. By not calling the landlord into the witness box to confirm or refute the defendant's claim that he had helped push the car on the Saturday, the defence team gave VT yet another ground for claiming a mis-trial, which he nevertheless unaccountably didn't do.
VT, the landlord and Greg Reardon all admitted to having parked their cars on the road. This suggests that the private parking at No. 44 is inadequate for the needs of all the residents. In that case, VT and his girlfriend may sometimes have parked their shared car further along Canynge Road, at a point where Joanna's gate was nearer than the gate to the driveway. This could be an explanation of why they might have chosen to pass Joanna's window.
-
There is enough parking per flat.... they have a dedicated parking space.. maybe that is why they do car sharing, and do not need to park on the road!!
If there is more than one car per house hold then i presume that the extra car would be parked on the road... who is going to be happy to give up their dedicated parking space to another tenant when you are already paying for this privilege in your rent!!!
“The property also benefits from a dedicated off streetcar parking space."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/news/8365548/Joanna-Yeates-murder-landlord-Chris-Jefferies-puts-Bristol-flat-on-the-market.html
-
VT, the landlord and Greg Reardon all admitted to having parked their cars on the road. This suggests that the private parking at No. 44 is inadequate for the needs of all the residents. In that case, VT and his girlfriend may sometimes have parked their shared car further along Canynge Road, at a point where Joanna's gate was nearer than the gate to the driveway. This could be an explanation of why they might have chosen to pass Joanna's window.
And what does that statement support...
Greg car was obviously in the drive when he got CJ and another neighbour to help him....
CJ's car was on the road.... maybe he sometimes puts it there when HE has visitors...
And Dr Vincent Tabak... well... what do you say about that, if his statement on the witness stand supports the supposed evidence then saying his cars is on the road is no biggy...
Lets not for get he says:....
Defence Counsel: Where was your car parked?
Tabak: My car was parked on the street.
This is when he explains about he thoughts about going to ASDA... so he has already placed the car where he needs to go via one side of the building or the other.....
The car needs to be on the street!!! because what other reason would he possibly go past Joanna Yeates flat..
Infact when did he bring it to the drive???? Didn't he at one point say that he went to de-ice the car???
-
Greg car was obviously in the drive when he got CJ and another neighbour to help him....
No, I believe Greg Reardon's car was parked "by the kerb", i.e., on the street.
-
Forgive me for repeating myself... But.....
"The police had phoned us at least twice while we were there. Tanja and I discussed the business of being asked to help move his car in the icy drive on Saturday December 18.
"Tanja felt maybe we should tell the police but I thought it might wrongly incriminate him and that it probably wasn't important."
The car was on the drive on Saturday....... again I'll say the car wasn't on the road... So why is Dr Vincent Tabak's statement so important?????
Because CJ's car must have been on the road on Saturday and around 9:00pm he heard some people at the gate...
Dr Vincent Tabak does not mention the car changing position.... that is The Police woman on the Crime Watch Program... we all believe that Dr Vincent Tabak said the CAR had changed position because we have been told this... Just like we were told that the top was PINK!!!!!
So the IMPORTANCE of Dr Vincent Tabak's statement is it pertains to the fact that SOMEBODY left the gate on Saturday evening...
So... Tanja being on the stand would also corroborate this statement... but she never took it.... It is far easier to make it look like Dr Vincent Tabak tried to implicate CJ by stating the car changed position, than the truth being he helped moved the car and never mentioned it''s position....
DR Vincent Tabak never lied..... and you only have to go back to the early statements people have made to find out a lot of the truth in this case!!!!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-trial-vincent-275169
-
No, I believe Greg Reardon's car was parked "by the kerb", i.e., on the street.
What makes you believe this leonora????
If they didn't use the car to go to work with, I would have expected it to be sat in their designated car park space... But if the car had been recently used, then maybe it would have been on the road...
-
What makes you believe this leonora????
If they didn't use the car to go to work with, I would have expected it to be sat in their designated car park space... But if the car had been recently used, then maybe it would have been on the road...
"Greg's car was in the gutter of the road, and Chris Jefferies' car was in the road."
http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/time-police-question-chris-jefferies-murder/story-11325431-detail/story.html
-
RIDDLE OF U-TURN CAR
Police are trying to trace the owner of a light-coloured car seen on the night Jo disappeared in the remote area where her body was dumped.
Two members of Long Ashton Golf Club in Failand were about to drive home when they saw the car pull into the entrance at 11.20pm on December 17.
The driver noticed the key-code operated barriers and hastily did a U-turn.
It then sped off towards Longwood Lane.
The witnesses reported the incident after Miss Yeates’s body was found on a grass verge beside the lane on Christmas Day. Around 30 of the guests are believed to have driven down the lane between 11pm and midnight before heavy snow fell in the early hours.
Most of them told police that they had their lights on full beam but did not see a body on the verge.
One member said: ‘Failand is such a remote area and the way the car was being driven stuck in the witnesses’ mind.’
Where were these witness's in court????
30 people having driven down Longwood Lane and not one of them saw Joanna Yeates body on the Lane nor did they see Dr Vincent Tabak on the Lane, yet Dr Vincent Tabak says cars passed... (laughable.). So which Cars saw him parked on the lane that night???
Surely that would have been evidence of at least a car Parked there that evening!!!!!
So start the clock again.. 11:20pm at Long Ashton Golf club.... SPEEDING OFF!!!!
Now wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak supposed to be Aimlessly driving around and came upon Longwood Lane????
11:20pm Long Ashton.... Dr Vincent Tabak has how many minutes left until he is seen back at his own home???
So it's also taken.... 50 mins to get to Long Ashton after he was at ASDA in Bedminster!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343233/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Landlord-Chris-Jefferies-Prof-Strange-quizzed-police.html#ixzz4bZywXtvW
-
"Greg's car was in the gutter of the road, and Chris Jefferies' car was in the road."
http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/time-police-question-chris-jefferies-murder/story-11325431-detail/story.html
Well there are questions again:...
"I had only just charged up my car because it didn't work when I had gone to see a friend.
"I got a phone call from Mr Jefferies. I was asleep at the time and it was early evening.
There must be a record of this phone call ... which would give an exact time that they helped start the car...
The times given for this have ranged from between 5:00pm and 7:00pm ... so how long did it take to start the car and what time???
Mr Stanley, joint co-ordinator of the local Neighbourhood Watch scheme with Mr Jefferies, said he didn't think the 65-year-old spoke to Mr Reardon about going away for the weekend, adding: "I wouldn't say there was anything tense between them."
All that statement says is that Stanley apparently wasn't aware that Greg was going away for the weekend, that conversation could have happened at anytime.. and it's conceivable that CJ could had said something on the phone....
How long did this event take???
You have the time waiting for Stanley to come from his house with the leads after the phone call... You then have CJ going to get his car...
Followed by Stanley getting into CJ's car to position it, then CJ getting back into the car...
Then CJ getting out of the car to open the bonnet, then CJ back in the car to rev the engine and the time needed to give the car enough charge.. So how much time are we talking???? What time did Greg arrive home at???
I'd like to make it perfectly clear, that I post this only because I like timelines... i like all the timelines to be accurate no matter who they pertain to.
http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/time-police-question-chris-jefferies-murder/story-11325431-detail/story.html#lXXR4QWB8KjMLbgf.99
EDIT:... "I think Chris Jefferies wanted to borrow my car, but I said I didn't want to take all the power out of it.
"So he said, 'fine', and he then brought his car – I think it was the Chrysler.
This suggest that CJ's car was in the carpark... so thats where he must normally keep it...
-
I'd like to go back to the Leveson inquiry:....
I was released on police bail on Saturday I January 2011 but, despite Vincent Tabak
being arrested on suspicion of murder on 20 January 2011 and charged on 22 January
2011, my bail was not lifted and the police did not confirm that I was no longer a
suspect until 4 March 2011, which is to say for a period of some six weeks after
Tabak was charged. I am told that this is highly unusual, if not unprecedented. Once
again, I believe that the press coverage that appeared following my arrest and during
detention may have had a bearing on the police decision to (a) apply bail at all and (b)
not to release me from bail for so tong.
A couple of points here......... Dr Vincent Tabak could NEVER have confessed to the so called Chaplain in early February as they would have released CJ, because of the CONFESSION!!!!
So that didn't exist which we all ready know anyway...
Why did they need to keep CJ on bail for so long????? I know he says it's because the police thought he had colluded.. But that would have been something he was told and NOT fact!!!
So what statements or information did they Police believe they had on Dr Vincent Tabak in March?????
If as you all remember THE CPS LADY stated that they PLANNED Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest..... So was the original charge set to him "Joint Enterprise"??? If as CJ says they thought that they had colluded????
You can be charged with 'Joint Enterprise with an Unknown Other'... as I have recently learnt ?{)(**
So if he wasn't originally charged under Joint Enterprise... then why did they hold CJ until March 4th 2011???
So what happened by this time?????
Do we know what Dr Vincent Tabak was charged under??
-
Mr. Stanley "thinks" that the car used for the source of current was the Crysler (which actually belonged to Mr. Steggles, as far as I recall). However, the car that Vincent told the police was facing a different direction the next morning and that he helped push was the Volvo. This is certainly the car depicted in "The Lost Honour" film being pushed by the Dutchman. However, the film also shows the landlord introducing Greg Reardon to Vincent Tabak, who cheerfully regretted that he didn't have any jump leads, but who instead had a cheerful girlfriend, whom he called, so that she too could meet their new neighbour.
But surely the girlfriend by that time was off drinking with the only other drinker on the Dyson bus, on their way to the works party? She certainly didn't bother to come home first.
I've been viewing the first part of "The Lost Honour..." again to satisfy myself that "Nine" has got the details right. It is impossible to make out whether the incident with the jump leads took place on the street or in the car park. Nor is the landlord seen getting out of his car after returning from the gym.
-
I'd like to go back to the Leveson inquiry:....
A couple of points here......... Dr Vincent Tabak could NEVER have confessed to the so called Chaplain in early February as they would have released CJ, because of the CONFESSION!!!!
So that didn't exist which we all ready know anyway...
Why did they need to keep CJ on bail for so long????? I know he says it's because the police thought he had colluded.. But that would have been something he was told and NOT fact!!!
So what statements or information did they Police believe they had on Dr Vincent Tabak in March?????
If as you all remember THE CPS LADY stated that they PLANNED Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest..... So was the original charge set to him "Joint Enterprise"??? If as CJ says they thought that they had colluded????
You can be charged with 'Joint Enterprise with an Unknown Other'... as I have recently learnt ?{)(**
So if he wasn't originally charged under Joint Enterprise... then why did they hold CJ until March 4th 2011???
So what happened by this time?????
Do we know what Dr Vincent Tabak was charged under??
There is nothing in the known timeline to account for the choice of the date when the landlord was released from bail. The then-Chief Constable was exceptionally brusque and dismissive when he was asked about this at the Leveson Inquiry. At one time, I believed that the police had told the so-called chaplain about VT's porn & prostitutes, and the chaplain then asked VT during their conversations if the prisoner would like Brotherton to "help" him tell his girlfriend. I assumed that once Tanja had heard about VT's secret life, she never visited him again, and the police worked out that they no longer needed to keep the landlord in reserve in case the CPS couldn't wring a guilty plea out of VT.
-
Mr. Stanley "thinks" that the car used for the source of current was the Crysler (which actually belonged to Mr. Steggles, as far a I recall). However, the car that Vincent told the police was facing a different direction the next morning and that he helped push was the Volvo. This is certainly the car depicted in "The Lost Honour" film being pushed by the Dutchman. However, the film also shows the landlord introducing Greg Reardon to Vincent Tabak, who cheerfully regretted that he didn't have any jump leads, but who instead had a cheerful girlfriend, whom he called, so that she too could meet their new neighbour.
So again this statement proves that all Dr Vincent Tabak had told the police was that he had helped CJ move a car... not that it had changed positions if he used 2 cars..... Because he wouldn't know which car had moved position and which car was being referred to....
-
There is nothing in the known timeline to account for the choice of the date when the landlord was released from bail. The then-Chief Constable was exceptionally brusque and dismissive when he was asked about this at the Leveson Inquiry. At one time, I believed that the police had told the so-called chaplain about VT's porn & prostitutes, and the chaplain then asked VT during their conversations if the prisoner would like Brotherton to "help" him tell his girlfriend. I assumed that once Tanja had heard about VT's secret life, she never visited him again, and the police worked out that they no longer needed to keep the landlord in reserve in case the CPS couldn't wring a guilty plea out of VT.
But what about the Joint Enterprise leonora???? If they believed that the two of them had colluded?????
Did the original charge that Dr Vincent Tabak was charged with mention 'Joint Enterprise'????? that would be something to clarify!!!!
Edit:... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg368738#msg368738
And therefore the police continued to entertain the suspicion that possibly there had been some sort of collusion... Between myself and Vincent Tabak
This is on video that CJ says this:....
So was the charge 'Joint Enterprise'????
-
DCI Phil Jones mentions bringing Joanna Yeats 'Killers' to justice, think I have posted it somewhere on here!
Which brings us back to whether the "Joint Enterprise" was the charge!!!!!
Because the Police must have thought Dr Vincent Tabak had help somewhere along the line, so they could still charge him with "Joint Enterprise" with A Another.....
-
A third short statement to police confirmed that only Tabak had used a laptop computer, shared by him and his girlfriend, after Miss Yeates's disappearance.
How can all the infomation on this computer be attributed to Dr Vincent Tabak alone????
How did the defence show or attempt to discredit the prosecutions claims that ALL the searches belonged to Dr Vincent Tabak...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-trial-vincent-275169
-
DCI Phil Jones mentions bringing Joanna Yeats 'Killers' to justice, think I have posted it somewhere on here!
Which brings us back to whether the "Joint Enterprise" was the charge!!!!!
Because the Police must have thought Dr Vincent Tabak had help somewhere along the line, so they could still charge him with "Joint Enterprise" with A Another.....
Hey, this is not Amanda Knox, Rafaelle Sollecito, Patrice Lumbumba and Rudy Guede we are discussing! I have never seen anything to suggest that VT was ever charged with anything other than having murdered Joanna Yeates alone and unaided.
I don't believe the police ever really believed the landlord had anything to do with her death. So they had to keep on thinking up excuses for why they had arrested him, released him, and then held him on bail for such a long time.
-
Hey, this is not Amanda Knox, Rafaelle Sollecito, Patrice Lumbumba and Rudy Guede we are discussing! I have never seen anything to suggest that VT was ever charged with anything other than having murdered Joanna Yeates alone and unaided.
Apart from CJ's video..... which was not released until after the court case.... This is why I am asking about the Joint Enterprise... If we are to take on board what CJ has stated since the trial... then that has to mean they thought that there were killers....
Once they have Dr Vincent Tabak in custody charged with murder... what stops CJ's bail release?????
How did the POLICE think that Dr Vincent Tabak could move a body so many times?????
-
When we have talked about DNA etc.... we accept that all of the information put into a computer is correct and nobody has challenged this...
I was watching a crime program last night... and the DNA wasn't able to be collected because of the snow... Now i don't know what year this crime was... but how did they collect DNA from Joanna Yeates?? If snow interfers with its collection??
