UK Justice Forum

Other High Profile Cases and Persons of Interest => The murder of landscape architect Joanna Yeates in Bristol in December 2010. => Topic started by: John on April 11, 2017, 02:22:18 PM

Title: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: John on April 11, 2017, 02:22:18 PM
We have now had several threads exploring the conviction of Vincent Tabak so for the small minority who speculate that he is innocent here is an opportunity to provide your evidence.

Why do you believe Vincent Tabak is innocent?

91
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: AerialHunter on April 11, 2017, 04:39:06 PM
Why do I think Vincent Tabak is innocent?

It is first necessary to account properly for Tabaks submission of a plea of Manslaughter. Having reviewed much material over the last two days it strikes me that few involved in the investigation questioned their own motives for pursuing Tabak and even those whose job it is to consider the actions of such individuals, such as Chief Constables, Magistrates, High Court Judges et al failed to review the circumstances and got swept along with the furore, not wishing to be left out of something lucrative, in both a financial manner as well as in a career enhancing one.

Tabak strikes me as a highly intelligent, overly considerate man who intended to marry his first girlfriend. He had enough about him not to toy with peoples emotions, realising the devastating effects bringing unsatisfactory relationships to a close might have on someone who hadn't realised they weren't up to expectations and had, up to the point when he met the entirely delightful Ms Morson, refrained from acting in anything like a caddish manner.

The, now rather preposterous, suggestion that he would murder his attractive young neighbour by manual strangulation, place her in the boot of his car and drive it to ASDA so he could, without showing any signs of stress, ring his girlfriend then nip off to to the woods to dump the body, is standing like a carving in cottage cheese. You need to be an utter psychopath to act like that, more of that later.

Tabaks dilemma, however, is his recent announcement to his family of his intentions to marry, which met with considered approval are now slightly tainted by a rather unexpected dissection of his laptop porn store, and the rather credible evidence that he had engaged a more than willing tart for an appropriate (perhaps rather overgenerous) sum whilst several thousand miles away from where it could do any harm. The prospect of being taken away from this sudden overwhelming horror and not having to face up to his entire family as well as his devoted fiancé, not to mention the unbearable taunts he would have suffered in the workplace, was probably the lesser of the two evils. His perception of going out of the way for a few years must have been an overwhelmingly attractive solution.

Then we turn to the rather excitable female DC, who, acting as she was on an incredibly valuable, and conveniently anonymous tip off from a female caller decides to arrest anyone within stones throwing distance, knowing full well, as do all police officers, that people who dont know the facts can't defend themselves very well. They came an absolute cropper with the excellent Mr Jeffries, thinking as they did that he was an ineffectual idiot with a bad hairdo. They thought they had an easy victim here, the press portrayed him as the sort of bloke that looked the type, nothing like quality journalism is there? Still, next time somethings up I sure the Feds will oblige with a quick call to the press office, quid pro quo. I would have loved to have watched the inquiry team crumble at the tongue lashing delivered with the eloquence only English Teachers are able to master, beautiful.

Now back to our central inquiry, which Avon & Somerset Constabulary have attempted to suppress, unsuccessfully we might add, in case they were wondering!!

The manner of Yeates death, the abduction, multiple injuries, body dumped by the side of a road in and area known to our primary suspect, all point to back to Avon's bogey man. Oddly enough, if you can afford the time and have the inclination, you will see repeated occasions when the police respond, investigate, find nothing then for some reason miraculously decide to take another look and find everything they missed the first time. More than a curiosity, believe me. This points to someone knowing how to trigger a response from the police and a willingness to plant evidence either to incriminate others or to deflect the police inquiry, and he's good, he is really, really good at this. And he should be.

One of our usual lines is to identify the person in the immediate vicinty who he intended to drag into a police inquiry as a means of retaliation aginst them, the police then simply do his bidding and revenge, as they say, is sweet.

