The Defence Will State Their Case

[[...]]

To mediate between the competing claims for poor Joanna's body made by the different forensic professionals, Andrew Mott was called in as the Forensics Co-ordinator. He had to stop the body from thawing out, so as to preserve its immediate environment from contamination until Karl Harrison could examine it. As Lyndsay Lennen says, the body was frozen to start with, but for her to get the clothes off so as to analyse the DNA on the clothes and skin, its temperature had to be above freezing. To do his worst with his little scalpel, Dr. Delaney also needed the body to thaw out. However he also needed to observe and document the clothes themselves before Lyndsay Lennen. Andrew Mott had a legitimate role as referee.

As I posted before, Dr Delaney could not even get near the body until the fire engines had finished doing whatever they came to do. The best he could do until then was to glimpse it.

But which body are they talking about ... If there is a possibility that Joanna Yeates was pregnant???? Then both statements are true, in that respect.... (imo)

Did Dr Delaney know straight away that Joanna Yeates had died from compression of the neck... And it was the foetus that he needed to wait to thaw??? To take samples???

I'm just asking......!

[Leonora]

I meant no offence, but then I think it's only offensive from your interpretation.

A conspiracy theory is generally considered a theory that goes against the generally held beliefs and the facts available. And I would worry about someone that posts about JFK, the evil machinations of the CIA and the war in Syria from a conspiracy theory point of view.

It's not simply someone who asks why or thinks against the party line. It's someone who wilfully does so because they want to and will only accept evidence that supports their point of view and everything else is considered planted or faked evidence (with no proof that is the case.)

Anyway, you managed to avoid all my questions and arguments again.

This is the sort of extreme sentiment I expect to find in The Guardian or The Telegraph. It is hardly appropriate to a moderated forum like this one, intended for contributors whose aims are to expose fake stories in the printed and electronic media. With the possible exception of the sports world, people are notoriously more prepared to believe what they learn from the professional media - even when it publishes information perporting to be factual which is manifestly mutually contradictory - than the facts that they know from their own personal experience.

Conspiracy theorists first and foremost focus on facts that are usually public knowledge, but that the media collectively disregard in the context even though they are relevant. No evidence has ever come to light to explain what actually happened to the two little Princes in the Tower of London, yet nobody ever describes Shakespeare or his sources as "conspracy theorists" for pointing the dubious finger so firmly at King Richard III as their murderer.

Apparently the ownership of the entire World Trade Center site on Manhattan changed hands only six weeks before the destructive attacks on 11th September 16 years ago. This seems to be a fact, undisputed by the media, yet the media made no attempt to report it for many, many years, until some people whom I suppose you might choose to call "conspiracy theorists" began to speculate about whether the timing was purely coincidental or not.

Most of the big conspiracies that dominate all walks of public life are not hidden at all - the facts are well known - but the media does not connect them. I am sure you are as well aware of this as I am, so I fear that your disparagement and misrepresentation of "conspiracy theorists" makes you yourself a part of the conspiracy.

[Baz]

This is the sort of extreme sentiment I expect to find in The Guardian or The Telegraph.

There was nothing extreme about my post except perhaps your response to it.

No evidence has ever come to light to explain what actually happened to the two little Princes in the Tower of London, yet nobody ever describes Shakespeare or his sources as "conspracy theorists" for pointing the dubious finger so firmly at King Richard III as their murderer.

Shakespeare was a dramatist and was not trying to achieve histrorical accuracy. In fact it is generally well known that his plays are quite inaccurate when it comes to history and even geography. What a strange example to choose.

Apparently the ownership of the entire World Trade Center site on Manhattan changed hands only six weeks before the destructive attacks on 11th September 16 years ago. This seems to be a fact, undisputed by the media, yet the media made no attempt to report it for many, many years, until some people whom I suppose you might choose to call "conspiracy theorists" began to speculate about whether the timing was purely coincidental or not.

It doesn't take much effort to find numerous articles (some published before and some after the tragic attacks) discussing the purchase of the lease for the World Trade Centre. And in fact the guy who ended up winning the bidding contest (Larry Silverstein) only did so because the company that actually won withdrew their bid, which feels quite significant to me.

Most of the big conspiracies that dominate all walks of public life are not hidden at all - the facts are well known - but the media does not connect them. I am sure you are as well aware of this as I am, so I fear that your disparagement and misrepresentation of "conspiracy theorists" makes you yourself a part of the conspiracy.