Also back to my first point... I read this article about putting information into computer incorrectly... We all forget there is always human error in cases...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/police-typing-error-led-dad-10023269#ICID=sharebar_twitter
-
I was watching a crime program last night...
... in which the victim was found lying in a downtown alley frequented by rough sleepers, with one shoe missing. The investigators satisfied themselves that the victim had not made his own way to the alley, as the killer had intended them to think, but had been killed elsewhere and dumped from a car, just as Joanna Yeates had been. They examined the soles of the feet and found no evidence that the victim had been walking out of doors with only one shoe on. Although we have been told that Joanna's one sock had her blood on it, we have never been told whether she had been walking - or running - out of doors on it. I suspect, therefore, that she had been.
-
... in which the victim was found lying in a downtown alley frequented by rough sleepers, with one shoe missing. The investigators satisfied themselves that the victim had not made his own way to the alley, as the killer had intended them to think, but had been killed elsewhere and dumped from a car, just as Joanna Yeates had been. They examined the soles of the feet and found no evidence that the victim had been walking out of doors with only one shoe on. Although we have been told that Joanna's one sock had her blood on it, we have never been told whether she had been walking - or running - out of doors on it. I suspect, therefore, that she had been.
Don't remember Joanna Yeates blood being on her sock.. if so.. why wasn't there any blood on her bare foot???
-
Talking of programes I have watched... A series called 'Forensic Files" is on Netflix at the moment..
Collection 9 episode 5.. Dinner and a Movie ...
I mention this because the ligature marks are done after she died.. to make it look like the cause of death...
Now... If Dr Cary or the Defence say Joanna Yeates died from a heart attack... isn't it also possible someone made it look like a strangulation??? Just a question I'm posing....
I had said before it was possibly a game gone wrong.. so this is just as plausible.....
I hadn't realised it was possible to cause such marks after death,... that's what made me question it!!!!
-
Don't remember Joanna Yeates blood being on her sock.. if so.. why wasn't there any blood on her bare foot???
I haven't heard anything about this before either.
-
I haven't heard anything about this before either.
"Forensic scientist Lindsay Lennen (described as a body fluids and DNA specialist on the staff of LGC Forensics, and case leader for homicides) identified blood on the T-shirt and the bra as Joanna’s. There was blood on the toe and the sole of the left sock. There was blood on her finger nails."
http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/mum-s-tears-joanna-yeates-murder-trial/story-13598437-detail/story.html
-
"Forensic scientist Lindsay Lennen (described as a body fluids and DNA specialist on the staff of LGC Forensics, and case leader for homicides) identified blood on the T-shirt and the bra as Joanna’s. There was blood on the toe and the sole of the left sock. There was blood on her finger nails."
http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/mum-s-tears-joanna-yeates-murder-trial/story-13598437-detail/story.html
From the link...
'Lindsay Lennen, a forensic scientist, confirmed she detected Tabak's DNA on Miss Yeates' chest area and on her jeans, behind the knees.
She said the DNA could have been transferred by touch or even breath, and the contact with the jeans could be consistent with him carrying her.
In cross-examination William Clegg QC, defending, asked Ms Lennen if Tabak's DNA could have been transferred to Miss Yeates if he had used a cycle bag to take her body from her flat in Canynge Road, Clifton, to Longwood Lane.
She said that it may well have done, as the cycle bag would contain his DNA.
Ms Lennen also confirmed Miss Yeates' DNA was recovered from spots of blood found in a Renault Megane car Tabak was driving on the night she disappeared. Her blood was found on her pink T-shirt and lilac bra, as well as on the sole of the toe of the one thick grey left sock she was wearing, which belonged to Mr Reardon.
The court heard analysis of fibres linked to Miss Yeates put her in direct contact with Tabak's black coat as well as the boot of the Renault he drove, owned by his girlfriend.'
It begs the question as to where the blood came from. Was it an injury sustained in the initial struggle or caused by transporting the body or even an attempt to push it over the wall into the quarry?
Someone asked the question as to how the people in the several cars exiting the adjacent Golf Club never saw Joanna's body lying on the verge. The answer also appears in the above link. Joanna's body lay on a bed of leaves and was also covered by leaves prior to being covered by snow. By covering the body in leaves the killer had inadvertently protected the forensic material found on the victim and her clothing from the harsh elements. He had effectively sealed it in.
-
"Forensic scientist Lindsay Lennen (described as a body fluids and DNA specialist on the staff of LGC Forensics, and case leader for homicides) identified blood on the T-shirt and the bra as Joanna’s. There was blood on the toe and the sole of the left sock. There was blood on her finger nails."
http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/mum-s-tears-joanna-yeates-murder-trial/story-13598437-detail/story.html
If it was on the sole of her sock, that would sound like she stood in it... but there was no blood at the scene...
Also, I found this odd:.. Ms Lennen also confirmed Miss Yeates' DNA was recovered from spots of blood found in a Renault Megane car Tabak was driving on the night she disappeared. Her blood was found on her pink T-shirt and lilac bra, as well as on the sole of the toe of the one thick grey left sock she was wearing, which belonged to Mr Reardon.
Now DCI Phil Jones said when they were talking about the sock that was missing that it was a SIZE 5... which I found strange anyway... Since when has Greg had such tiny feet!!!!!!!!
There is something fishy about the sock business (IMO)!!
DCI Jones said the sock he was looking for was a grey size five ski sock and called for the public to continue to feed his team with clues
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1344276/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Strangled-sock.html#ixzz4bhA6wCdW
http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/mum-s-tears-joanna-yeates-murder-trial/story-13598437-detail/story.html#gMTcLw4DX44GIpMP.99
-
In cross-examination William Clegg QC, defending, asked Ms Lennen if Tabak's DNA could have been transferred to Miss Yeates if he had used a cycle bag to take her body from her flat in Canynge Road, Clifton, to Longwood Lane.
It begs the question as to where the blood came from. Was it an injury sustained in the initial struggle or caused by transporting the body or even an attempt to push it over the wall into the quarry?
William Clegg, by his own admission, was accustomed to making mincemeat of prosecution witnesses such as this one. Why did he not repeat the accusation that his own client had made against her employer when he was first confronted with her DNA allegations? Yet instead, here is Mr Clegg making suggestions to her that not only enhance the credibility of her testimony, but also reinforce the police's bag/hold-all allegation made at the time his client was first arrested. Why didn't he call his client's girlfriend as a witness to cross-examine her about the missing cycle-bag and its very existence? In a place like Clifton, only a Dutchman would use a bicycle.
Joanna's nose was fractured and bled sufficiently profusely before death to supply the blood clot on the stone wall as well as blood found elsewhere. From my own experience of transporting heavy, messy objects in large bags, I can confirm that fluids on these objects do get transferred to the insides of the bags and then back to other parts of of the objects. So if her body really were transported in this cycle-bag of whose existence the jury never heard any evidence from a reliable witness, then it is entirely possible that blood could have been transferred to other parts of her body, such as the toe of her sock.
But blood would also have been deposited in other places in her flat if she had been killed there, yet neither Reardon nor Joanna's parents noticed any blood. No one, in fact, ever testified that they had identified any of her blood in the place where she is supposed to have been killed. Yet some of you really believe that she was killed inside her flat.
-
If it was on the sole of her sock, that would sound like she stood in it... but there was no blood at the scene...
There is something fishy about the sock business (IMO)!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1344276/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Strangled-sock.html#ixzz4bhA6wCdW
Fishy is putting it mildly.
"Police believe missing clothing may have been kept by murderer as trophy"
"Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones today said the missing sock may hold the key to solving the murder of the architect whose body was found dumped by a roadside in Bristol on Christmas Day."
On the days when we are wearing socks, most of us put one sock on at a time. Later on, we first take one sock off, and then we take the other one off. This is so normal that we do not think about it. However, if the phone or the door bell rings, for example, we may be interrupted with only one sock on, just as Joanna most probably was interrupted.
In the world of DCI Phil Jones, however, the bizarre explanation that comes to mind is that the sock was taken as a TROPHY. We know that the CPS was already planning to arrest Vincent Tabak, who never had any motive for killing his neighbour, so the Detective took this opportunity to plant in the mind of the public - including the hapless Dutchman who didn't know what was in store for him - that Joanna was killed by a "crazy detached person" - the very words VT is said to have used at a dinner party five days before his arrest - rather than by someone who had some personal animosity towards her that could constitute a motive.
A public belief that no motive needs to be demonstrated is very convenient for prosecutors planning to convict innocent scapegoats.
-
William Clegg, by his own admission, was accustomed to making mincemeat of prosecution witnesses such as this one. Why did he not repeat the accusation that his own client had made against her employer when he was first confronted with her DNA allegations? Yet instead, here is Mr Clegg making suggestions to her that not only enhance the credibility of her testimony, but also reinforce the police's bag/hold-all allegation made at the time his client was first arrested. Why didn't he call his client's girlfriend as a witness to cross-examine her about the missing cycle-bag and its very existence? In a place like Clifton, only a Dutchman would use a bicycle.
Joanna's nose was fractured and bled sufficiently profusely before death to supply the blood clot on the stone wall as well as blood found elsewhere. From my own experience of transporting heavy, messy objects in large bags, I can confirm that fluids on these objects do get transferred to the insides of the bags and then back to other parts of of the objects. So if her body really were transported in this cycle-bag of whose existence the jury never heard any evidence from a reliable witness, then it is entirely possible that blood could have been transferred to other parts of her body, such as the toe of her sock.
But blood would also have been deposited in other places in her flat if she had been killed there, yet neither Reardon nor Joanna's parents noticed any blood. No one, in fact, ever testified that they had identified any of her blood in the place where she is supposed to have been killed. Yet some of you really believe that she was killed inside her flat.
They have changed their minds several times as to whether or not it was a Blood Clot, or a Blood Smear...
I for the life in me cannot see where it would come from... She is not pumping blood around her system for nearly 2 hours if we are to believe what they say took place..
They say it dislodged from her nose... Why??? it's not likely too (IMO) I believe because the rest of the blood would have dried, which make the Blood in the Boot of the car a problem too... How would that have got there???
As far as Clegg is concerned , your correct leonora.. he makes suggestions to Lyndsey Lennen... (IMO) he also puts in the minds of the jury how it may have been possible for the blood to be in his car...
Defence Counsel: Did the cover become inverted?
Tabak: I can’t remember.
So.. here if the bicycle cover is inside out, then the blood could transfer.... (rubbish) (IMO)
Thats why I question those crazy broom handles??? If Joanna Yeates body is thawing at the time and there is moisture from the snow, the blood would be wet in some part... therefore it's as easy for it to have been transferred by accident.... Did we ever get to see Andrew Mott holding His trusty Broom Handle????
There are plenty of possibilities for the transfer of blood on the wall... Also the position on the wall changed several times... from the Top... to down the wall..
The Blood evidence is again ...questionable....(IMO)
And why is there NO BLOOD any where else at the first scene of crime??????
-
Well, when I go to Clifton, I will count the number of cycles I see!! Of course people cycle in Clifton, even if it is hilly! The uni isn't far away, and I would imagine lots of the students cycle!
Both the sock and the pizza were given too much media attention in this case, IMO. Of course, VT didn't keep either as a trophy, or they would have been found in his flat.
The fact that the police had arrested the landlord, and then had to let him go,cannot have inspired confidence in the public. When VT was arrested, the public must have been relieved. At first, a number of people thought it was another mistake ( look at old fora threads from the time), but once he appeared to have "confessed", that was it: CJ was a goodie, and VT was a baddie!!! Very few people would have thought any further than that. The fact that he had no previous form and no motive just didn't count.
Most people to whom I have spoken, remember the case as "the one where they arrested the landlord". They don't even remember who was finally convicted of Joanna's murder.
As for "confessions" and guilty pleas, I cannot help recalling the case of Simon Hall, who confessed after protesting his innocence for a number of years. From what I have read, most people accept his confession as proof of his guilt. It doesn't seem to occur to people that he might have been an innocent man who had a complete breakdown! !
-
So there is No Blood of any description in the flat, we have Greg's description of the state, but nothing to prove what the flat looked like upon his return... photographs etc...(we only have the photo's after the police have emptied it)!!
There should have been a quantity of Blood in the flat of Joanna Yeates or Dr Vincent Tabak's and there was NONE.....
Question:.... If as many would probably agree Joanna Yeates did not died or was killed in her Flat, then... how does that apply to the prosecutions case... legally I mean, as they have maintained that is where she came to her demise?????
Would that create reason for a re-trial?????
Another point... at no time in the trial do they ask Dr Vincent Tabak if he cleared any blood up!!! which you would have thought would be a pertinent question..(IMO)
-
From the link...
'Lindsay Lennen, a forensic scientist, confirmed she detected Tabak's DNA on Miss Yeates' chest area and on her jeans, behind the knees.
She said the DNA could have been transferred by touch or even breath, and the contact with the jeans could be consistent with him carrying her.
But why would DNA from breath even still be there after the body was removed from the scene and placed outside, wouldn't that make it even less likely that breath would play a part.... think you would need other components (IMO)..
Behind her jeans.... Originally it was only One DNA sample, the more I read the more sample that they are.. If Dr Vincent Tabak had picked her up as many times as he was supposed too,, surely there would have been a far great DNA transfer than they indicate... again... Clegg helps with this DNA behind her knee..
Defence Counsel: Your hand being on what part of her body?
Tabak: One arm was underneath her knees.
Again where was the other hand???? But if you look closely at that statement, it doesn't say bare arms.... He hand his coat on... If he is being so careful, his coat would be next to her jeans....
Where was the fibre transfer exactly??? Why isn't there more DNA transfer.... he's supposed to have committed a Murder???
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
EDIT:........Did Lyndsey Lennen explain the colour and fibre type??? (Shade).... dye composition, what manufacturer had use what dye, whether the dye colour was made purely for that particular company and whether or not it was distinctive...... Whether or not the particular dye colour had a patent.... What colour Number was this dye..... was it a Blue black... Midnight black.. ebony black...
Where they singular threads? What shape were these threads??? Was every microscopic detail given with regards the fibres on Joanna Yeates body and that they were defineatley from Dr Vincent Tabaks coat!!!
-
As for "confessions" and guilty pleas, I cannot help recalling the case of Simon Hall, who confessed after protesting his innocence for a number of years. From what I have read, most people accept his confession as proof of his guilt. It doesn't seem to occur to people that he might have been an innocent man who had a complete breakdown! !
Bristol, where Joanna Yeates lived, has a University with an Innocence Centre, one of whose first projects was to try to analyse the conviction of Simon Hall as a possible miscarriage of justice. This conviction included a great deal of highly questionable forensic and circumstantial evidence and contradictions that only the killer could have explained. Once Simon Hall confessed, I would have expected law students from Bristol to be competing for his attention to get him to explain how he got through the window that was too small for a man of his girth, and where the mysterious fibres came from that were found at the scene of the crime. But evidently the students from Bristol lost interest in Simon Hall, not even the eagle-eyed Daily Mail ever bothered to report his revelations about how he killed his aunt, so he himself lost interest in life and reportedly committed suicide.
Or has he too been given a new, secret identity, mrswah?
-
Did Lyndsey Lennen explain the colour and fibre type??? (Shade).... dye composition, what manufacturer had use what dye, whether the dye colour was made purely for that particular company and whether or not it was distinctive...... Whether or not the particular dye colour had a patent.... What colour Number was this dye was... was it a Blue black... Midnight black.. ebony black...