We have agreed between ourselves to include Yeates death in our overall picture as the timing is significant to us more than anything. As I said initially, we overlooked the case because of Tabak's confession, but we are not mindless subordinates with egos easily inflated by the praise of superiors appointed by the simple function of time served.

One thing to conclude, I find it hard to decide what i consider more inappropriate, Tabaks dalliance with a paid professional or the Chief Constable of Avon and Somersets summarial dismissal for his own inappropriate behaviour, worth a read.

This for us is only embryonic at present, but it's above the horizon.

AH
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Leonora on April 11, 2017, 08:55:52 PM
...
Tabaks dilemma, however, is his recent announcement to his family of his intentions to marry, which met with considered approval are now slightly tainted by a rather unexpected dissection of his laptop porn store, and the rather credible evidence that he had engaged a more than willing tart for an appropriate (perhaps rather overgenerous) sum whilst several thousand miles away from where it could do any harm...
I take one small but important issue with this post - namely, that although you and everyone else who has followed the case believes in the "laptop porn store" and in at least one "more than willing tart" - the news media behaved reprehensibly in failing to explain that both of these allegations were hearsay, made by lawyers in court enjoying immunity against prosecution for slander. They would not be hearsay if the names of the witnesses and their willingness to testify under oath had been stated by the prosecutor and reported by the media. As this was not done, we on this forum should treat the allegations as hearsay, not as facts established by investigation and proven in court.

I speculate that the police may have repeated the same allegations to his girlfriend before she visited him early on during his period on remand, in order to alienate her from him. As she was apparently not suspected of any crime, the police's lying to her would not have violated any laws.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: John on April 12, 2017, 12:07:02 AM
So other than speculations, wild theories and personal opinions is there anything which points to innocence?
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: AerialHunter on April 12, 2017, 07:22:00 AM
At the moment everything is speculative, but, that doesn't mean one should ignore the opinions of people who spend time thinking about these issues. My angle is that Yeates was targeted to create a situation that others would be dragged into, that's what I am looking for but I'm not going to ignore others, they might just just be holding the lighter that will show us where the gas leak is. Avon have long known they have a loon out there, but they were absolutely clueless before they went into denial.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Leonora on April 12, 2017, 07:55:14 AM
So other than speculations, wild theories and personal opinions is there anything which points to innocence?
Each and every one of "The hundred questions" in itself points, not only to innocence, but also to an unreal arraignment in which so many of the participants behave out of character that I sometimes ask myself if Joanna Yeates herself really died or really existed.

If the case against Vincent Tabak were as prosaic and sound as you keep on reiterating, John, there would have been no need for the Prosecution, the Judge and the Defence to collaborate in the subterfuge with manifestly imaginary "bad character" evidence to manipulate the press into deceiving the public (including those who had sat on the jury) into believing that Vincent Tabak's secret life had been sufficiently different from other people's to explain away the out-of-character behaviour on which the jury had convicted him.

This collaborative subterfuge is not just evidence of innocence by itself, but also proves that the subsequent conviction for possession of illegal images of child abuse was itself a subterfuge intended to deceive the public, since these images could have been drawn to the jury's attention, had they really been found, as  legitimate evidence of the defendant's bad character. Each of the Hundred Points reinforces the others like the corbelled stones of a cathedral.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Leonora on April 12, 2017, 08:01:40 AM
...
My angle is that Yeates was targeted to create a situation that others would be dragged into, that's what I am looking for...
That would certainly explain the extraordinarily high level of media attention her disappearance attracted, compared to other persons who went missing about the same time.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/the-week-four-people-vanished-ndash-and-only-one-made-the-news-2186297.html?origin=internalSearch
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: [...] on April 12, 2017, 11:20:01 AM
AerialHunter....

The glaringly obvious question is why the Police needed Dr Vincent Tabak flat vacated??

From the morning police were alterted to Joanna Yeates disappearance to the arrest of Dr Vincent Tabak, Flat 2 was virtually unoccupied.. Also Flat 1....

What happened in Flat 2... now I don't mean murder or bodies hidden...