I'm not sure which conspiracies you are referring to that dominate all walks of life but I can assure you that I am not part of them. I mean I am a six foot lizard and a quite high ranking member of the Illuminati who helped produce the "moon landing" film and killed Princess Diana but other than that I object to you implying I'm part of any conspiracy. Even us Lizards have feelings!!

[mrswah]

Please stay on topic.  This thread is for discussing the Joanna Yeates case, not unrelated conspiracy theories !!

Also, could we please stop "sniping" at each other. I don't like removing people's posts, but-----------.

Thanks!

[mrswah]

Please show me your evidence for this assertion?

I've seen nothing to suggest Tabak was religious. I've seen no reports of him asking to see a Priest or Vicar.

Also, why is it only one person (Sally Ramage) saying the Chaplain didn't give evidence when every other report that I can find says he did?

Have you been in touch with Ramage?

Peter Brotherton did testify in court, and was questioned by William Clegg QC, Vincent Tabak's defence lawyer.
I have no idea why Sally Ramage said he didn't----after all, she attended the trial herself.
I have, in the past, attempted to contact Sally Ramage, but she did not reply!!
There are, indeed, inaccuracies in her account:  for example, she says that Vincent and Tanja reported that Chris Jefferies used to look through the windows of his tenants' flats-----when, in fact, it was actually previous tenants who said this.

[[...]]

Peter Brotherton did testify in court, and was questioned by William Clegg QC, Vincent Tabak's defence lawyer.
I have no idea why Sally Ramage said he didn't----after all, she attended the trial herself.
I have, in the past, attempted to contact Sally Ramage, but she did not reply!!
There are, indeed, inaccuracies in her account:  for example, she says that Vincent and Tanja reported that Chris Jefferies used to look through the windows of his tenants' flats-----when, in fact, it was actually previous tenants who said this.

Has Sally Ramage ever spoken to Dr Vincent Tabak ??

And if you say that it was the previous tenants... Was Dr Vincent Tabak a previous tenant??

[[...]]

Abstract   
A 25 year-old professional woman was murdered on 15 December 2010,her body discovered on 26 December 2010 on a grass verge some three miles from the apartment she rented with her cohabitee. On 23 January 2011, a Dutch Architectural Consultant Engineer, working in Bristol, United Kingdom, and living next door with is Chartered Accountant cohabitee, was arrested and later charged with the woman's murder. This is the story of the court trial in Court One at Bristol Crown Court.

Why are the dates so different ????  Is this when Joanna Yeates went Missing???  why would Sally Ramage have this different to what we know ???

I know you said that Sally had maybe got some inaccuracies... But The 15th December 2010??

We know that Dr Vincent Tabak was charged between the 16th December and the 26th December 2010 originally. why are all the dates out????


I don't understand???



https://philpapers.org/rec/RAMRVV

[mrswah]

Has Sally Ramage ever spoken to Dr Vincent Tabak ??

And if you say that it was the previous tenants... Was Dr Vincent Tabak a previous tenant??

I believe it was  a couple who were tenants before Vincent/Tanja/Jo/Greg who, according to one report, complained about their landlord letting himself in to their flats  with his keys , and peering through windows. Will try to find the link!

As far as I know, Sally Ramage hasn't spoken to VT, but I cannot be sure.

[[...]]

Who appeared in court on 31st January 2011 ???

Now Dr Vincent Tabak appeared via video link from Long Lartin Prison... so who was in the :

A Reliance prison van arrives at Bristol Crown Court as media wait for a prelimiminary hearing for the murder of Joanna Yeates on January 31, 2011 in Bristol, England. Vincent Tabak who has been charged with her murder appeared via video link from HMP Long Lartin in Worcestershire. A provisional trial date has been fixed for October 4 and the plea and case management hearing will take place on May 4.Licence

DCI Phil Jones was there for this Preliminary hearing... so who was in The Van???

What was going on at Preliminary Hearing??

At the conclusion of Monday's proceedings, the judge told Tabak: "Your next appearance in court will be on May 4 by which time the case papers will have been served and you will see in detail what the allegations are against you. There will be a hearing to make the final arrangements for a trial which we expect to take place in October."

So did Dr Vincent Tabak not know what the allegations were ??? I thought it was a simple case that he apparentley murdered his next door neighbour... what else was laid out in detail????

