Vincent Tabak and the Murder of Joanna Yeates

[[...]]

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!!!!!!!

[mrswah]

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!!!

[jixy]

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

[Plutonium]

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.

[mrswah]

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!

[jixy]

simple and to the point Plutonium and I agree fully

[jixy]

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???