23rd December 2010 (could have been day before)... Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson go to Cambridge for a few days...

This then bring them from Cambridge to Holland which they are their until the 3rd January 2011 if memory serves me correct....

They basically then move out to Aberdeen Road......

Now I know Dr Vincent Tabak said it was because of the police activity... but that really shouldn't have been an issue.. I believe the police made it impossible for them to stay... The question is WHY?????

The Police had access to Flat 2 before Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested.... WHY????  why did they access flat 2 before his arrest????

 What did flat 2 look like once the police finished??? we don't know... Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson never went back there....Apart from to collect a few things....

Don't people find it most unusual that the Police needed Dr VincentTabak and Tanja Morson to vacate their home....

If there was a murder next door to me I might be worried but i wouldn't leave my home....
The more I think about it the weirder it is.. Nobody leaves there home and moves elsewhere when there has been a murder next door...  Or in the flats they live in.... There would have needed to be a bomb or chemicals there for that to happen....

So why make it so they move out?????

If you look at the pictures of the outside between flat 1 and 2 there are various paving slabs that have been removed and replaced.... why??? 

Dr Vincent Tabak hadn't moved paving slabs to hide the pizza they say he took....

What reason did they need to erect scaffolding and cover with tarpaulin???

There is something about Flat 2 being empty... there's a  NEED for it.... I just don't know what it is????

This is another area that the Defence neglected to cover....

Remember the lady from the CPS said they planned Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest... So what else did they plan???

I think the early investigation and news coverage need a look at again... To see how long it takes the forensics to go in and out of Joanna Yeates flat... And why they needed the whole of the ground floor of the building vacant????

How many days in total were both flat 1 and flat 2 empty??????

 Interesting...
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: John on April 12, 2017, 11:38:38 AM
It was a week before Joanna's body was discovered so police were obliged to look into all possible scenarios.  That is why they needed space around flats 1 and 2 to conduct their investigations unhindered.  If you look at it from the killers point of view too, he would not want to be around the police for obvious reasons thus why he stayed elsewhere.

A point which I noticed while reading the press report was that Vincent Tabak was charged with failing to surrender himself, can anyone elaborate on this?
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: [...] on April 12, 2017, 11:49:52 AM
It was a week before Joanna's body was discovered so police were obliged to look into all possible scenarios.  That is why they needed space around flats 1 and 2 to conduct their investigations unhindered.  If you look at it from the killers point of view too, he would not want to be around the police for obvious reasons thus why he stayed elsewhere.

A point which I noticed while reading the press report was that Vincent Tabak was charged with failing to surrender himself, can anyone elaborate on this?

How was he charged with failing to surrender????/ They arrested him at his home in Aberdeen Road he came quietly and was in a state of shock!!!!
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: [...] on April 12, 2017, 11:53:00 AM
It was a week before Joanna's body was discovered so police were obliged to look into all possible scenarios.  That is why they needed space around flats 1 and 2 to conduct their investigations unhindered.  If you look at it from the killers point of view too, he would not want to be around the police for obvious reasons thus why he stayed elsewhere.

A point which I noticed while reading the press report was that Vincent Tabak was charged with failing to surrender himself, can anyone elaborate on this?

But even if Dr Vincent Tabak moved out ... they shouldn't have had access to his flat!!!!
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: AerialHunter on April 12, 2017, 12:40:52 PM
It is a simple, time saving policy of policing. Go for someone in the immediate vicinity and try and build a case against them. The reason behind this is that most people that murder are known to the victim. The police are only concerned with getting a result, if they can make something out of nothing, they win. They also know that many people on jury service have never been in a commanding position over other people's lives and use their only opportunity to display their sudden authority and go for a guilty verdict irrespective of the evidence. Often the people on juries with this attitude cause other jurors to withdraw. Police exploit this to their own advantage, as do the prosecuting team. The privileged position they have ruled on themselves is simply the best idea they've in absolutely ages, even better than the ruling that it is better to have an innocent man in jail than bring the system into disrepute, that gets them off the hook for the f*** ups, it's basically saying " Dont worry lads, if you get it wrong it's all part of the game, we'll cover your arses." Then they use a jury to make the final decision so they never put themselves on the hook, "The jury decided that, not us." is oft the cry. Then they prevent the jury from making their findings public. Then they come up with lots of obstructive rules to prevent the wrongly convicted from helping themselves and obstruct decent people like us from trying to establish the real truth.

Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Leonora on April 12, 2017, 09:27:22 PM
...
A point which I noticed while reading the press report was that Vincent Tabak was charged with failing to surrender himself, can anyone elaborate on this?
He was not CHARGED with failing to surrender HIMSELF: his bail was opposed on the grounds of "failing to surrender, and interfering with the course of justice". This was reported only in the Daily Star newspaper.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/173666/Joanna-Yeates-suspect-has-a-clean-rap-sheet

I assume it means: "failing to call the emergency services as soon as Joanna was injured and dead, and dumping the body somewhere where no one expected to find her."
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: [...] on April 13, 2017, 09:05:00 AM
He was not CHARGED with failing to surrender HIMSELF: his bail was opposed on the grounds of "failing to surrender, and interfering with the course of justice". This was reported only in the Daily Star newspaper.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/173666/Joanna-Yeates-suspect-has-a-clean-rap-sheet

I assume it means: "failing to call the emergency services as soon as Joanna was injured and dead, and dumping the body somewhere where no one expected to find her."

Quote
“The grounds for applying for a remand in custody are failing to surrender and interfering with the course of justice.’’


The grounds are ridiculous:...

(1): Failing to surrender relates to someone who is already on bail.....

Quote
Failure to Surrender Law and Legal Definition. Failure to surrender is a crime where a person who has been released on bail as part of criminal proceedings fails without reasonable cause to surrender to custody.


(2):Interfering with the course of Justice... 

How does that apply...  It can only be proven at trial that he may or may not have interfered with the course of Justice...

As interferring with the course of Justice was never a charge, how can it interfer with bail conditions???



Quote
Section 114 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 amends Schedule 1 to the Bail Act 1976. Section 114(2) provides that bail may not be granted to someone charged with murder unless the court is satisfied that there is no significant risk that, if released on bail, that person would commit an offence that would be likely to cause physical or mental injury to another person. In coming to that decision, the court must have regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence, the suspect's character and antecedents and his record in relation to previous grants of bail.


Dr Vincent Tabak was of Good Chatacter which the CPS will testify to.... he was not a risk or danger, therefore he SHOULD have been granted BAIL!!!!


He wasn't a flight risk as he would never have returned from Holland when he had been there over christmas...


Why didn't the defence make an application for bail there and then???



http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/bail/#a07

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/173666/Joanna-Yeates-suspect-has-a-clean-rap-sheet
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: [...] on April 13, 2017, 09:13:59 AM
The main problem with The BAIL....  It was never applied for !!!!

Cook says he won't be applying for bail..... WHY????  No reason!!!
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: mrswah on April 13, 2017, 10:00:26 AM
I am sure everyone who reads this thread already knows why I think Vincent Tabak is innocent, but just to "sum up"

Lack of forensic evidence found in VT's flat, in Jo's flat, and on VT's clothes. Of course, there might have been some, but if there had been, I'm sure the prosecution team would not have relied on low copy DNA.

The odd way in which VT suddenly decided to plead guilty, after being on remand for several weeks

The silence afterwards. The tabloids have been very quiet about how VT is faring in prison, whether Tanja and Greg have found new love interests, reports on what sort of bloke VT is, etc etc. All unedifying, I know, but I dont  expect this kind of silence from the tabloids. Do you???? No one has written a book on the case.
The odd business re the fire and rescue service, and the fact it was hushed up.
VT'S unbelievable story in court.
The prison service's failure to tell me where VT is being held. More on this when I get back from holiday, but they tell me they have made contact with the prison, and no response whatsoever. They are NOT telling me that anyone has mentioned my request to VT, or that he does not want to be in contact with me. Frankly, I doubt whether anyone  has even asked him!