Where they singular threads? What shape were these threads??? Was every microscopic detail given with regards the fibres on Joanna Yeates body and that they were defineatley from Dr Vincent Tabaks coat!!!
According to a Sky News tweet on day 7 of the trial, 18th October 2011, the Defence admitted the fibre evidence, allowing the prosecution to include it in their case without presenting any statements or witnesses testifying to it. As in Simon Hall's case, juries know very little about the statistical value of fibre evidence, because this varies so much and receives little publicity. If the fibres are very unusual indeed, and can be linked to the suspect but not to the victim, then fibres can be evidence. However, if the Bristol Ram pub is frequented by wearers of black coats from the same supplier as Vincent Tabak's, then fibres found on Joanna's body told the jury nothing, and then it is just as well for Mr Clegg's reputation that no expert witness was called to describe the statistical likelihood that these particular fibres linked the victim to the defendant.
http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Vincent_Tabak_Trial3?Page=2
-
leonora... you link doesn't work??
-
Bristol, where Joanna Yeates lived, has a University with an Innocence Centre, one of whose first projects was to try to analyse the conviction of Simon Hall as a possible miscarriage of justice. This conviction included a great deal of highly questionable forensic and circumstantial evidence and contradictions that only the killer could have explained. Once Simon Hall confessed, I would have expected law students from Bristol to be competing for his attention to get him to explain how he got through the window that was too small for a man of his girth, and where the mysterious fibres came from that were found at the scene of the crime. But evidently the students from Bristol lost interest in Simon Hall, not even the eagle-eyed Daily Mail ever bothered to report his revelations about how he killed his aunt, so he himself lost interest in life and reportedly committed suicide.
Or has he too been given a new, secret identity, mrswah?
Seems you haven't done your homework on the Hall case. Firstly, it wasn't his aunt, they were not related. Secondly, Simon Hall"s mother did chores for the elderly victim and had access to a key to her home which he knew about. The smashed window was merely a ruse.
As for Vincent Tabak, the moment he admitted to manslaughter he was going to be convicted of something, that's a no brainer.
-
leonora... you link doesn't work??
It works OK for me. Try:
http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Vincent_Tabak_Trial3?Page=0
and then click on the next page.
-
Seems you haven't done your homework on the Hall case. Firstly, it wasn't his aunt, they were not related. Secondly, Simon Hall"s mother did chores for the elderly victim and had access to a key to her home which he knew about. The smashed window was merely a ruse.
As for Vincent Tabak, the moment he admitted to manslaughter he was going to be convicted of something, that's a no brainer.
It's several years since I read about the Simon Hall case, and I didn't bother to look up the exact details because they were not relevant to my arguments, which are perfectly valid. If Simon Hall really confessed, then he would have told the students that the broken window was a ruse as you claim, and would also have cleared up all the other inconsistencies - and this would have been reported, especially in The Daily Mail, which is not a keen supporter of innocence projects. As none of these things happened, we cannot really know whether he confessed or not, nor whether he really took his own life or someone else took it for him.
You certainly haven't done your homework, otherwise you would know from the posts on this thread that Joanna Yeates was not killed in her flat, there was no sound evidence at all against Vincent Tabak, and that his so-called confession to the so-called chaplain was fabricated in court by his own defence counsel. So the admission of guilt that you set so much store by is not believable, except by anyone whom you yourself call a "no brainer". Being a vulnerable foreigner in a prison full of violent criminals, he might possibly have been intimidated and coerced into standing trial. However, his failure to sack his lawyers, despite their extraordinary behaviour at his murder trial, makes it far more likely that he had undertaken to play this charade in return for a secret amnesty and a new identity.
-
Were any pictures such as I've attached shown to the jury???? These show what wool fibres should look like..
Lyndsey Lennen I believe says the fibres are from Dr Vincent Tabaks.. WOOL COAT!!!!
Maybe analysis of these fibres needs doing again!!! Are they defineatly Wool???
Along with the colour dye number used!!!!
Question:... were the fibres found on Joanna Yeates defineatly wool... and was Dr Vincent Tabak's coat definatley wool???
-
Were any pictures such as I've attached shown to the jury???? These show what wool fibres should look like..
Lyndsey Lennen I believe says the fibres are from Dr Vincent Tabaks.. WOOL COAT!!!!
Maybe analysis of these fibres needs doing again!!! Are they defineatly Wool???
Along with the colour dye number used!!!!
Question:... were the fibres found on Joanna Yeates defineatly wool... and was Dr Vincent Tabak's coat definatley wool???
Do you have any URL link linking Lindsay Lennen to these fibres? She told the court she was a body fluids specialist.
As far as I know, we have only the prosecuting counsel's word for the 11 fibres found on Joanna's body that he alleged could be matched to the fabric of the defendant's black coat. However, the judge told the jury that their verdict had to be based solely on the evidence they had heard. They did not hear any evidence from a witness under oath about these fibres, so I am sceptical about them. However, it is possible that the jury was shown pictures of fibres that no news media has bothered to report or reproduce.
-
It's several years since I read about the Simon Hall case, and I didn't bother to look up the exact details because they were not relevant to my arguments, which are perfectly valid. If Simon Hall really confessed, then he would have told the students that the broken window was a ruse as you claim, and would also have cleared up all the other inconsistencies - and this would have been reported, especially in The Daily Mail, which is not a keen supporter of innocence projects. As none of these things happened, we cannot really know whether he confessed or not, nor whether he really took his own life or someone else took it for him.
You certainly haven't done your homework, otherwise you would know from the posts on this thread that Joanna Yeates was not killed in her flat, there was no sound evidence at all against Vincent Tabak, and that his so-called confession to the so-called chaplain was fabricated in court by his own defence counsel. So the admission of guilt that you set so much store by is not believable, except by anyone whom you yourself call a "no brainer". Being a vulnerable foreigner in a prison full of violent criminals, he might possibly have been intimidated and coerced into standing trial. However, his failure to sack his lawyers, despite their extraordinary behaviour at his murder trial, makes it far more likely that he had undertaken to play this charade in return for a secret amnesty and a new identity.
I find your conspiracy speculations extremely worrying Leonora. Simon Hall had no contact with the students or the Bristol based Innocence Project after his prison confession. Fact is he did confess and he did commit suicide alone in his cell after several previous failed attempts so let's not stir up any more silliness.
The same applies to your claim suggesting Joanna Yeates was not killed in her flat. Vincent Tabak tells a different story and unless you have very strong evidence to the contrary I suggest you stop posting personal opinion as fact.
-
I find your conspiracy speculations extremely worrying Leonora. Simon Hall had no contact with the students or the Bristol based Innocence Project after his prison confession. Fact is he did confess and he did commit suicide alone in his cell after several previous failed attempts so let's not stir up any more silliness.
The same applies to your claim suggesting Joanna Yeates was not killed in her flat. Vincent Tabak tells a different story and unless you have very strong evidence to the contrary I suggest you stop posting personal opinion as fact.
I would think that after Tabak strangled Joanna he was on a mission to get her body out of there immediately because if she had been found at home suspicion would instantly land on the other tenants and the landlord.
-
I would think that after Tabak strangled Joanna he was on a mission to get her body out of there immediately because if she had been found at home suspicion would instantly land on the other tenants and the landlord.
I still don't understand why moving the body from the flat would have been advantageous.. And again most victims are taken to the scene of the crime or left in situ..
The suspicion was on the Landlord and tenants in any case... that is why we are at this juncture.. They only ever seemed to have considered that building as the place where the perperteter came from....
And failed to DNA test her collegues and circle of friends....
-
Or has he too been given a new, secret identity, mrswah?
Leonora... I do not wish to be disrespectful, but I can't see people who we wish to see the thread taking us seriously if we talk about things that cannot clearly be substanciated..
And wild notions which I find difficult to take on board personally, will not help discover the truth about the case.... Or more to the point get NEW readers to also question what happened to Dr Vincent Tabak...
You would also need the Yeates family to be happy with this, and I can't see how they would or how Tanja would be happy to lose him...
I just like to see as much info in black and white, with evidence to support it... or video's to support it... maybe you are privy to information no-one else is.... but unless you link it or attach it... People will question the validity of what you are saying... And with very few people even ready to accept that Dr Vincent Tabak maybe innocent, the average Joe Bloggs will no take it seriously... And they will react like the did before the trial had completed...
I question the difficulty people have had in communicating with Dr Vincent Tabak... But him being sent back to Holland if far more likely than him being asked to throw his life away on a lie to benefit the establishment...
I am not saying strange things do not occur, but find the paper trail or photo evidence to prove some of the things that you think may have happened.... As I say, this is only my opinion...
Why have things like... evidence etc not been sealed for 70 years, like they were in the Dr David Kelly inquiry.(Hutton)
-
Bristol, where Joanna Yeates lived, has a University with an Innocence Centre, one of whose first projects was to try to analyse the conviction of Simon Hall as a possible miscarriage of justice. This conviction included a great deal of highly questionable forensic and circumstantial evidence and contradictions that only the killer could have explained. Once Simon Hall confessed, I would have expected law students from Bristol to be competing for his attention to get him to explain how he got through the window that was too small for a man of his girth, and where the mysterious fibres came from that were found at the scene of the crime. But evidently the students from Bristol lost interest in Simon Hall, not even the eagle-eyed Daily Mail ever bothered to report his revelations about how he killed his aunt, so he himself lost interest in life and reportedly committed suicide.
Or has he too been given a new, secret identity, mrswah?
Um no. He is dead---------
-
I find your conspiracy speculations extremely worrying Leonora. Simon Hall had no contact with the students or the Bristol based Innocence Project after his prison confession. Fact is he did confess and he did commit suicide alone in his cell after several previous failed attempts so let's not stir up any more silliness.
The same applies to your claim suggesting Joanna Yeates was not killed in her flat. Vincent Tabak tells a different story and unless you have very strong evidence to the contrary I suggest you stop posting personal opinion as fact.
I didn't anticipate that my mentioning Simon Hall merely in passing would stir up such a hornet's nest.
We have already discussed at some length the reasons why Joanna was probably not killed in her flat. If she had been, then the killer's DNA and her blood would have been deposited in her flat. If VT's DNA had been found in her flat, then it is inconceivable that the jury would not have been told about it, by an expert witness under oath. If, as you firmly believe, VT was the actual killer, then he must have killed her somewhere else. In that case, we really know nothing at all about the actual course of events.
Not only did the first persons to enter the flat fail to notice any blood stains, but nor was the jury told about any bloodstains revealed by more thorough forensic examination of the flat. Yet the pathologist's testimony makes it clear that Joanna did bleed quite profusely, mainly from her nose, before she died. Of course her killer might have cleaned up the bloodstains in the flat sufficiently to deceive her parents and the first police officers on the scene temporarily. Once again, if any bloodstains had been detected in the flat, then we may be sure that the jury would have been told about them.
I have therefore very solid grounds indeed for asserting that she was not killed in her flat. You do not seem to be very fastidious about distinguishing between "opinions" and reasoned inferences based objectively on accepted facts.
You write, "Vincent Tabak tells a different story". Of course he does - and obviously that is just what it is: a story. If he is the criminal that you and most other people are convinced he is, then there is no reason for you to believe anything he says, as no credence can be given to it. To base any argument on what he said can only be described as "silliness", unless it is supported by independent testimony from more credible witnesses. His claim that he killed Joanna in her flat is not, in fact, supported by any other evidence at all.
-
I would think that after Tabak strangled Joanna he was on a mission to get her body out of there immediately because if she had been found at home suspicion would instantly land on the other tenants and the landlord.
There was only one person on whom "suspicion would instantly land" (to use your own words) if she had been found at home, and that was the boyfriend with whom she shared the flat. Neither the landlord nor any of the other tenants knew her well enough to have had any motive to kill Joanna, nor did any of them have a criminal record. Her boyfriend could hardly have failed to report a dead body, as he was the person who lived in the flat, so suspicion would "instantly" fall first on him, and thereafter on anyone else who knew Joanna well enough to have possible personal reasons for animosity towards her.
The early arrest of the landlord therefore constitutes a serious problem for you and everyone else with such facile answers to everything about this case. This is because we and you KNOW very well that the police NEVER had any case against the landlord. Therefore, whatever possible reasons the police may have felt they had for arresting him, they certainly had even better reasons for arresting the boyfriend. The precipitate arrest of the landlord is, therefore, irrefutable evidence of either incompetence on the part of the police, or a conspiracy, or some combination of the two.
-
I find your conspiracy speculations extremely worrying Leonora. Simon Hall had no contact with the students or the Bristol based Innocence Project after his prison confession. Fact is he did confess and he did commit suicide alone in his cell after several previous failed attempts so let's not stir up any more silliness.
The same applies to your claim suggesting Joanna Yeates was not killed in her flat. Vincent Tabak tells a different story and unless you have very strong evidence to the contrary I suggest you stop posting personal opinion as fact.
I would have thought that the fact that no forensic evidence pointing to Vincent Tabak was found in Joanna's flat is a very strong indication that he did not kill her there, and was , very likely never there at all. If VT did kill Joanna, he did it somewhere else. If Joanna was killed in her flat, someone other than VT killed her.
My only reason for mentioning Simon Hall was to show that it is possible for somebody to protest innocence and then to protest guilt.
-
Leonora... I do not wish to be disrespectful, but I can't see people who we wish to see the thread taking us seriously if we talk about things that cannot clearly be substanciated..
And wild notions which I find difficult to take on board personally, will not help discover the truth about the case.... Or more to the point get NEW readers to also question what happened to Dr Vincent Tabak...
You would also need the Yeates family to be happy with this, and I can't see how they would or how Tanja would be happy to lose him...
I just like to see as much info in black and white, with evidence to support it... or video's to support it... maybe you are privy to information no-one else is.... but unless you link it or attach it... People will question the validity of what you are saying... And with very few people even ready to accept that Dr Vincent Tabak maybe innocent, the average Joe Bloggs will no take it seriously... And they will react like the did before the trial had completed...
I question the difficulty people have had in communicating with Dr Vincent Tabak... But him being sent back to Holland if far more likely than him being asked to throw his life away on a lie to benefit the establishment...
I am not saying strange things do not occur, but find the paper trail or photo evidence to prove some of the things that you think may have happened.... As I say, this is only my opinion...
Why have things like... evidence etc not been sealed for 70 years, like they were in the Dr David Kelly inquiry.(Hutton)
Floundering is not your normal posting style, but for once it is a fair description. This entire case was so weird that no one would believe it if it hadn't been reported in such detail by such reputable news media. Try to summarise the facts of the case to someone who was overseas when it was going on, and they will think you are trying to have them on.
I base my arguments entirely on things that can and have been substantiated. There is nothing up my sleeve. You yourself were not backward in analysing the inexplicable behaviour of VT's defence team before and during his trial. If you were in the dock, you would not be satisfied for one moment with Mr. Clegg's performance, so why do you think VT didn't sack his legal team and go to a different firm entirely? If you have a better explanation, then let us hear it, but the known facts indicate that VT was sufficiently satisfied to continue with the same two law firms.