Going back to the van... why would the media take a picture of a random van if it didn't have anything to do with Dr Vincent Tabak ???

Who else was at court???

Seeing as DCI Phil Jones was there and I am now of the opinion that he was trying to uncover the truth.. that leads me to believe that someone else also appeared at court on the 31st January 2011.. In relation to the Joanna yeates murder case ....

But who was it ????

This I believe is when Paul Cook, dropped Dr Vincent Tabak... so what was going on at Bristol Crown Court on the 31st January 2011???

Can some one help me here please....
How comes Dr Vincent Tabak went from the magistrates court to the crown court in about one week???

How did we jump from charge to preliminary hearing and being at crown court via video link???  That cannot be right!!






http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/event/vincent-tabak-preliminary-hearing-for-the-murder-of-joanna-yeates-108632844#avon-and-somerset-police-dci-phil-jones-arrives-at-bristol-crown-for-picture-id108634439

http://www.leighjournal.co.uk/news/national/news/8822736.Joanna_s_body_released_to_family/


[attachment deleted by admin]

[[...]]

31st January 2011

At the conclusion of Monday's proceedings, the judge told Tabak: "Your next appearance in court will be on May 4 by which time the case papers will have been served and you will see in detail what the allegations are against you. There will be a hearing to make the final arrangements for a trial which we expect to take place in October."

How does that work ???

Shouldn't the case be lined out before being sent to a hearing... They had , had the initial preliminary hearing on that day....

See in detail?? what were these allegations??? Other than that Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have killed Joanna Yeates ...

Shouldn't they already have case papers???  or is it me misunderstanding?? Did they go to court on a wing and a prayer??? Chuck a couple of accusations in and then told the judge they'd fill him in later???

I do understand it takes time to collect all statements and evidence, but they must have had to have something for the preliminary hearing?
And most certainly the allegations should have been spelt out...(imo)

There are I believe many procedures that should be followed when preparing the case... 

Witnesses
Corroboration
Always look for corroboration. If other witnesses are present or named then they should make statements or there should be an explanation for the lack of a statement.

The police should be asked to explain any inconsistencies in the statements or if necessary to give witnesses the opportunity to make further statements clarifying the discrepancies.

Now here is an interesting quote... If other witnesses are present or named then they should make statements or there should be an explanation for the lack of a statement.

On saying that ... where was Tanja Morson at trial, as she was named on numerous occasions, at this trial, she was, with Dr Vincent Tabak on the night in question... She apparently texted and phoned Dr Vincent Tabak on this evening.. yet she made no statement nor did she appear in court...And her name was mentioned on numerous occasions...

 How can that be ?????

I can count at least 30 times that Tanja Morsons name is mentioned in the Sally Ramage papers,

Tanja Morson named 30 plus times.. Tanja Morson the girlfriend of the defendant who could corroborate, what Dr Vincent Tabak's demeanor was on any given day.. who could verify any phone calls made.... Yet she is strangely absent from these proceedings...

Wouldn't Tanja have made a good witness for the prosecution. showing how she was aware that Dr Vincent Tabak tried to implicate CJ...

I still would have imagined that they did interview her.... But why is her named mentioned over and over again, if she doesn't make a statement to the court???


http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/crown_court_case_preparation/

http://www.leighjournal.co.uk/news/national/news/8822736.Joanna_s_body_released_to_family/

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

[[...]]

Looking at an article after the trial.... And Tanja Morsons father speaks...

"After he confessed, it was difficult for us all because we didn't know what he was saying about Tanja. But we had total faith in our daughter and knew she had done nothing wrong."

We know that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't confess... The only thing he possibly said was guilty to manslaughter, as AH pointed out a possible reason for this admission...

By the 22nd September 2011, Dr Vincent Tabak had signed his enhanced statement.. the details I believe were a little sketchy...

So I am trying to understand what Mr Morson means, when he says...what he was saying about Tanja. But we had total faith in our daughter and knew she had done nothing wrong.

What is he referring too??
What had Dr Vincent Tabak said about Tanja??
What could Tanja have possibly done wrong??

What was said at trial that could possibily incriminate Tanja in any way??

I do not believe that there was anything....

The only slight answer I can come up with is Tanja ringing the Police from Holland.. But what would be wrong with that ?? It would show that it wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak trying to incriminate CJ...