I have been reading all your replies with interest, by the way!!! Oh, and I think Leonora 's time line is brilliant!

More at the weekend!
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: AerialHunter on April 13, 2017, 06:30:05 PM
Having spent more time reading round, some points have raised more questions than others. First, the observation that bail was not applied for, that decision had to lie with Tabak, not with his defence lawyer. Second, the less than favourable opening statement did nothing to point towards Tabak's presumed innocence. Third the strange plea of manslaughter, an admission of guilt, enough to keep you out of the realms of IDOM but enough to ensure you are the one sent down for the killing. Fourth, the blubbing phone call to the police, pointing the finger at Tabak, presumably from Morson who would be the only one with information on Tabak's movements. Why blub, most women would be apoplectic with rage if the thought their own boyfriend had just murdered the pretty young girl next door. Fifth, Morson elects to do a bunk and disappears off abroad supposedly to escape media attention, didn't hang round long did she? Last, Tabak is a big, really big, very powerful bloke, if he had dished out a beating to a girl like Yeates she would be virtually unrecognisable, but the 43 injuries were almost unnoticed initially. You do not get 43 injuries at the same time without something occurring, who did she get in a fight with?

Both Morson and Yeates kept cats, as territorial a beast as you will find, and prone to fighting over nothing. Cat lovers will side with their own as if they were children, defending the corner, quite literally.

Why did Tabak set himself up to take the rap? Who did he want to protect? Would the police and courts aggressively continue an investigation once they realised they had an admission and a defence team almost determined to earn a conviction for their client? From the moment events took this turn they were beached. Bright lad Tabak, way, way smarter than any copper, and unlikely to take advice from any two bit drongo solicitor. Moving prisons to Holland is a smart move if he can pull it off, far more lenient in their approach to punishment vs rehabilitation are the Dutch.

Just thinking out loud again!

AH
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Leonora on April 13, 2017, 08:23:15 PM
...
Fourth, the blubbing phone call to the police, pointing the finger at Tabak, presumably from Morson who would be the only one with information on Tabak's movements. Why blub, most women would be apoplectic with rage if the thought their own boyfriend had just murdered the pretty young girl next door. Fifth, Morson elects to do a bunk and disappears off abroad supposedly to escape media attention, didn't hang round long did she?
...
Although not wishing to be a spoilsport, I would like to point out that both Tanja Morson's father and Vincent Tabak's family publicly insisted that Tanja was not the crying girl, very quickly after the reports appeared. As this anonymous caller wasn't mentioned at all by the numerous witnesses who subsequently testified in court to the events leading to the arrest of Vincent Tabak, I am confident that the crying girl was invented as part of a subterfuge intended to deceive the duty solicitor, whom you colourfully (but unfairly, I feel) characterise as a "two bit drongo solicitor".

Although her father was willing to talk to the press, Tanja avoided them almost completely. It was claimed that she had gone abroad, but we really cannot know for sure if that was true or not.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: mrswah on April 13, 2017, 08:36:03 PM
Yes, VT  is a very big bloke with big hands. What a co incidence that he should be arrested after  people had pointed out that CJ couldn't have done it because he wasn't big or strong enough!!
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: mrswah on April 14, 2017, 06:37:38 AM
Not sure Tanja ever had a cat, did she?

She didn't go abroad until the trial, as far as we were told. Afterwards, she changed jobs, but she is still working in the area,,I believe.  Greg still lives and works  in Bristol.  They manage to avoid all media interest, as far as I can see. Odd!!!!!

By the way, Ariel Hunter, what is IDOM? ??
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: AerialHunter on April 14, 2017, 03:34:35 PM
Not sure about the cat either, but I meant for it to illustrate how discord between neighbours can be entirely disproportionate.