Although the Yeates family are obliged to say the things in public that the tabloid newspapers want to hear them say, they of all people cannot fail to be struck by the extreme contradictions and anomalies in the case - and presumably they are also aware of some key facts of which we know nothing. So it would be presumptious and indeed unfair to invoke as arguments the feelings that you imagine they might have. On solid, well substantiated grounds, you yourself don't believe that VT killed Joanna, so you too must believe that someone else killed her. But her family are also in a position to pursue the same line of reasoning as you have done.
Tanja has been almost totally invisible, but, as a lawyer's daughter close to the defendant, she too must be presumed to be capable of following the same line of reasoning as well.
There is no such thing as a "wild notion" in connection with this case. It is the players themselves whose behaviour has been bizarre, whereas we are free to try to make sense of the facts. And it is the behaviour of VT and his lawyers in court that is the most convincing evidence that the lawyers must have secured a very big, very secret, very satisfactory deal for their client. What else could that be than the one I have deduced?
-
that could all be based on the all round acceptance of guilt...with the added bonus of actually speaking to Tabak unlike the people who speculate about conspiracy theories and ignore anything that confirms his guilt!
-
Whether I believe Dr Vincent Tabak Innocent or not, I cannot change what has happened, I believed that there were people who maybe could, but I seem to be mistaken on that score...
Like many people whom are Innocent in prison, Dr Vincent Tabak will have to remain there until either he has served his sentence or someone who has the power and ability can change his circumstances... I for one am not that person...( I do not have the contacts)..
As I say... I will flounder on my own......
And stay with the belief that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent!!!!!!
-
Whether I believe Dr Vincent Tabak Innocent or not, I cannot change what has happened, I believed that there were people who maybe could, but I seem to be mistaken on that score...
Can you explain why Vincent Tabak remained passive in the light of his Counsel's extraordinary cross-examination of the so-called chaplain and the DNA witness, and his extraordinary failure to cross-examine and discredit the computer analyst?
Can you explain why he remained passive in the face of his own Counsel's abusive remarks about his own character? - Or why he didn't sack his lawyers, considering that their most obvious line of defence would have been to demonstrate that he was a nice quiet chap liked by his employer and his girlfriend, who had never done anything remotely criminal before?
Secret collusion between a prosecutor, a defence lawyer and a judge is apparently termed "a courtroom group" in the USA. On this thread, we have seen a great deal of evidence that serious collusion occurred. If you can find an alternative explanation for the behaviour of the defence and the judge, then you should be posting it, instead of throwing in the towel.
If Vincent Tabak wasn't expecting a big reward for remaining passive throughout most of the trial, and then putting on a very demanding performance for two days in the witness box, knowing well that this could only lead to a guilty verdict, then you should be posting an alternative explanation than the one I believe to be the only rational conclusion.
We don't actually KNOW that he is innocent, but the trial has served only to hide the true course of events and leave the case unsolved. VT MAY have killed her, but so may the landlord, you, me, mrswah, or anyone else who cannot prove their alibi for the whole of that weekend. Why did Crosland & Co want him to apply for bail, then change their minds, and finally (according to Peter Brotherton) advise him to change his plea to "guilty"? If you think it really was VT on the video screens of the Old Bailey, why then did he plead guilty? The trial has revealed to us that the police had no more of a case against him than they had against the landlord. The jury must have been bewildered, because the prosecuting counsel never even mentioned the motive for the crime that they asserted was murder.
-
im not sure how you work out the Jury would be bewildered as already commented earlier on this post he said he was guilty so he was going to be convicted of something!
You seriously expect anyone to believe they called on Tabak and said take the blame mate heres a few quid, put your life on the line, reputation your romance with your future wife and he just bought it? Someone in the same block of flats just rolled over and gave in for any sum of money?
for your idea to hold any weight whatsoever, Police Legal Team family etc would all have to be in on it
Oh and why then did they bring the indecent image charges? That put him right back in the spot light? Oh dont tell me double Bluff?
Maybe he didnt sack his legal team because he himself accepted his fate as his apologies in court COULD suggest he was actually sorry for his actions
I have seen no evidence of collusion serious or otherwise and you dont have any prove it ever happened.
-
the moment VT admitted to manslaughter , the whole case changed tact & he was going to be convicted of something clearly the small amount of evidence , the statements given and how the trail was handled led to the jury coming up with a guilty verdict open and shut case ....
-
Can you explain why Vincent Tabak remained passive in the light of his Counsel's extraordinary cross-examination of the so-called chaplain and the DNA witness, and his extraordinary failure to cross-examine and discredit the computer analyst?
Can you explain why he remained passive in the face of his own Counsel's abusive remarks about his own character? - Or why he didn't sack his lawyers, considering that their most obvious line of defence would have been to demonstrate that he was a nice quiet chap liked by his employer and his girlfriend, who had never done anything remotely criminal before?
Secret collusion between a prosecutor, a defence lawyer and a judge is apparently termed "a courtroom group" in the USA. On this thread, we have seen a great deal of evidence that serious collusion occurred. If you can find an alternative explanation for the behaviour of the defence and the judge, then you should be posting it, instead of throwing in the towel.
If Vincent Tabak wasn't expecting a big reward for remaining passive throughout most of the trial, and then putting on a very demanding performance for two days in the witness box, knowing well that this could only lead to a guilty verdict, then you should be posting an alternative explanation than the one I believe to be the only rational conclusion.
We don't actually KNOW that he is innocent, but the trial has served only to hide the true course of events and leave the case unsolved. VT MAY have killed her, but so may the landlord, you, me, mrswah, or anyone else who cannot prove their alibi for the whole of that weekend. Why did Crosland & Co want him to apply for bail, then change their minds, and finally (according to Peter Brotherton) advise him to change his plea to "guilty"? If you think it really was VT on the video screens of the Old Bailey, why then did he plead guilty? The trial has revealed to us that the police had no more of a case against him than they had against the landlord. The jury must have been bewildered, because the prosecuting counsel never even mentioned the motive for the crime that they asserted was murder.
Well, it wasn't me, Leonora, and I don't know whether or not I have an alibi for the weekend in question----I haven't a clue what I was doing!!!
Perhaps a few of the jury were bewildered, I don't know, but I imagine most would have thought that if he had pled guilty, then he'd done it, and therefore it was a pretty easy jury to be on. If you examine all the old fora (Websleuths, Bowland Central, what is left of the Facebook one, and there are a number of others), this is what most people were thinking-----at first, many thought the police had made another mistake, then when he pled guilty, they just "knew" it was him.
Why didn't VT change his legal team? Well,before the trial he did, several times, as far as I recall---or, at least, somebody did it for him. But, some possible reasons:
He could be guilty.
He could be ill, broken down, without hope,and not want to talk to anyone.
He could be dead.
He could be in prison in Holland, and the public hasn't been told.
He may well not understand the criminal justice system in this country, and he may not have access to any help.
I will go for the second possibility, with a bit of the last thrown in. Others will think differently, but no way do I believe that he would be party to any kind of behind the scenes deal if that meant he had to separate from his family, girlfriend and friends. I doubt whether such deals exist anyway.
-
As for why VT's defence team didn't do a better job of defending him (and I agree they didn't)--------
legal aid money running out?
they thought it a waste of time, since he HAD pled guilty, so he was "going down" anyway?
They were overworked?
VT being uncooperative and not very forthcoming, or agreeing to anything put to him??
Who knows? I actually find it puzzling that two of the most eminent barristers in the country took part in that trial at all.
-
Don't you just hate it when links don't work any more..
Tabak killed Joanna after she screamed, court told | Western Morning ...
www.cornwalllive.com/tabak-killed-joanna-screamed-court-told/story.../story.html
18 Oct 2011 - Greg Reardon told how annoyance at returning to a messy flat turned ... Dan Blocker Kept This Hidden Throughout The Filming Of 'Bonanza'Definition ... wearing her white ski jacket as she walked with Mr Reardon through the ...
Why do they disappear???? The quote is from a search...
-
Same with these two links...... these worked not too long ago!!
Greg Reardon - Greg Reardon The Free stuff extravaganza... | Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=442334202454&id...
Greg Reardon The Free stuff extravaganza continues! 07919 *****. Hit me up if you fancy any of this.... - Lange Comp 120 ski boots. Stiff and Size 9, seen ...
You've visited this page 2 times. Last visit: 28/02/17
Greg Reardon - Anybody want free skis? I've got two pairs... | Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=437339657454&id...
Greg Beardon to UWE Snowsports Racers. · October 16, 2010 ·. Anybody want free skis? I've got two pairs of knackered-but-good-for-dryslope twintips.
Now this is the problem with the socks... They say size 5... but then they say that they were Greg's... now he is obviously size 9
-
I suspect you are right and that there was little left for the defence to do when Tabak admitted his guilt. As Paul posted already, his fate was sealed. If he truly believes that it was an accidentaly killing rather than a premeditated one he can still appeal for a review through the CCRC.
-
Seeing as we have been using the Leveson inquiry on this thread, I thought i'd add this link..
https://www.byline.com/column/3/article/1513
-
the moment VT admitted to manslaughter , the whole case changed tact & he was going to be convicted of something clearly the small amount of evidence , the statements given and how the trail was handled led to the jury coming up with a guilty verdict open and shut case ....
I understand he made a plea..... but what if the evidence and timelines could prove otherwise and that he did not commit this crime?? for instance if he went to the CCRC.. would they just maybe want to get his sentence reduced to Manslaughter.. or will they check all the evidence and timelines, videos etc....
Will they have access to what was in the stomach contents of Joanna Yeates.... With the pathologist saying her last meal was cheesy chips, I believe that was based on there NOT being anything in her stomach, rather than that being her last meal... Was there evidence to support that cheesy chips were her last meal????
We already know they made an error with regards the alcohol content... because it was the content for urine and NOT blood as they had stated..
An empty stomach cannot give the time of death without all the other facts.... DCI Joe Goff stated that the SCREAMS told them when she died.... That was not established..,..
Will they be able to interview people.... CJ Tanja etc???
I really believe this case needs a proper look at.... the discrepencies are plenty... Greg's description of the flat has changed , originally he said he was annoyed that the flat was a mess.... Making believe he was expecting her to tidy up whilst he was away and maybe the pair were not so tidy... He then described it as though something had happened there..
The time she possibly has reached home... there is no proof of that... The contradicting information about whether Joanna Yeates read her texts or not..... If she didn't always read them or reply to them, then the last text from her male friend may not be as important for timeline as we believe.... she could have just not bothered... because we are not aware of the phone that Joanna Yeates owned we do not know whether or not she saw the reply on her phone as a notification and didn't bother replying... (parents say she didn't always reply)... so she may have seen the texts....
One of my major bug bares is why they charged Dr Vincent Tabak between the 16th Dec 2010 and the 26th Dec 2010... If they were so sure she died on the 17th December 2010 why charge him within a range of dates????
-
I understand he made a plea..... but what if the evidence and timelines could prove otherwise and that he did not commit this crime?? for instance if he went to the CCRC.. would they just maybe want to get his sentence reduced to Manslaughter.. or will they check all the evidence and timelines, videos etc....
Since VT admitted to killing Joanna and since it has not been determined that he was unfit to plead, he will not be able to appeal his conviction. He can however appeal the level of that conviction ie manslaughter versus murder.
-
I really believe this case needs a proper look at.... the discrepancies are plenty... Greg's description of the flat has changed , originally he said he was annoyed that the flat was a mess.... Making believe he was expecting her to tidy up whilst he was away and maybe the pair were not so tidy... He then described it as though something had happened there..
The time she possibly has reached home... there is no proof of that... The contradicting information about whether Joanna Yeates read her texts or not..... If she didn't always read them or reply to them, then the last text from her male friend may not be as important for timeline as we believe.... she could have just not bothered... because we are not aware of the phone that Joanna Yeates owned we do not know whether or not she saw the reply on her phone as a notification and didn't bother replying... (parents say she didn't always reply)... so she may have seen the texts....
One of my major bug bares is why they charged Dr Vincent Tabak between the 16th Dec 2010 and the 26th Dec 2010... If they were so sure she died on the 17th December 2010 why charge him within a range of dates????
There are always discrepancies in every case, witnesses remember different things at different times on occasion. That doesn't mean that they lied or were economical with the truth.
The only way any of these things can be reviewed is if VT requests it or some other information comes to light which throws doubt on his involvement.
-
There are always discrepancies in every case, witnesses remember different things at different times on occasion. That doesn't mean that they lied or were economical with the truth.
The only way any of these things can be reviewed is if VT requests it or some other information comes to light which throws doubt on his involvement.
True--------
Which is why it is so important that this thread is here for people to read.
-
True--------
Which is why it is so important that this thread is here for people to read.
Absolutely, but posters should not state opinion as fact unless there is evidence to support it.
Given the interest in this thread I think we can give it its own place on the main board now which will enable different topics to be created.
-
Given the interest in this thread I think we can give it its own place on the main board now which will enable different topics to be created.
Go John...... ?{)(**
-
Absolutely, but posters should not state opinion as fact unless there is evidence to support it.
Given the interest in this thread I think we can give it its own place on the main board now which will enable different topics to be created.
Sounds good, John!
-
The big "ifs" are:
1.) If Tabak confessed to murdering Joanna what was his purpose in doing so?
Possible suggestions:
He was covering up for someone else.
He was fooled into doing so by the ineptitude of his defending brief.
He made a confession under duress.
He is setup by the system trying to cover up their own failures into the Melanie Hall inquiry, and many others.
2.) If Tabak did make a false statement whilst under duress he would have gotten over it by now and would probably start kicking off, why hasn't he?
Possible suggestions:
He is actually telling the truth and he did kill Yeates.
Morson had an involvement, maybe in helping him move the body and he's trying to keep her out of it.
Yeates wasn't killed at the time he said and there is something else he is trying to cover up, perhaps a direct threat to his life or to Morson by a third party.
The 43 injuries caused prior to Yeates death suggest a prolonged assault but their extent suggests they were not caused in a fight with a man the size of Tabak, more with a woman who had a size advantage over her.
-
Yes, AH, I can agree with you.
As I have said many times, I cannot be absolutely sure that VT is innocent---I just feel that he is, though.
Also, I can't really believe that Tanja had anything to do with it. Of course, I don't know, and I could be wrong, but I can't see it.
-
The essence of the problem as I see it is the police suspected that they had a rogue killer out there who took out Melanie Hall amongst a host of others. The problem was is that he knew how to feed information to the police, and they worked with it. If, and its a big if, he was responsible for Yeates's murder then the police would be more than happy to see Tabak go down for it, its one less problem for them. There is too much fishy stuff surrounding this, nothing really adds up properly, crying girls on phones, missing pizzas, people hanging round outside in freezing weather, unexplained injuries, and given the amount of ice and snow lying around what was she doing walking all that way home in the first place? All very odd!
-
The essence of the problem as I see it is the police suspected that they had a rogue killer out there who took out Melanie Hall amongst a host of others. The problem was is that he knew how to feed information to the police, and they worked with it. If, and its a big if, he was responsible for Yeates's murder then the police would be more than happy to see Tabak go down for it, its one less problem for them. There is too much fishy stuff surrounding this, nothing really adds up properly, crying girls on phones, missing pizzas, people hanging round outside in freezing weather, unexplained injuries, and given the amount of ice and snow lying around what was she doing walking all that way home in the first place? All very odd!
So then "The Murder Investigating Team " part of the Twin Track Investigation seemed to be looking at a possible serial killer.... With Melaine Hall and Glenis Caruthers both being mentioned in relation to this case....