But I don't think Mr Morson means that .... So what does we didn't know what he was saying about Tanja. But we had total faith in our daughter and knew she had done nothing wrong."..... actually mean??

Because we know Dr Vincent Tabak wouldn't say anything....What is it that Mr Morson knows?? If these statements were not heard at trial,and how could he know ??



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8857776/Joanna-Yeatess-father-and-her-killers-girlfriends-family-unite-in-revulsion.html

[[...]]

31st January 2011
How does that work ???

Shouldn't the case be lined out before being sent to a hearing... They had , had the initial preliminary hearing on that day....

See in detail?? what were these allegations??? Other than that Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have killed Joanna Yeates ...

Shouldn't they already have case papers???  or is it me misunderstanding?? Did they go to court on a wing and a prayer??? Chuck a couple of accusations in and then told the judge they'd fill him in later???

I do understand it takes time to collect all statements and evidence, but they must have had to have something for the preliminary hearing?
And most certainly the allegations should have been spelt out...(imo)

There are I believe many procedures that should be followed when preparing the case... 

Now here is an interesting quote... If other witnesses are present or named then they should make statements or there should be an explanation for the lack of a statement.

On saying that ... where was Tanja Morson at trial, as she was named on numerous occasions, at this trial, she was, with Dr Vincent Tabak on the night in question... She apparently texted and phoned Dr Vincent Tabak on this evening.. yet she made no statement nor did she appear in court...And her name was mentioned on numerous occasions...

 How can that be ?????

I can count at least 30 times that Tanja Morsons name is mentioned in the Sally Ramage papers,

Tanja Morson named 30 plus times.. Tanja Morson the girlfriend of the defendant who could corroborate, what Dr Vincent Tabak's demeanor was on any given day.. who could verify any phone calls made.... Yet she is strangely absent from these proceedings...

Wouldn't Tanja have made a good witness for the prosecution. showing how she was aware that Dr Vincent Tabak tried to implicate CJ...

I still would have imagined that they did interview her.... But why is her named mentioned over and over again, if she doesn't make a statement to the court???


http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/crown_court_case_preparation/

http://www.leighjournal.co.uk/news/national/news/8822736.Joanna_s_body_released_to_family/

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

Following on from here:....

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: 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.

Tanja has replied in the first quote as I have demonstrated... So why is she not in court or giving a statement to be read out at court??

I keep questioning are these actually Tanja Morsons texts??? Because they cannot be,(imo) otherwise a statement would have been read out in court from her or she would have appeared herself.. But we know she did not attend court whatsoever!

So who texts are they???


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

[[...]]

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’.
Defence Counsel: Did you remain at home or did you go out?
Tabak: I went out
I sent Tanja a text message after I returned; just after 7.15pm
I had gone for a quick walk to take pictures of snow.
I left by small garden gate to Bristol Road then returned.
I didn’t take any photos- the snow was dirty.
At 7.25 – after I had returned, I accessed my bank account via Internet until 7.37pm.
Defence Counsel: Can we just put the timeline to one side? What did you do after 7.37pm?
Tabak: I drank a beer. I watched TV- I cannot remember what. I had supper- a readymade
pizza. Then I decided to go out again.

"Constitution Hill to Bristol Road ??? That is the only two locations I have in this quote....

Tried Googling it... And I get "Constitution Hill Settle " to Bristol Road Sheffield"...( A long Journey)
Alternatively  Constitution Hill to "Bristol Road" is a disused railway station...  Bristol Road being the name at "Stonehouse"..

But for either to be accurate.. The times it took to get there, would be wrong....  The only way one could be correct is if Dr Vincent Tabak lived in "The Master House" in the vicinity of "Bristol Road Station". as I believe it is still a residential house...

Passenger and goods services were withdrawn from Frocester on 11 December 1961, four years before other local stations on the line lost their services. The station buildings were demolished and the signalbox also closed. The station-master's house remains in residential use.[1]

So for the quote to be accurate.. I would say that Dr Vincent Tabak had to live in The Masters House of Bristol Road railway Station to be able to leave by the little gate onto Bristol Road and take photographs of the dirty snow..

But it still doesn't quite add up.... Because it take 29 minutes to get from Constitution Hill to Bristol Road, and Dr Vincent Tabak has 6 minutes to get home...