IDOM is the court's final riposte. It stands for "In Denial Of Murder". Essentially if you are convicted of a murder there is no prospect of leaving prison unless you confess you having carried out the act. Think of it as a ducking stool. Once you are accused and found guilty into the depths you go. Confess and you live. Nice hey!
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Leonora on April 15, 2017, 10:23:28 AM
... Essentially if you are convicted of a murder there is no prospect of leaving prison unless you confess you having carried out the act. Think of it as a ducking stool. Once you are accused and found guilty into the depths you go. Confess and you live. Nice hey!
That is very neat. I had never thought of that before. We are always hearing about the bad old days, when suspected witches were tied up and thrown into a pond. If she floated, it proved she was guilty, so she was pulled out and burnt. If she sank, it proved that she was not a witch, but she drowned anyway. "How barbaric!" we exclaim. Yet there is something of the "Sophie's Choice" about offering a long-term prisoner the alternatives of showing remorse and being let out on licence, or maintaing their innocence and staying inside. IMO the modern state should not behave like a capricious, vengeful Old Testament God.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Leonora on April 15, 2017, 11:15:19 AM
... many people on jury service have never been in a commanding position over other people's lives and use their only opportunity to display their sudden authority and go for a guilty verdict irrespective of the evidence. Often the people on juries with this attitude cause other jurors to withdraw ... they prevent the jury from making their findings public. Then they come up with lots of obstructive rules to prevent the wrongly convicted from helping themselves and obstruct decent people like us from trying to establish the real truth.
That is a very interesting observation on human nature. I wonder if you have served on a jury? I haven't, but I know two friends who have done so. Both of these considered that, on the whole, their jury functioned reasonably well.

On the other hand, it is obvious that, although most people do not wish to be seen as "controlling" or "manipulative" in their relations to other people, they invariably vote quite irresponsibly for politicians with these characteristics, whose job it is to prevent the rich from enjoying their wealth, or punish the unemployed for being lazy, or marginalise the wearers of turbans or burkhas.

I am reliably informed that a crown court is a terrifying place to be - and not just for the defendant! Don't you think that the average juror takes their awesome responsibilities much more seriously than the average voter? Despite my scepticism about this case, I sympathise with jurors over the predicament that the manipulative lawyers and the judge put them into. They deliberated for 12 hours, and I understand why they returned the verdict they did.

Nevertheless, I am interested that you would like juries to be allowed to defend their decisions in public. It sounds more transparent to me. But it wouldn't work in this case, unfortunately, unless a former juror just happened to come across this forum, as none of the TV documentaries nor even the Leveson Inquiry gave the public the merest hint that there has been a huge cover-up.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: [...] on April 15, 2017, 12:58:24 PM
That is a very interesting observation on human nature. I wonder if you have served on a jury? I haven't, but I know two friends who have done so. Both of these considered that, on the whole, their jury functioned reasonably well.

On the other hand, it is obvious that, although most people do not wish to be seen as "controlling" or "manipulative" in their relations to other people, they invariably vote quite irresponsibly for politicians with these characteristics, whose job it is to prevent the rich from enjoying their wealth, or punish the unemployed for being lazy, or marginalise the wearers of turbans or burkhas.

I am reliably informed that a crown court is a terrifying place to be - and not just for the defendant! Don't you think that the average juror takes their awesome responsibilities much more seriously than the average voter? Despite my scepticism about this case, I sympathise with jurors over the predicament that the manipulative lawyers and the judge put them into. They deliberated for 12 hours, and I understand why they returned the verdict they did.

Nevertheless, I am interested that you would like juries to be allowed to defend their decisions in public. It sounds more transparent to me. But it wouldn't work in this case, unfortunately, unless a former juror just happened to come across this forum, as none of the TV documentaries nor even the Leveson Inquiry gave the public the merest hint that there has been a huge cover-up.

Leonora.. Your post has inspired me to start a new thread,... just waiting for approval....
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: John on April 16, 2017, 09:02:46 PM
The main problem with The BAIL....  It was never applied for !!!!

Cook says he won't be applying for bail..... WHY????  No reason!!!