So what made them go after Dr Vincent Tabak...????
Was it what we suspected all along.. that a review of the case was imminent and would be taken from the team who started the Initial "Murder Investigation... (IMO) I believe that it's very possible..
-
So then "The Murder Investigating Team " part of the Twin Track Investigation seemed to be looking at a possible serial killer.... With Melaine Hall and Glenis Caruthers both being mentioned in relation to this case....
So what made them go after Dr Vincent Tabak...????
Was it what we suspected all along.. that a review of the case was imminent and would be taken from the team who started the Initial "Murder Investigation... (IMO) I believe that it's very possible..
As far as the imminent review is concerned, yes, I can believe it. I can't stand the Daily Star, but they have put this better than anyone!
-
The essence of the problem as I see it is the police suspected that they had a rogue killer out there who took out Melanie Hall amongst a host of others. The problem was is that he knew how to feed information to the police, and they worked with it. If, and its a big if, he was responsible for Yeates's murder then the police would be more than happy to see Tabak go down for it, its one less problem for them. There is too much fishy stuff surrounding this, nothing really adds up properly, crying girls on phones, missing pizzas, people hanging round outside in freezing weather, unexplained injuries, and given the amount of ice and snow lying around what was she doing walking all that way home in the first place? All very odd!
I think the crying girl on the phone is a lot of rubbish, and, as for the pizza, it detracted from the main investigation. Lots of people probably bought the same kind of pizza on the same day. let's face it: it was from Tesco, most of us go there all the time, me included! Both Greg and Vincent admitted eating pizza for supper, so goodness knows how many other people did. It is what people do eat if they can't cook, or can't be bothered to cook after a long working day!
As for Jo walking home in the bad weather, however, I don't see anything particularly odd about that. Her boyfriend was using her car. Unless she got a taxi, or a lift, how else was she going to get home? Young people probably don't worry about such things, and, anyway, Jo was used to being and working outdoors.
-
The injuries, I do admit, are very mysterious, particularly as the police said, at first, that Jo did not have any.
-
The injuries, I do admit, are very mysterious, particularly as the police said, at first, that Jo did not have any.
Indeed... But what were they consistant with.... and how old were these injuries?? Which injuries were recieved on recovery of her body??
Some can be attributed to the method of strangulation... but i do not believe that all the injuries about Joanna Yeates person were to do with her being strangled and attacked on the night of her death...
No body in this case was particularly cross examined apart from Dr Vincent Tabak... So establishing anything without thoroughly cross examining witness's will only reveal Part of the TRUTH... as to anything in this trial... (IMO)
-
Indeed... But what were they consistant with.... and how old were these injuries?? Which injuries were recieved on recovery of her body??
Some can be attributed to the method of strangulation... but i do not believe that all the injuries about Joanna Yeates person were to do with her being strangled and attacked on the night of her death...
No body in this case was particularly cross examined apart from Dr Vincent Tabak... So establishing anything without thoroughly cross examining witness's will only reveal Part of the TRUTH... as to anything in this trial... (IMO)
Absolutely.
If it was difficult to recover her body, as the use of all the fire and rescue equipment suggest, then it is quite likely that many of Joanna's 43 injuries were obtained during this procedure. also, we need to know whether or not she had any injuries prior to her attack and death.
Jo worked outdoors. Who is to say that she did not acquire some injuries during the course of her work? I can count four or five on myself that have been acquired through cooking and ironing!
-
Absolutely.
If it was difficult to recover her body, as the use of all the fire and rescue equipment suggest, then it is quite likely that many of Joanna's 43 injuries were obtained during this procedure. also, we need to know whether or not she had any injuries prior to her attack and death.
Jo worked outdoors. Who is to say that she did not acquire some injuries during the course of her work? I can count four or five on myself that have been acquired through cooking and ironing!
Indeed ... I get bruises from the dog jumping up at my legs.....
-
Indeed ... I get bruises from the dog jumping up at my legs.....
I hadn't even thought about the dog------although injuries from her seem to be confined to my clothes!
-
I hadn't even thought about the dog------although injuries from her seem to be confined to my clothes!
Is it possible some of Joanna Yeates injuries were related to her cat?? we do not know how easily Joanna Yeates bruised..
-
I was about to right a different post when I stumbled across something... It may mean something ... it may not... but it had me thinking....
I needed some information from Joanna Yeates wordpress and whilst looking I came across this....
There is currently NO CONFIRMATION on the identity of the body found in longmead lane near Bristol.
Longmead Lane ?? I had seen it before and just assumed a slip up... but I'm not positive about that now...
The other odd thing with with Longmead Avenue is if someone travelled from it to Longwood Lane they would go the Beggar's Bush Road route..... Wasn't that the alternative route that had been suggested Dr Vincent Tabak may have taken...
There is a Longmead Avenue in Bristol which is a 17 mins drive to Longwood Lane... Did anyone Joanna Yeates know live on Longmead Avenue... was it part of the Investigation as :
(A): Someone connected to Joanna Yeates ?
(B): More CCTV footage of Joanna Yeates ??
Was it just an error or a slip on the keyboard of someone who was Investigating so many Avenues and wrote what they were thinking...
https://helpfindjo.wordpress.com/page/2/
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Absolutely.
If it was difficult to recover her body, as the use of all the fire and rescue equipment suggest, then it is quite likely that many of Joanna's 43 injuries were obtained during this procedure. also, we need to know whether or not she had any injuries prior to her attack and death.
Jo worked outdoors. Who is to say that she did not acquire some injuries during the course of her work? I can count four or five on myself that have been acquired through cooking and ironing!
Pathologists are very quick at determining the type of injuries on a body, and whether or not they occured post mortem. I would go as far as to suggest that this will be a major part of the exercise and nothing else will be looked at until each and every injury is documented. If the report suggests that there was a violent and sustained attack on Yeates you can be fairly certain that the injuries are of a type the supports this argument.
If you are in any doubt about how easy it is to spot the differences, even to an untrained eye, try this exercise. Get a large piece of fresh steak on a chopping board, smash one end of it with a hammer six times in the same spot and then examine the damage, and specifically look for the bruising (which won't happen). Then get a sharp knife and stab the meat at the other end six times in the same area and the examine the bleeding.
Now stick your leg on the board at belt it six times as hard as you can with the same hammer and watch what happens over the next minute or so, and the for the next couple of hours. Then stab your other leg six times and watch what happens.
Compare piece of steak with leg. Note any differences.
Congratulations, you are now a pathologist.
AH
-
Pathologists are very quick at determining the type of injuries on a body, and whether or not they occured post mortem. I would go as far as to suggest that this will be a major part of the exercise and nothing else will be looked at until each and every injury is documented. If the report suggests that there was a violent and sustained attack on Yeates you can be fairly certain that the injuries are of a type the supports this argument.
If you are in any doubt about how easy it is to spot the differences, even to an untrained eye, try this exercise. Get a large piece of fresh steak on a chopping board, smash one end of it with a hammer six times in the same spot and then examine the damage, and specifically look for the bruising (which won't happen). Then get a sharp knife and stab the meat at the other end six times in the same area and the examine the bleeding.
Now stick your leg on the board at belt it six times as hard as you can with the same hammer and watch what happens over the next minute or so, and the for the next couple of hours. Then stab your other leg six times and watch what happens.
Compare piece of steak with leg. Note any differences.
Congratulations, you are now a pathologist.
AH
*&*%£
-
Oh, for goodness sake, AH-----------this is horrendous. Obviously, I am not cut out to be a pathologist!!!
I remember the judge at VT's trial instructed the jury to concentrate only on the bruises, as they could only have been inflicted during life. So, there were obviously a lot of injuries that could well have been inflicted after death---probably from the frozen weather and from the rescue operation.
-
Oh, for goodness sake, AH-----------this is horrendous. Obviously, I am not cut out to be a pathologist!!!
I remember the judge at VT's trial instructed the jury to concentrate only on the bruises, as they could only have been inflicted during life. So, there were obviously a lot of injuries that could well have been inflicted after death---probably from the frozen weather and from the rescue operation.
But what discolouration did these bruises have and could it be established how old or fresh they were ?????
-
One thing I have just considered as to how Joanna Yeates may have been outside her Flat on the 17th december 2010...
Did she smoke????
We don't know... But that is a reason for her not to be inside the flat... And when people drink , they tend to smoke more frequentley....
Just a thought... Her friend emma did.. and in the photo its hard to determine what Joanna Yeats is doing with her hands ...
A picture of what appears to be Rebecca Scott smoking...
I'm sure I have a picture of Joanna Yeates at a bar when shes abroad and has cigerttes next to her... I'll try and find it....
Obviously I cannot say that they are 100% Joanna Yeates cigerettes....
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Well, a relevant point, I suppose!!
And I still bear in mind the fact that Vincent was said to have bought Rizla papers-----and apparently, he didn't "smoke".
I have to consider these things!! it's the sort of person I am, etc etc.
-
Well, a relevant point, I suppose!!
And I still bear in mind the fact that Vincent was said to have bought Rizla papers-----and apparently, he didn't "smoke".
I have to consider these things!! it's the sort of person I am, etc etc.
when did he buy the Rizzla papers ????
-
The woman who owned the corner shop said he did.
-
The woman who owned the corner shop said he did.
On what day was he supposed to have bought Rizla's ??
-
On what day was he supposed to have bought Rizla's ??
No idea, but I remember the owner of the local shop being interviewed and she said that VT used to go in there for Rizla papers and something else---cant recall what.
-
oopsie... I had already covered that... sorry
-
The top picture, is that a young JY in the front? That's definately a Rizla she's rolling. Might be more reason for her to be outside as has already been said. Now that is interesting, to me at least.
-
I would have thought the girl on the right is Joanna, but could be wrong!
-
The top picture, is that a young JY in the front? That's definately a Rizla she's rolling. Might be more reason for her to be outside as has already been said. Now that is interesting, to me at least.
Well spotted! However, Joanna Yeates is the girl on the right. I think it is her friend Emma who is rolling the Rizla. That doesn't mean that they didn't share the "joint".
-
I think as the man convicted in this case isn't screaming his innocence from the roof tops people are bound to be of the opinion the right man Is serving the sentence.
Most cases whether guilty or innocent, if you stare long enough then you will see something to say why did that happen, that cant be right, it doesn't add up
There are many cases where people are crying out for help and support because they are innocent. They deserve all that can be done given to free them from a wrongful conviction
What about those people who aren't able to cry out for help for some reason? How do we know who is factually innocent? How do we separate the factually innocent from those feigning innocence?
-
This sounds oh so familiar. If someone is doing their prison time and not protesting their innocence and been found guilty by the members of a jury in court, plus all the evidence lead them to that conclusion... then I am not too sure why you think differently
I know people are wrongly convicted and I know people pretend that to be the case.
You seem to have all the answers, anyone would think you are a Solicitor Barrister or something along those lines!
You seem to look for things to fit your way of thinking about crime. I wonder why?
What makes you think you don't appear to do the same?
-
Yawn
Am I your new project or something or havent you had enough attention so far today? Do you like to watch John go through each thread deleting the disruption you so like to cause
Crack on Stephanie. Have a huge cup of coffee sit back put your feet up and see who actually cares what you post!
I think you will find we commented about your points about Sandra etc not to interact with you but to defend someone we actually like!
As you were.
Oh did you answer the question Nine asked earlier ? maybe you could be some use there oh just a minute you are pretty useless at miscarriage of justice cases yourself arent you??
Oh to quote yourself... dont make assumptions on what i think or the point i was trying to make. Check something else out - the date of the post ! Almost 2 years ago but along you trot to reply for what reason? to help Tabak? help Nine solve the mystery? No dont be daft purely to stir up mischief because you have nothing better to do!
-
Yawn
Am I your new project or something or havent you had enough attention so far today? Do you like to watch John go through each thread deleting the disruption you so like to cause
Crack on Stephanie. Have a huge cup of coffee sit back put your feet up and see who actually cares what you post!
I think you will find we commented about your points about Sandra etc not to interact with you but to defend someone we actually like!
As you were.
Oh did you answer the question Nine asked earlier ? maybe you could be some use there oh just a minute you are pretty useless at miscarriage of justice cases yourself arent you??
Oh to quote yourself... dont make assumptions on what i think or the point i was trying to make. Check something else out - the date of the post ! Almost 2 years ago but along you trot to reply for what reason? to help Tabak? help Nine solve the mystery? No dont be daft purely to stir up mischief because you have nothing better to do!
Anyone can answer the question... Be helpful if someone does ?{)(**
-
You need to get to the understanding why Dr. Vincent Tabak's plea was made and If indeed he made it voluntarily...
He apparently gave a confession to a prison Chaplain Peter Brotherton.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8834133/Vincent-Tabak-confessed-Joanna-Yeates-killing-in-emotional-meeting-with-prison-chaplain.html
As A VOLUNTARY CHAPLAIN ..Chaplain Brotherton would have to satisfy the Free Church.. http://www.freechurches.org.uk/Groups/256814/Free_Churches/Activities/Prison_Chaplaincy/Eligibility/Eligibility.aspx
Chaplain Brotherton would have had to have the endorsement of the free church??
Did HE?????
And they would be whom Chaplain Brotherton returned to for advise as to whether to divulge a prisoners confession....
Again... DID HE??
Was this on another visit or the same visit... It read to me like the same visit.....
But This comment suggests.... That the Chaplain was going to inform the POLICE not THE FREE CHURCH.....
Because why advise DR Vincent Tabak on getting his LAWYER.... if he did NOT know what THE ADVICE WOULD BE!!!
The Advice would probably be from the FREE CHURCH and to wait and see if called as a witness......
But it appears that the Chaplain had decided immediateley that he was going to reveal his confess, because Dr Vincent Tabak answered angrily..... (MUST BE A QUALIFIED CHAPLAIN)
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/joanna_s_killer_confessed_to_jail_chaplain_murder_trial_jury_is_told_1_1917420
Any information divulged by a PRISONER is classified as a confession, he is after all trusting this man to be there to guide him...
What qualifies as a confession to a Chaplain?????? A vulnerable Prisoner would see a Chapalin as a SAFE PLACE...
Did Chaplain Brotherton tell Dr Vincent Tabak he could divulge (NON) confessions?? Akin to reading him his rights!!!!
Did the Chaplain tell Dr Vincent Tabak of his rights???
Because.... Prison Chaplains are perceived as neutral
If Prison Chaplain are allowed to divulge the contents of a confessional, then it would be only fair in law that the prisoner have some kind of RIGHTS... And are informed of such right..When you are arrested you are given your caution rights:
Which superiors is Chaplain Brotherton refering too?
1: The Police?? well in RELIGIOUS TERMS THEY ARE NOT HIS SUPERIORS
2: The Church:Free Churches Faith Advisor. Senior church leaders to whom the volunteer chaplain would be actively accountable. http://www.freechurches.org.uk/Groups/256814/Free_Churches/Activities/Prison_Chaplaincy/Eligibility/Eligibility.aspx
3: Prison Staff: The Chaplaincy and the prison staff are seperate...
I say this because, holding a chaplaincy inside a prison where they are potentially serverley disturbed, emotion prisoners who need the help and support of someone when they feel VULNERABLE.