But then did he go to Bristol Road after he got home ???.... Did he know someone who lived near Bristol Road ???

Why does this never add up????

Or is this an inaccuracy???  Does anybody know ??? Is "Bristol Road" an inaccuracy???

Which Constitution Hill is Dr Vincent Tabak referring too?? because there are many Constitution Hills in the country....

I have a third alternative........

The only "Constitution Hill" to Bristol Road that comes anywhere close to the timescale is... Constitution Hill Birmingham to Bristol Road Birmingham" which is an 11 minute journey roughly.. But that is miles away from Bristol...

So which Constitution Hill are we talking about???  And which Bristol Road??? 

But the biggest coincidence with the Birmingham factor is that you take the A38 to get from "Constitution Hill" to Bristol Road"...

Now if you take the A38 down to Anchor Road you arrive at The Bristol Ram Pub....  That is one too many coincidences for me .... Also the A38 to Bedminster...

If someone travelled from Birmingham on the A38, they would not have been picked up by CCTV as they would have by using the M5...

It is about 89 miles away from Bristol... Not a long Journey, if you put your foot down....

As I am not convinced that the statements made at court belonged to Dr Vincent Tabak.. who did they belong to?? And was it someone who lived in Birmingham??? Or stayed there during the week??? Or even owned a house there ???

It says: I left by small garden gate to Bristol Road then returned.

Now that is possible if you are a Student and live at "collegiate 800 bristol road - luxury student accommodation birmingham" (image attached)

There is a double gate for car access and a little gate to the side of it for foot access, which brings you directly onto "Bristol Road" A38....
So is this the residents that is being talked about when it says that, I left via the little gate onto Bristol Road to take some photos???

Lets not forget how close "Constitution Hill is to this residence.....


http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehouse_(Bristol_Road)_railway_station

[attachment deleted by admin]

[[...]]

Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanaj Morson went to Holland over the Christmas period..

I remember seeing the news around the time and people wating for trains.. and it now has only just come back to me why...

The weather had been so bad that trains were actually stuck in the tunnel over the christmas period... and many people were waiting to get from A to B...

The report's authors made 21 recommendations, saying Eurostar's "routine maintenance procedures were inadequate" to deal with the extreme winter weather conditions on the night of 18 and 19 December. The report was compiled by the former GNER East Coast Main Line rail boss Christopher Garnett and French transport expert Claude Gressier.

Which lasted for several days....

All Eurostar services were cancelled for several days, bringing pandemonium to stations as passengers, unable to take fully booked flights and ferries, struggled to get home for Christmas.

Ticket sales were stopped until after Christmas eve....

Eurostar has also closed ticket sales until after Christmas Eve.

Passengers were asked to postpone their journeys..

Passengers have been urged to cancel or postpone their journeys and not to travel unless it was "absolutely necessary".

So how many days did it take to get things back to normal???

"We will operate a contingency timetable with some cancellations for a number of days.
"We recommend that if you do not need to travel you cancel or postpone your journey. Due to exceptional demand, sales are closed for travel up to and including 24 Dec."

And who had priority for catching these trains ???

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

Was 4 days long enough to have everything up and running properly?? We have people who still need transporting and people who have purchased tickets running up unto this date, who should get priority...

Did Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson have any issues getting to Holland ?? As I am sure there would have been many people whom had booked seats on these trains, in December and I believe that their needs would come first...

Did Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson plan to go to Holland sooner?? And because of the chaos of the train situation ended up staying at Tanja Morsons parents home ??

What were the original Plans for Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson and their Holiday visits.. and on what date did they originally set of down south???


What day did Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson leave Bristol???  Because I can now see why they wouldn't have been able to get to Holland any sooner and may have ended up staying at Tanja's parents home over Christmas, if these trains were not running properly...





http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-12036873

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


https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/feb/12/eurostar-no-plan-travel-chaos-report

[[...]]

Defence Counsel: Where was your car parked?
Tabak: My car was parked on the street.

Now on saying i don't believe it was Dr Vincent Tabak who said about leaving the little gate to Bristol Road.. it brought this back to mind...

How would Dr Vincent Tabak make such a mistake... when we know he and Tanja shared the car...
Again I would ask who's car this is reference too??  Because the car Dr Vincent Tabak drove was Tanja Morsons....

So is it the persons car who went onto Bristol Road to take photographs of the snow ???? and (imo) that wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak...

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