A foreigner on a potential murder charge will almost never get bail.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Leonora on April 17, 2017, 08:02:09 AM
A foreigner on a potential murder charge will almost never get bail.
I didn't know that. I thought that equality before the law was the cornerstone of English law, going back to 1688.

Vincent Tabak was head-hunted by his employer, Buro Happold, because of his specialist expertise. He entered the UK of his own free will, unlike Christopher Jefferies, who was born in the UK and has British nationality. In that case, Vincent Tabak, and anyone else of good character who is head-hunted to the UK, or any other country, by Buro Happold or any other global concern, should insist on a clause guaranteeing them legal representation and public endorsement of good character, in the event of their being charged with unmotivated murder, rape, possession of illegal images or drugs, or inappropriate behaviour towards a child.

When intending to travel to Avon & Somerset, or any other part of the UK, or any foreign country, to take a job, enrol at an institution of higher education, visit friends or family, or just to admire the antiquities and scenery, it would be prudent to obtain a guarantee of safe passage from the police or the immigration authorities, to guard against incurring a fate similar to those of e.g. Christopher Jefferies, Vincent Tabak, Amanda Knox and Malthe Thomsen.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: AerialHunter on April 17, 2017, 10:38:28 AM
A foreigner on a potential murder charge will almost never get bail.

John, You make a most valuable point here, I was not aware of this at all.

AH
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: mrswah on April 17, 2017, 03:50:01 PM
A foreigner on a potential murder charge will almost never get bail.


Presumably in case they abscond???

I can't imagine very many British people on a potential murder charge would get bail either----am I right or wrong???
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: AerialHunter on May 04, 2017, 02:56:21 PM
As an aside, most military personnel involved with frontline duties all undergo resistance to interrogation training, or R2I using the lingo. The more advanced training uses interview / interrogation techniques that almost everyone that has been through it all says it convinces you that the situation they put you in becomes real, and more importantly you start to remember things that never happened and then start to admit to them. Quite clever. Other cases have involved specialist interviewers which people have reported that they could make you believe anything. Then they teach you how to deal with this psycho stuff and develop individual coping mechanisms tailored to each person. These boys (and girls) are really good at this, they know how to create false memories and get you to talk about them. Few subjects find themselves able to resist totally even though they are prepared to undertake the training and are expecting all of this AND they are hardcore military blokes, most with years of experience and have done the early R2I courses.

It is worth bearing in mind Ian Huntley, who has never admitted to murder, but went through the same processes as Tabak and was also given drugs to help him remember!!

I would be interested to know if the same teams were brought in to work on Tabak because somewhere, someone has mentioned that the parochial Somerset & Avon Constabulary went to the wider resources available to them. Was that the psycho team???

Just a thought!!

AH
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Leonora on May 04, 2017, 04:57:07 PM
As an aside, most military personnel involved with frontline duties all undergo resistance to interrogation training, or R2I using the lingo...
I would be interested to know if the same teams were brought in to work on Tabak because somewhere, someone has mentioned that the parochial Somerset & Avon Constabulary went to the wider resources available to them. Was that the psycho team???
...
Nice try AH! I am certainly open to suggestions of false memory syndrome in this case. However, it doesn't explain the anomalous behaviour of William Clegg QC, who has successfully defended soldiers on trial in Northern Ireland and Ruandan and Jugoslavian clients accused of war crimes. If Vincent Tabak had been subjected to these kinds of techniques, Mr Clegg's CV would have made him one of the best lawyers to defend him. Yet he followed what must have been the worst defence strategy of his career - and his client went along with it. Why?
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: AerialHunter on May 04, 2017, 05:25:58 PM
Nice try AH! I am certainly open to suggestions of false memory syndrome in this case. However, it doesn't explain the anomalous behaviour of William Clegg QC, who has successfully defended soldiers on trial in Northern Ireland and Ruandan and Jugoslavian clients accused of war crimes. If Vincent Tabak had been subjected to these kinds of techniques, Mr Clegg's CV would have made him one of the best lawyers to defend him. Yet he followed what must have been the worst defence strategy of his career - and his client went along with it. Why?