Did Chaplain Brotherton feel it was so necessary for him to INFORM on Dr Vincent Tabak whilst he was in custody, surely he should have been called as a PROSECUTION witness and divulged the confession under oath...
By DIVULGING this information before a trail would put Chaplain Brotherton in a most compromising position..
HOW WOULD PRISON INMATES EVER TRUST A CHAPLAIN AGAIN!!!!!
That bring up various questions:
Dr Vincent Tabak was surely seen as a VULNERABLE inmate:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/332161/jo-suspect-on-suicide-watch-in-tough-jail/
Yet according the http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
So... Peter Brotherton did not give testamony at the Tail which Dr Vincent Tabak was subsequently found GUILTY.
Practicing Christian??? That's another question...
What are the rules regarding Prison Chaplains, within the Prison Service.???
There are guidelines for Prison Chaplaincy and reports are gathered in regards to their service.
REFERENCES FROM:http://www.stpadarns.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Todd-and-Tipton-2011-Report-on-Prison-Chaplaincy.pdf
So let not try to convert from one religion to another....
YET.... Chaplain Brotherton decided on his own that he could JUDGE Dr Vincent Tabak and divulege his supposed confession. If within the report it says they should NOT judge, then he had no reason to seek advice on any matter.Therefore he wasn't following protocol... which in any line of work is VITAL!!!!!
Again... He has a role and one role only...
&%%6
So they are looked upon by the prison population as UNBIAS..... Which gives prisoners a release from the pressure they may be under whilst incarcerated.. Not to mention the fact of VUNERABLE OR SUICDAL prisonser may respond in the knowledge a prison Chaplain would divulge there words...
To not have the role of the Prison Chaplain and the Prison staff seperated can be Dangerous:
Prisoners beliefs as regards the role of a chaplain:
Dr Vincent Tabak was described as a non believer in faith, the prison chaplain cover all people:
Question: Even though Dr Vincent Tabak said that he was a NON BELIEVER, did Chaplain Brotherton discuss if DR Vincent Tabak had ever Practiced any religion prior to his NON BELIEVER STATUS..
The reason I say this and knowing many people who haven't followed there faiths, say they are no longer practicing.. and no matter how hard they try to leave it behind, it is always with them....
So if Dr Vincent Tabak was an atheist now... had he had Religous teaching before which may have lead him back to CHAPLAIN BROTHERTON as a confidant... And without CHAPLAIN BROTHERTON proving Dr Vincent Tabak never had any RELIGOUS teaching in his life, HOW WOULD IT BE CLEAR CUT THAT DR VINCENT TABAK WAS AN ATHEIST?????.
Infact DUTCH SCHOOLS DO TEACH RELIGION: Dr Vincent Tabak would have been of Primary age then, so It's more than likely he had some form of Religous Education
http://mmiweb.org.uk/eftreold/reeurope/netherlands_2013.pdf
The Reason that Brotherton Claimed it was Ok for him to inform on Dr Vincent Tabak was because of his lack of faith....
So it would appear that Dr Vincent Tabak would be aware of the neutrality of the Chaplain Service Provided.
Or he wouldn't of decided to confess all to a CHAPLAIN...
Indeed it is quite common for non believer and believer to turn to a CHAPLAIN...
So if Chaplain Brotherton lead to Dr Vincent Tabaks supposed confession and susequent signed confession of which.....
I'd love to see him sat with his lawyer having been explained to that the Chaplain would not likely divulge such sensitive material. And advising not to sign...
The written Confession was typed... And had not more information other than a plea of guilt... `to manslaughter, with no specific details regarding the action taken to come to this conclusion...
In my opinion I find that suspcious in it's self...
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
How can thsis be?????/
The Salvation Army comes under The Free Church group:http://www.freechurches.org.uk/Articles/385438/Free_Churches/Activities/Prison_Chaplaincy/Blog/Salvation_Army_Chaplains.aspx
Eligibility to work as a Prison Chaplain:
So if in fact Chaplain Brotherton did not seek advice from the Free Church, who did he seek advice from as regards Dr Vincent Tabak??
And if his confession to the chaplain is null and void, then his supposed written confession is too, because it was gained under false pretences.... IN MY OPINION......
Why do you think he didn't make the guilty plea voluntarily? No one had a gun to his head in court Nine!
-
Dr Vincent Tabak was a extremely competent computer user, more than competent, he had an understanding that is greater than most people, the pic i've attached shows Dr Vincent Tabaks Qualifications and Computer skills..
Under Activities it describes that Dr Vincent tabak: Programming Active Server Pages (ASP)
(Did you understand that, because I didn't)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Server_Pages
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
I don't understand why his Lawyer didn't direct the Jury as to Dr Vincent Tabaks knowledge of Computing and his ability to program computer, Dr Tabak Mentions Computer Science.
So..Why didn't he show them what Asp programming was, why didn't he show the Jury Computer Script, most wouldn't be able to understand it, but it would have created doubt as to why Someone who is so computer literate would leave damning evidence on his computer, or just get rid of the hard drive.
Why Not? He helped the Prosecution
Had the Jury know of Dr Vincent Tabaks abilities they might have found the Prosecutions claim difficult to believe...
If he is computer literate and had Committed this crime before he went to Holland, why didn't he take the hard drive with him, dump it somewhere.
(Apparently he was clever enough to dump a pizza and sock)
He clearly has a great understanding and education in Computing and would be extremly aware of what could be perceived as damaging evidence against him..
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/nov/02/vincent-tabak-trial-tweeted
So did the computer evidence show Intention?
Because that was the only EVIDENCE they had as a way to persuade the JURY that Dr Vincent Tabak intended to murder...
If he Intended to Murder someone that evening, why didn't he just walk the streets?
He had been out earlier... He had a keen Interest in Photography..
Why Didn't his Defence mention Dr Vincent Tabak had opportunity that evening to MURDER anyone!!
If searches cannot prove intent,.. How could the Prosecution have proven Dr Vincent Tabak Intended to do anything
Like I originally posted.. when I saw Dr Vincent Tabak on the stand, I saw a man just going through the motion's..
A man that was not being defended.... A man that could see his Defence was not trying to help him,(IMO) was not challenging anything that the Prosecution placed in front of a JURY..
He just sat there as this supposed Evidence was being piled upon him..
So I can clearly understand Dr Vincent Tabak sobbing in court.. He knew the situation was hopeless, because nobody was there to help him..
No Character Witness's called to testify to his nature
No Tanja Morson called to testify to their relationship or Dr Vincent Tabak's behaviour.
No Christopher Jefferies to say whether or not he had indeed seen Dr Vincent Tabak that evening or moved the car.
No Family to testify what A loving son he is and they couldn't understand him being charged.
No employer to testify as to his Character.
No friends to testify to any knowledge they had good/or bad
Even his Lawyer had nothing good to say about him...
That's when I thought his Goose was cooked, If Your Lawyer is against you.. You must be Guilty.. (IMO)
No Neighbours who knew him to say:http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/10/28/joanna-yeates-murder-tria_n_1063591.html
Infact he didn't have anything going for him...
Because people wanted him to be the Monster..
And if you call that a fair Trial.... In My Opinion It isn't..
Though our country prided itself on being Fair Open and Honest..
In My Opinion this Trial was far from being a FAIR FIGHT...
So you have considered he's guilty?
-
You need to get to the understanding why Dr. Vincent Tabak's plea was made and If indeed he made it voluntarily...
He apparently gave a confession to a prison Chaplain Peter Brotherton.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8834133/Vincent-Tabak-confessed-Joanna-Yeates-killing-in-emotional-meeting-with-prison-chaplain.html
As A VOLUNTARY CHAPLAIN ..Chaplain Brotherton would have to satisfy the Free Church.. http://www.freechurches.org.uk/Groups/256814/Free_Churches/Activities/Prison_Chaplaincy/Eligibility/Eligibility.aspx
Chaplain Brotherton would have had to have the endorsement of the free church??
Did HE?????
And they would be whom Chaplain Brotherton returned to for advise as to whether to divulge a prisoners confession....
Again... DID HE??
Was this on another visit or the same visit... It read to me like the same visit.....
But This comment suggests.... That the Chaplain was going to inform the POLICE not THE FREE CHURCH.....
Because why advise DR Vincent Tabak on getting his LAWYER.... if he did NOT know what THE ADVICE WOULD BE!!!
The Advice would probably be from the FREE CHURCH and to wait and see if called as a witness......
But it appears that the Chaplain had decided immediateley that he was going to reveal his confess, because Dr Vincent Tabak answered angrily..... (MUST BE A QUALIFIED CHAPLAIN)
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/joanna_s_killer_confessed_to_jail_chaplain_murder_trial_jury_is_told_1_1917420
Any information divulged by a PRISONER is classified as a confession, he is after all trusting this man to be there to guide him...
What qualifies as a confession to a Chaplain?????? A vulnerable Prisoner would see a Chapalin as a SAFE PLACE...
Did Chaplain Brotherton tell Dr Vincent Tabak he could divulge (NON) confessions?? Akin to reading him his rights!!!!
Did the Chaplain tell Dr Vincent Tabak of his rights???
Because.... Prison Chaplains are perceived as neutral
If Prison Chaplain are allowed to divulge the contents of a confessional, then it would be only fair in law that the prisoner have some kind of RIGHTS... And are informed of such right..When you are arrested you are given your caution rights:
Which superiors is Chaplain Brotherton refering too?
1: The Police?? well in RELIGIOUS TERMS THEY ARE NOT HIS SUPERIORS
2: The Church:Free Churches Faith Advisor. Senior church leaders to whom the volunteer chaplain would be actively accountable. http://www.freechurches.org.uk/Groups/256814/Free_Churches/Activities/Prison_Chaplaincy/Eligibility/Eligibility.aspx
3: Prison Staff: The Chaplaincy and the prison staff are seperate...
I say this because, holding a chaplaincy inside a prison where they are potentially serverley disturbed, emotion prisoners who need the help and support of someone when they feel VULNERABLE.
Did Chaplain Brotherton feel it was so necessary for him to INFORM on Dr Vincent Tabak whilst he was in custody, surely he should have been called as a PROSECUTION witness and divulged the confession under oath...
By DIVULGING this information before a trail would put Chaplain Brotherton in a most compromising position..
HOW WOULD PRISON INMATES EVER TRUST A CHAPLAIN AGAIN!!!!!
That bring up various questions:
Dr Vincent Tabak was surely seen as a VULNERABLE inmate:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/332161/jo-suspect-on-suicide-watch-in-tough-jail/
Yet according the http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
So... Peter Brotherton did not give testamony at the Tail which Dr Vincent Tabak was subsequently found GUILTY.
Practicing Christian??? That's another question...
What are the rules regarding Prison Chaplains, within the Prison Service.???
There are guidelines for Prison Chaplaincy and reports are gathered in regards to their service.
REFERENCES FROM:http://www.stpadarns.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Todd-and-Tipton-2011-Report-on-Prison-Chaplaincy.pdf
So let not try to convert from one religion to another....
YET.... Chaplain Brotherton decided on his own that he could JUDGE Dr Vincent Tabak and divulege his supposed confession. If within the report it says they should NOT judge, then he had no reason to seek advice on any matter.Therefore he wasn't following protocol... which in any line of work is VITAL!!!!!
Again... He has a role and one role only...
So they are looked upon by the prison population as UNBIAS..... Which gives prisoners a release from the pressure they may be under whilst incarcerated.. Not to mention the fact of VUNERABLE OR SUICDAL prisonser may respond in the knowledge a prison Chaplain would divulge there words...
To not have the role of the Prison Chaplain and the Prison staff seperated can be Dangerous:
Prisoners beliefs as regards the role of a chaplain:
Dr Vincent Tabak was described as a non believer in faith, the prison chaplain cover all people:
Question: Even though Dr Vincent Tabak said that he was a NON BELIEVER, did Chaplain Brotherton discuss if DR Vincent Tabak had ever Practiced any religion prior to his NON BELIEVER STATUS..
The reason I say this and knowing many people who haven't followed there faiths, say they are no longer practicing.. and no matter how hard they try to leave it behind, it is always with them....
So if Dr Vincent Tabak was an atheist now... had he had Religous teaching before which may have lead him back to CHAPLAIN BROTHERTON as a confidant... And without CHAPLAIN BROTHERTON proving Dr Vincent Tabak never had any RELIGOUS teaching in his life, HOW WOULD IT BE CLEAR CUT THAT DR VINCENT TABAK WAS AN ATHEIST?????.
Infact DUTCH SCHOOLS DO TEACH RELIGION: Dr Vincent Tabak would have been of Primary age then, so It's more than likely he had some form of Religous Education
http://mmiweb.org.uk/eftreold/reeurope/netherlands_2013.pdf
The Reason that Brotherton Claimed it was Ok for him to inform on Dr Vincent Tabak was because of his lack of faith....
So it would appear that Dr Vincent Tabak would be aware of the neutrality of the Chaplain Service Provided.
Or he wouldn't of decided to confess all to a CHAPLAIN...
Indeed it is quite common for non believer and believer to turn to a CHAPLAIN...
So if Chaplain Brotherton lead to Dr Vincent Tabaks supposed confession and susequent signed confession of which.....
I'd love to see him sat with his lawyer having been explained to that the Chaplain would not likely divulge such sensitive material. And advising not to sign...
The written Confession was typed... And had not more information other than a plea of guilt... `to manslaughter, with no specific details regarding the action taken to come to this conclusion...
In my opinion I find that suspcious in it's self...
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
How can thsis be?????/
The Salvation Army comes under The Free Church group:http://www.freechurches.org.uk/Articles/385438/Free_Churches/Activities/Prison_Chaplaincy/Blog/Salvation_Army_Chaplains.aspx
Eligibility to work as a Prison Chaplain:
So if in fact Chaplain Brotherton did not seek advice from the Free Church, who did he seek advice from as regards Dr Vincent Tabak??
And if his confession to the chaplain is null and void, then his supposed written confession is too, because it was gained under false pretences.... IN MY OPINION......
What makes you think a prison chaplain would read Vincent Tabak "his rights?" Where have you got this idea from?
He was read his rights when he was arrested.
And what's makes you perceive prison chaplains as neutrial?
Vincent Tabak was on remand awaiting trial. He could have confessed to anyone, a prison officer, another prisoner, you, me?!
If Vincent Tabak confessed to murder to you what would you do with that knowledge? Would you read him his rights?
What makes you think "prison inmates" trust chaplains or anyone for that matter?
-
You need to get to the understanding why Dr. Vincent Tabak's plea was made and If indeed he made it voluntarily...
He apparently gave a confession to a prison Chaplain Peter Brotherton.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8834133/Vincent-Tabak-confessed-Joanna-Yeates-killing-in-emotional-meeting-with-prison-chaplain.html
As A VOLUNTARY CHAPLAIN ..Chaplain Brotherton would have to satisfy the Free Church.. http://www.freechurches.org.uk/Groups/256814/Free_Churches/Activities/Prison_Chaplaincy/Eligibility/Eligibility.aspx
Chaplain Brotherton would have had to have the endorsement of the free church??
Did HE?????
And they would be whom Chaplain Brotherton returned to for advise as to whether to divulge a prisoners confession....
Again... DID HE??
Was this on another visit or the same visit... It read to me like the same visit.....
But This comment suggests.... That the Chaplain was going to inform the POLICE not THE FREE CHURCH.....
