Vincent Tabak and the Murder of Joanna Yeates

[[...]]

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???

[mrswah]

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?? 

[mrswah]

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?????

[mrswah]

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..........