Because why advise DR Vincent Tabak on getting his LAWYER.... if he did NOT know what THE ADVICE WOULD BE!!!
The Advice would probably be from the FREE CHURCH and to wait and see if called as a witness......
But it appears that the Chaplain had decided immediateley that he was going to reveal his confess, because Dr Vincent Tabak answered angrily..... (MUST BE A QUALIFIED CHAPLAIN)
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/joanna_s_killer_confessed_to_jail_chaplain_murder_trial_jury_is_told_1_1917420
Any information divulged by a PRISONER is classified as a confession, he is after all trusting this man to be there to guide him...
What qualifies as a confession to a Chaplain?????? A vulnerable Prisoner would see a Chapalin as a SAFE PLACE...
Did Chaplain Brotherton tell Dr Vincent Tabak he could divulge (NON) confessions?? Akin to reading him his rights!!!!
Did the Chaplain tell Dr Vincent Tabak of his rights???
Because.... Prison Chaplains are perceived as neutral
If Prison Chaplain are allowed to divulge the contents of a confessional, then it would be only fair in law that the prisoner have some kind of RIGHTS... And are informed of such right..When you are arrested you are given your caution rights:
Which superiors is Chaplain Brotherton refering too?
1: The Police?? well in RELIGIOUS TERMS THEY ARE NOT HIS SUPERIORS
2: The Church:Free Churches Faith Advisor. Senior church leaders to whom the volunteer chaplain would be actively accountable. http://www.freechurches.org.uk/Groups/256814/Free_Churches/Activities/Prison_Chaplaincy/Eligibility/Eligibility.aspx
3: Prison Staff: The Chaplaincy and the prison staff are seperate...
I say this because, holding a chaplaincy inside a prison where they are potentially serverley disturbed, emotion prisoners who need the help and support of someone when they feel VULNERABLE.
Did Chaplain Brotherton feel it was so necessary for him to INFORM on Dr Vincent Tabak whilst he was in custody, surely he should have been called as a PROSECUTION witness and divulged the confession under oath...
By DIVULGING this information before a trail would put Chaplain Brotherton in a most compromising position..
HOW WOULD PRISON INMATES EVER TRUST A CHAPLAIN AGAIN!!!!!
That bring up various questions:
Dr Vincent Tabak was surely seen as a VULNERABLE inmate:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/332161/jo-suspect-on-suicide-watch-in-tough-jail/
Yet according the http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
So... Peter Brotherton did not give testamony at the Tail which Dr Vincent Tabak was subsequently found GUILTY.
Practicing Christian??? That's another question...
What are the rules regarding Prison Chaplains, within the Prison Service.???
There are guidelines for Prison Chaplaincy and reports are gathered in regards to their service.
REFERENCES FROM:http://www.stpadarns.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Todd-and-Tipton-2011-Report-on-Prison-Chaplaincy.pdf
So let not try to convert from one religion to another....
YET.... Chaplain Brotherton decided on his own that he could JUDGE Dr Vincent Tabak and divulege his supposed confession. If within the report it says they should NOT judge, then he had no reason to seek advice on any matter.Therefore he wasn't following protocol... which in any line of work is VITAL!!!!!
Again... He has a role and one role only...
So they are looked upon by the prison population as UNBIAS..... Which gives prisoners a release from the pressure they may be under whilst incarcerated.. Not to mention the fact of VUNERABLE OR SUICDAL prisonser may respond in the knowledge a prison Chaplain would divulge there words...
To not have the role of the Prison Chaplain and the Prison staff seperated can be Dangerous:
Prisoners beliefs as regards the role of a chaplain:
Dr Vincent Tabak was described as a non believer in faith, the prison chaplain cover all people:
Question: Even though Dr Vincent Tabak said that he was a NON BELIEVER, did Chaplain Brotherton discuss if DR Vincent Tabak had ever Practiced any religion prior to his NON BELIEVER STATUS..
The reason I say this and knowing many people who haven't followed there faiths, say they are no longer practicing.. and no matter how hard they try to leave it behind, it is always with them....
So if Dr Vincent Tabak was an atheist now... had he had Religous teaching before which may have lead him back to CHAPLAIN BROTHERTON as a confidant... And without CHAPLAIN BROTHERTON proving Dr Vincent Tabak never had any RELIGOUS teaching in his life, HOW WOULD IT BE CLEAR CUT THAT DR VINCENT TABAK WAS AN ATHEIST?????.
Infact DUTCH SCHOOLS DO TEACH RELIGION: Dr Vincent Tabak would have been of Primary age then, so It's more than likely he had some form of Religous Education
http://mmiweb.org.uk/eftreold/reeurope/netherlands_2013.pdf
The Reason that Brotherton Claimed it was Ok for him to inform on Dr Vincent Tabak was because of his lack of faith....
So it would appear that Dr Vincent Tabak would be aware of the neutrality of the Chaplain Service Provided.
Or he wouldn't of decided to confess all to a CHAPLAIN...
Indeed it is quite common for non believer and believer to turn to a CHAPLAIN...
So if Chaplain Brotherton lead to Dr Vincent Tabaks supposed confession and susequent signed confession of which.....
I'd love to see him sat with his lawyer having been explained to that the Chaplain would not likely divulge such sensitive material. And advising not to sign...
The written Confession was typed... And had not more information other than a plea of guilt... `to manslaughter, with no specific details regarding the action taken to come to this conclusion...
In my opinion I find that suspcious in it's self...
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
How can thsis be?????/
The Salvation Army comes under The Free Church group:http://www.freechurches.org.uk/Articles/385438/Free_Churches/Activities/Prison_Chaplaincy/Blog/Salvation_Army_Chaplains.aspx
Eligibility to work as a Prison Chaplain:
So if in fact Chaplain Brotherton did not seek advice from the Free Church, who did he seek advice from as regards Dr Vincent Tabak??
And if his confession to the chaplain is null and void, then his supposed written confession is too, because it was gained under false pretences.... IN MY OPINION......
Why do you find a written confession suspicious?
-
Yawn
Am I your new project or something or havent you had enough attention so far today? Do you like to watch John go through each thread deleting the disruption you so like to cause
Crack on Stephanie. Have a huge cup of coffee sit back put your feet up and see who actually cares what you post!
I think you will find we commented about your points about Sandra etc not to interact with you but to defend someone we actually like!
As you were.
Oh did you answer the question Nine asked earlier ? maybe you could be some use there oh just a minute you are pretty useless at miscarriage of justice cases yourself arent you??
Oh to quote yourself... dont make assumptions on what i think or the point i was trying to make. Check something else out - the date of the post ! Almost 2 years ago but along you trot to reply for what reason? to help Tabak? help Nine solve the mystery? No dont be daft purely to stir up mischief because you have nothing better to do!
Aka the backfire effect 8((()*/
-
Not really... its good to debate without getting personal. You seem to agree with justsaying and myself about Tabak's case
When all this started it didnt look like any of us would agree on anything! Progress 8)--))
-
Not really... its good to debate without getting personal. You seem to agree with justsaying and myself about Tabak's case
When all this started it didnt look like any of us would agree on anything! Progress 8)--))
None the less you've exploited the backfire effect
-
I hate to disappoint you but I didnt have a plan. If something that I dont like is put to me then I will respond. I didnt expect or want you to be involved in Tabak's case just pointing out your selective answering and points that you make while trying to attack anyone with a point!
I have to say your points are far more enjoyable when you are talking about possible miscarriage of justices cases than people who you used to know. My view, dont expect you to agree again of course!
It was good to debate the Tabak case with you for a while... normal service resumed 8**8:/:
-
I hate to disappoint you but I didnt have a plan. If something that I dont like is put to me then I will respond. I didnt expect or want you to be involved in Tabak's case just pointing out your selective answering and points that you make while trying to attack anyone with a point!
I have to say your points are far more enjoyable when you are talking about possible miscarriage of justices cases than people who you used to know. My view, dont expect you to agree again of course!
It was good to debate the Tabak case with you for a while... normal service resumed 8**8:/:
BS aside, what to you think causes people like Nine to persist in their erroneous beliefs regarding Tabaks confession?
-
I hate to disappoint you but I didnt have a plan. If something that I dont like is put to me then I will respond. I didnt expect or want you to be involved in Tabak's case just pointing out your selective answering and points that you make while trying to attack anyone with a point!
I have to say your points are far more enjoyable when you are talking about possible miscarriage of justices cases than people who you used to know. My view, dont expect you to agree again of course!
It was good to debate the Tabak case with you for a while... normal service resumed 8**8:/:
*%87
Reminds me of the double bind tactic 8((()*/
-
make of if what you want. you talk in riddles which is fun for you. Im glad its fun for you. I was talking about Tabak a guilty man who killed a young woman...It was never about you though your view on the case did raise some valid points.
This thread isnt about me. Think over time ive said all there is to say on Tabak Nine will battle on im sure
-
*%87
Reminds me of the double bind tactic 8((()*/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind
Yes.... That what has been happening on here all the time,... I thought i was losing the plot...
-
Dr Vincent Tabak was a extremely competent computer user, more than competent, he had an understanding that is greater than most people, the pic i've attached shows Dr Vincent Tabaks Qualifications and Computer skills..
Under Activities it describes that Dr Vincent tabak: Programming Active Server Pages (ASP)
(Did you understand that, because I didn't)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Server_Pages
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
I don't understand why his Lawyer didn't direct the Jury as to Dr Vincent Tabaks knowledge of Computing and his ability to program computer, Dr Tabak Mentions Computer Science.
So..Why didn't he show them what Asp programming was, why didn't he show the Jury Computer Script, most wouldn't be able to understand it, but it would have created doubt as to why Someone who is so computer literate would leave damning evidence on his computer, or just get rid of the hard drive.
Why Not? He helped the Prosecution
Had the Jury know of Dr Vincent Tabaks abilities they might have found the Prosecutions claim difficult to believe...
If he is computer literate and had Committed this crime before he went to Holland, why didn't he take the hard drive with him, dump it somewhere.
(Apparently he was clever enough to dump a pizza and sock)
He clearly has a great understanding and education in Computing and would be extremly aware of what could be perceived as damaging evidence against him..
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/nov/02/vincent-tabak-trial-tweeted
So did the computer evidence show Intention?
Because that was the only EVIDENCE they had as a way to persuade the JURY that Dr Vincent Tabak intended to murder...
If he Intended to Murder someone that evening, why didn't he just walk the streets?
He had been out earlier... He had a keen Interest in Photography..
Why Didn't his Defence mention Dr Vincent Tabak had opportunity that evening to MURDER anyone!!
If searches cannot prove intent,.. How could the Prosecution have proven Dr Vincent Tabak Intended to do anything
Like I originally posted.. when I saw Dr Vincent Tabak on the stand, I saw a man just going through the motion's..
A man that was not being defended.... A man that could see his Defence was not trying to help him,(IMO) was not challenging anything that the Prosecution placed in front of a JURY..
He just sat there as this supposed Evidence was being piled upon him..
So I can clearly understand Dr Vincent Tabak sobbing in court.. He knew the situation was hopeless, because nobody was there to help him..
No Character Witness's called to testify to his nature
No Tanja Morson called to testify to their relationship or Dr Vincent Tabak's behaviour.
No Christopher Jefferies to say whether or not he had indeed seen Dr Vincent Tabak that evening or moved the car.
No Family to testify what A loving son he is and they couldn't understand him being charged.
No employer to testify as to his Character.
No friends to testify to any knowledge they had good/or bad
Even his Lawyer had nothing good to say about him...
That's when I thought his Goose was cooked, If Your Lawyer is against you.. You must be Guilty.. (IMO)
No Neighbours who knew him to say:http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/10/28/joanna-yeates-murder-tria_n_1063591.html
Infact he didn't have anything going for him...
Because people wanted him to be the Monster..
And if you call that a fair Trial.... In My Opinion It isn't..
Though our country prided itself on being Fair Open and Honest..
In My Opinion this Trial was far from being a FAIR FIGHT...
You clearly weren't in court because if you were you wouldn't be suggesting fake news exists in this case
Moreover, psychopaths are very adept at imitating emotions such as remorse or guilt in the courtroom if they believe it will mitigate their punishment.[/i]
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/wicked-deeds/201605/understanding-psychopathic-criminals
"The parents of landscape architect Joanna Yeates have come face to face for the first time in court with their daughter's killer.
David and Teresa Yeates were at Bristol crown court for a pre-trial hearing for Vincent Tabak. The couple have not seen Tabak in person in court before as the defendant has appeared by video link from prison at the previous hearings they attended.
The couple arrived and left court hand in hand, accompanied by two police officers.
Tabak, a Dutch engineer, has admitted the manslaughter of Yeates, 25, but denies her murder. The charge states that Tabak "unlawfully killed" Miss Yeates between December 16 and December 19.
Four security guards escorted Tabak into the dock of courtroom six. The greying 33-year-old wore glasses, a white shirt, blue tie and dark suit for the 30-minute hearing before Judge Martin Picton.
Yeates's parents sat in the second row of the public gallery and Mrs Yeates occasionally looked over her shoulder towards Tabak.
Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones, who led the Avon and Somerset investigation, sat behind the barristers and immediately in front of the defendant.
Tabak, who sat hunched in the dock, spoke only once. The clerk asked him: "Are you Vincent Tabak?" He replied: "Yes I am."
The hearing was being held to finalise arrangements for the four-week trial, which is due to begin on October 4 before Mr Justice Field.
The case was adjourned until the trial and Tabak was remanded into custody. Miss Yeates, who lived in Clifton, Bristol, disappeared on December 17 after going for Christmas drinks with colleagues.
Her body was found on a verge in a lane in Failand, north Somerset, on Christmas Day https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/sep/20/joanna-yeates-vincent-tabak-trial
-
BS aside, what to you think causes people like Nine to persist in their erroneous beliefs regarding Tabaks confession?
i really dont know... as i have said before I cant knock her dedication though I will never understand it
-
There are many people who have falsely confessed to a crime they haven't committed.
Who are the "many people" you refer to? And did they confess on the stand at trial like Tabak?
What case is comparable to this one?
I've no idea who has been putting ideas into your head and where your conspiracy theories stemmed from?
Though I think it would be helpful to you if you could attempt to unravel where it all began and what set you off on this path?
-
There are many people who have falsely confessed to a crime they haven't committed.
I'm hoping an answer to this is forthcoming at some point
See my above post
-
I have doubts about whether Vincent Tabak is actually guilty. Yes, I know he may well be, and I am not accusing anyone else, but I have questions, that I hope some of you may be able to answer:
Firstly, yes, I know he made a confession, but how do we know he didn't make it under duress?
Why was it necessary to employ a team of fire engines and a crane to retrieve Joanna's body? (The Daily Mail carried a photo of this at the time).
Why was Tabak's DNA not found in Joanna's flat, if (as was claimed in court) he killed her there?
What evidence is there that he had her body in the boot of his car when he went to ASDA?
How do we know exactly what he searched on his computer, and do computer searches necessarily make one a murderer? (I think the police would have a field day if they looked at mine!!)
Why, once the police had Tabak's DNA, (or so they said) ,did they not release Christopher Jefferies immediately?
Why did neither Jefferies, nor Tanja Morson, nor Tabak's boss, appear in court to testify as to his character?
Ok, so these are some of my questions. I would be happier about Tabak's conviction, had there been better evidence, for instance, CCTV images showing him following Joanna home, or evidence of him buying cleaning materials in ASDA, rather than crisps! To me, he does not seem a very likely murderer, and I am not saying this merely because he has a PhD, as of course I realise that someone with a PhD can commit murder! But, really, a sexually motivated murder committed by someone who had only ever had one girlfriend, and who just happened to be the next door neighbour?
A lawyer called Sally Ramage, who was in court during the trial, has written an interesting account of it. Don't remember the link, but if you google Sally Ramage/Vincent Tabak, you will find it.
Any comments?????
1487
Sally Ramage claims Vincent Tabak has mental health issues. How would she know that?
-
Hi Holly
Well, I cant help my niggles and doubts now, can I??
I remember (I'm probably a lot older than you!) a time when anyone who thought the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six might be innocent, were considered absolutely nuts!! And, yet----------
Of course Chris Jefferies, although totally innocent, could have been stitched up and convicted! If that kind of thing never happened, there would be no miscarriages of justice at all.
So, which cases, where there is real doubt, do you think I ought to be looking at ?
Was just hoping that somebody could help me with the questions that I asked in my first post.
When did you get made a forum moderator Helen from Devon?
-
I'm surprised he hasn't asked to serve his sentence in Holland as the regime there has many more benefits.
http://www.damncoolpictures.com/2011/08/resort-like-prisons-of-netherlands.html
Why do you think he's still in a UK jail then John?
-
I haven't been around tonight, and I see some of you have been very busy!!!!
Kayden, it is true that Nine and I do not know each other-----at all. Also, I will state (although nobody has actually asked me) that I am in no way connected with anyone involved in the case!
I believe Jixy is right about people on the sex offenders register not being eligible for the Early Removal Scheme (ie back to one's home country). I'm not posting a link, because (I am ashamed to say) I do not know how to copy and paste links----not very good at IT, I'm afraid. However, I found it on the prison reform website.
If VT is serving out his sentence "in peace" because he knows he is guilty, then all well and good. If, however, he is not guilty, there is NO WAY he will be serving out his sentence in peace!
We don't actually know that his family and girlfriend all believe he is guilty, even though we don't hear about them, and even though they all issued apologies/condolences to the Yeates family after the trial (which I thought was odd, as one doesn't usually hear about the families of convicted criminals doing that). There has been very little reported in the press since the trial (apart from the child porn conviction), so we don't know exactly what is going on. I suspect there is a reason why the press is being so quiet, but then, I am a suspicious person! I also strongly suspect there is a reason (other than believing in VT's guilt) why his family and friends are not protesting his innocence.
I also suspect that it is in the interests of the powers that be over here to keep VT in this country. If he was back in Holland, he might just start talking, and so might his family. Just my opinion, of course! I will be very interested to see what happens when he has done his 20 years---whether they will find a reason to keep him in prison for longer, or whether they let him return to Holland. I hope I live long enough to find out.
By the way, not all the forums have been taken down: Websleuths and Bowland Central have good ones, and they make very interesting reading from back in 2011.
I have no faith in VT's confession, I am afraid, and I think his conviction is very dodgy, as the evidence does not stand up. However, there is very little that I can do about it. I only hope, that one day, somebody with some real power questions this case.
BTW, a few people have suggested that I investigate "more worthwhile" cases where there may be a MOJ. Apart from one person suggesting I look at Mark Alexander (which I am doing), nobody has suggested which ones they think are worth looking at. Well????????
So you agree with John then Helen?
-
AAAGH!!! Sorry, I meant Mark Alexander!
What are your thoughts on him then Helen?
-
If I can take you back to the posts concerning Vincent Tabak's confession to the cleric for a moment. It has been suggested that the cleric somehow broke a confidence by reporting the confession. If he did so what?
The breaking of a confidence between a prisoner and a cleric is not something which can overturn a conviction on a technicality. Tabak saw the need to confess to what he had done, no doubt he has a conscience and needed to confess to somebody.
On another point, Tabak has freely admitted to manslaughter although unfortunately for him the CPS was having none of it and brought a murder charge against him. If Tabak accidentally strangled Miss Yeates he should have accepted his fate instead of attempting to hide her body and evade justice.
Do,you think he had a conscience then John?
What's makes you think this?
-
Yes, and more's the pity.
If he hadn't pleaded guilty, we would have had a better trial, with ALL the evidence and more witnesses!!
Can you explain that to Nine
-
What are your thoughts on him then Helen?
Have just (last night) acquired the dossier, and an reading through it. I am swaying towards his innocence, but who knows, I could change my mind!
-
Have just (last night) acquired the dossier, and an reading through it. I am swaying towards his innocence, but who knows, I could change my mind!
Who sent you this dossier then Helen from Dorset?
-
Have just (last night) acquired the dossier, and an reading through it. I am swaying towards his innocence, but who knows, I could change my mind!
It cannot be an official dossier that's for sure...
-
It cannot be an official dossier that's for sure...
OH YES IT CAN
OH NO IT CAN'T
-
Who sent you this dossier then Helen from Dorset?
I would be interested to know this too MrsWah? Would you like to share this dossier with the forum if you are so sure it proves Tabaks innocence?
-
Is Tabak proclaiming innocence?
-
Is Tabak proclaiming innocence?
No. He has never claimed innocence.
-
Sorry, we seem to have got our wires crossed---I wasn't talking about Tabak, I was talking about Mark Alexander, Stephanie asked me what I thought about the case.
-
Sorry, we seem to have got our wires crossed---I wasn't talking about Tabak, I was talking about Mark Alexander, Stephanie asked me what I thought about the case.
Apologies - I assumed it was about Tabak what with it being posed on his thread.
-
Apologies - I assumed it was about Tabak what with it being posed on his thread.
No probs!! I wish there were a dossier on Tabak!!
-
Sally Ramage claims Vincent Tabak has mental health issues. How would she know that?
I wondered that too! There are some innaccuracies in her report, but she was definitely in court for the trial.
-
No. He has never claimed innocence.
I can't think of anyone who gave a false confession and didn't later retract it. Of course, if they had never retracted it, we would never know they were potentially innocent. However, as even he isn't claimed to be innocent, I can't understand why anyone would insist he is?
-
I can't think of anyone who gave a false confession and didn't later retract it. Of course, if they had never retracted it, we would never know they were potentially innocent. However, as even he isn't claimed to be innocent, I can't understand why anyone would insist he is?
I don't insist that he is, I just think there are a number of "oddities" regarding this case.
-
I can't think of anyone who gave a false confession and didn't later retract it. Of course, if they had never retracted it, we would never know they were potentially innocent. However, as even he isn't claimed to be innocent, I can't understand why anyone would insist he is?
I am still scratching my head over this too! He didn't just confess, he gave a clear, coherent version of events on the stand in his own trial. There was DNA evidence, blood in his boot, fibres from his coat on her body and internet searches on the differences between murder and manslaughter, sexual assault and location where he dumped her body. Not forgetting that he searched about her murder before she was even reported missing - guilty as charged.
-
I don't insist that he is, I just think there are a number of "oddities" regarding this case.
I cannot say that I have seen anything from you insisting he is, but you certainly dispute every shred of evidence for a killer who does not dispute it himself. That in itself is unusual.
-
I cannot say that I have seen anything from you insisting he is, but you certainly dispute every shred of evidence for a killer who does not dispute it himself. That in itself is unusual.
Well------I don't deny I'm unusual!!!
-
When did you get made a forum moderator Helen from Devon?
Had to look that up!!!
End of August 2017.
-
Why do you think he's still in a UK jail then John?
Can we be absolutely sure he still is?
-
I don't insist that he is, I just think there are a number of "oddities" regarding this case.
One of them is that some people still think he's innocent *%87 8()-000(
-
Can we be absolutely sure he still is?
Didn't you write to him? Or was that someone else?
-
Didn't you write to him? Or was that someone else?
I did. There is a separate topic about that on the thread !!
-
I haven't been around tonight, and I see some of you have been very busy!!!!
Kayden, it is true that Nine and I do not know each other-----at all. Also, I will state (although nobody has actually asked me) that I am in no way connected with anyone involved in the case!
I believe Jixy is right about people on the sex offenders register not being eligible for the Early Removal Scheme (ie back to one's home country). I'm not posting a link, because (I am ashamed to say) I do not know how to copy and paste links----not very good at IT, I'm afraid. However, I found it on the prison reform website.
If VT is serving out his sentence "in peace" because he knows he is guilty, then all well and good. If, however, he is not guilty, there is NO WAY he will be serving out his sentence in peace!
We don't actually know that his family and girlfriend all believe he is guilty, even though we don't hear about them, and even though they all issued apologies/condolences to the Yeates family after the trial (which I thought was odd, as one doesn't usually hear about the families of convicted criminals doing that). There has been very little reported in the press since the trial (apart from the child porn conviction), so we don't know exactly what is going on. I suspect there is a reason why the press is being so quiet, but then, I am a suspicious person! I also strongly suspect there is a reason (other than believing in VT's guilt) why his family and friends are not protesting his innocence.
I also suspect that it is in the interests of the powers that be over here to keep VT in this country. If he was back in Holland, he might just start talking, and so might his family. Just my opinion, of course! I will be very interested to see what happens when he has done his 20 years---whether they will find a reason to keep him in prison for longer, or whether they let him return to Holland. I hope I live long enough to find out.
By the way, not all the forums have been taken down: Websleuths and Bowland Central have good ones, and they make very interesting reading from back in 2011.
I have no faith in VT's confession, I am afraid, and I think his conviction is very dodgy, as the evidence does not stand up. However, there is very little that I can do about it. I only hope, that one day, somebody with some real power questions this case.
BTW, a few people have suggested that I investigate "more worthwhile" cases where there may be a MOJ. Apart from one person suggesting I look at Mark Alexander (which I am doing), nobody has suggested which ones they think are worth looking at. Well????????
So are you claiming to have written to Tabak to appease your curiosity?
-
I have doubts about whether Vincent Tabak is actually guilty. Yes, I know he may well be, and I am not accusing anyone else, but I have questions, that I hope some of you may be able to answer:
Firstly, yes, I know he made a confession, but how do we know he didn't make it under duress?
Why was it necessary to employ a team of fire engines and a crane to retrieve Joanna's body? (The Daily Mail carried a photo of this at the time).
Why was Tabak's DNA not found in Joanna's flat, if (as was claimed in court) he killed her there?
What evidence is there that he had her body in the boot of his car when he went to ASDA?
How do we know exactly what he searched on his computer, and do computer searches necessarily make one a murderer? (I think the police would have a field day if they looked at mine!!)
Why, once the police had Tabak's DNA, (or so they said) ,did they not release Christopher Jefferies immediately?
Why did neither Jefferies, nor Tanja Morson, nor Tabak's boss, appear in court to testify as to his character?
Ok, so these are some of my questions. I would be happier about Tabak's conviction, had there been better evidence, for instance, CCTV images showing him following Joanna home, or evidence of him buying cleaning materials in ASDA, rather than crisps! To me, he does not seem a very likely murderer, and I am not saying this merely because he has a PhD, as of course I realise that someone with a PhD can commit murder! But, really, a sexually motivated murder committed by someone who had only ever had one girlfriend, and who just happened to be the next door neighbour?
A lawyer called Sally Ramage, who was in court during the trial, has written an interesting account of it. Don't remember the link, but if you google Sally Ramage/Vincent Tabak, you will find it.
Any comments?????
1487
Yes, what's the 1487 at the bottom of your post?
Good conversation starter btw - you most certainly hooked Nine in.
-
Yes, what's the 1487 at the bottom of your post?
Good conversation starter btw - you most certainly hooked Nine in.
If you scan this forum you'll note there are often numbers at the bottom of certain members posts.
Has anyone seen this before? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IGQmdoK_ZfY
-
I have doubts about whether Vincent Tabak is actually guilty. Yes, I know he may well be, and I am not accusing anyone else, but I have questions, that I hope some of you may be able to answer:
Firstly, yes, I know he made a confession, but how do we know he didn't make it under duress?
Why was it necessary to employ a team of fire engines and a crane to retrieve Joanna's body? (The Daily Mail carried a photo of this at the time).
Why was Tabak's DNA not found in Joanna's flat, if (as was claimed in court) he killed her there?
What evidence is there that he had her body in the boot of his car when he went to ASDA?
How do we know exactly what he searched on his computer, and do computer searches necessarily make one a murderer? (I think the police would have a field day if they looked at mine!!)
Why, once the police had Tabak's DNA, (or so they said) ,did they not release Christopher Jefferies immediately?
Why did neither Jefferies, nor Tanja Morson, nor Tabak's boss, appear in court to testify as to his character?
Ok, so these are some of my questions. I would be happier about Tabak's conviction, had there been better evidence, for instance, CCTV images showing him following Joanna home, or evidence of him buying cleaning materials in ASDA, rather than crisps! To me, he does not seem a very likely murderer, and I am not saying this merely because he has a PhD, as of course I realise that someone with a PhD can commit murder! But, really, a sexually motivated murder committed by someone who had only ever had one girlfriend, and who just happened to be the next door neighbour?
A lawyer called Sally Ramage, who was in court during the trial, has written an interesting account of it. Don't remember the link, but if you google Sally Ramage/Vincent Tabak, you will find it.
Any comments?????
1487
We don't know the confession wasn't made under duress but as he's not claiming it was, there is no reason to believe such.
Don't know anything about fire engines.
DNA doesn't just fall off you, there is no reason for his DNA to be at the flat unless he bled or secretes bodily fluids there.
I guess they are guessing her body was in the car because of the time.
It's easy to tell what he is searching for n his computer and no that doesn't mean he's a murderer but the confession does. The confession which he has never retracted and for which there s no evidence of coercion.
No idea about releasing Jefferies but what is the point of having someone give a character reference when you have admitted murder?
Why would he need cleaning materials? She was strangled and not in his own flat.
I doubt his intention was to kill her but he clearly had issues where sex is concerned. No one looks like a murderer - if they did, they would be easy to spot.
-
I,m sorry .. `I,m not trying to disrespect Jo,s parents..
The family i feel terrible for, its an horrendous crime, i cannot imagine, the pain that they have gone through, (and are still going through) and if i have come across in a way that suggests, I am disrespecting the family, I can only apologise.
There have been plenty of people whom, for instance, in America have been given the death sentence, and the evidence has pointed to them, but only when you get a full picture of events do you really see what has taken place.
The west memphis three are a case in point.
http://www.westmemphisthreefacts.com/
Quite often in cases, its the little things that make all the difference.
Again I am not wanting to be disrespectful, I wasnt intending to cause alarm to them.
But, if Tabak didnt do it, his family must also be suffering.
I remember Stefan Kiszko he was asked to confess and told he could go home to his mum if he said he did it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed
Im sure there are cases in which you, yourself feels like there has been a miscarriage of justice, as that is the Name of the site.
And without looking into the small discrepencies, and time lines etc, we will never know.
If you genuinely believe there has been a miscarriage of justice in this case why haven't you done anything about it?
What's holding you back?
-
If you genuinely believe there has been a miscarriage of justice in this case why haven't you done anything about it?
What's holding you back?
I have been doing all I can in my capacity..... I have no other way in which to highlight what I believe is wrong with this case...
Hence, here I am...