That is a very good point, and I can't figure out why that pea brained, useless QC ever came out with such a mind numbingly stupid statement such as that. I am completely with you on this, and my investigation is quite weakened by your argument, so much so that we've put things on hold whilst we look at something unrelated.

UNLESS, that is, Tabak had told him the real truth and instructed him to make it look like he was the guilty party instead, in which case Clegg had no choice but to act within his clients wishes. That suggests either Tabak was convinced he had carried out the attack and wanted to see if he could get away with a manslaughter charge by admitting to it early OR Tabak was the one driving the chariot and ordering Clegg to make sure the identity of the real perpetrator never came anywhere near the surface. Somebody murdered Yeates, and that person was able to overpower her but didn't have the strength to do any real damage, 43 almost unnoticeable injuries weren't inflicted by an adult male on a girl that size and weight and that number takes time. I think a fight broke out with Yeates and someone who had lost it after a few too many drinks, that person was bigger than Yeates and stronger and probably had her pinned down by getting on top of her. What was the argument over? Pizza for two? Very cosy?
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Leonora on May 04, 2017, 09:13:58 PM
... Somebody murdered Yeates, and that person was able to overpower her but didn't have the strength to do any real damage, 43 almost unnoticeable injuries weren't inflicted by an adult male on a girl that size and weight and that number takes time. I think a fight broke out with Yeates and someone who had lost it after a few too many drinks, that person was bigger than Yeates and stronger and probably had her pinned down by getting on top of her. What was the argument over? Pizza for two? Very cosy?
This scenario is personal. You are now suggesting that she may have been murdered because she was Joanna, rather than because she was an attractive petite blonde. By linking her death to the unsolved killings of a long succession of other young women, your previous posts have lined up with the arguments put to the jury at the trial of Vincent Tabak, who was represented as a predator whose victim just happened to come on to his radar.

Some of the 43 injuries could have been inflicted during the recovery of her body, but the evidence of a fight is almost inescapable. The absence of sexual assault and the amount of damage inflicted before death opens up the possiblity that her assailant could have been a woman - perhaps a hand-ball player with strong hands. Whoever heard of a female serial killer? Whoever killed for a pizza?

DCI Phil Jones always ruled out a crime of passion, but he was obviously seriously lacking in imagination. If he had studied the CCTV clips of her from the three shops, he would have been struck by Joanna's feminine self-confidence. This comes over far better in the videos than in the rather anodyne official photos of her. Joanna was left-handed (unless the Tesco CCTV is back-to-front) - further evidence that she could twist a man round her little finger.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: AerialHunter on May 04, 2017, 09:43:55 PM
This scenario is personal. You are now suggesting that she may have been murdered because she was Joanna, rather than because she was an attractive petite blonde. By linking her death to the unsolved killings of a long succession of other young women, your previous posts have lined up with the arguments put to the jury at the trial of Vincent Tabak, who was represented as a predator whose victim just happened to come on to his radar.

Some of the 43 injuries could have been inflicted during the recovery of her body, but the evidence of a fight is almost inescapable. The absence of sexual assault and the amount of damage inflicted before death opens up the possiblity that her assailant could have been a woman - perhaps a hand-ball player with strong hands. Whoever heard of a female serial killer? Whoever killed for a pizza?

DCI Phil Jones always ruled out a crime of passion, but he was obviously seriously lacking in imagination. If he had studied the CCTV clips of her from the three shops, he would have been struck by Joanna's feminine self-confidence. This comes over far better in the videos than in the rather anodyne official photos of her. Joanna was left-handed (unless the Tesco CCTV is back-to-front) - further evidence that she could twist a man round her little finger.

I don't want to become transfixed on one line of investigation, narrow vision is the key element of policing failure. Visting options then rejecting them in the light of reasoned argument got us where we are today, I'm not afraid of being told I'm wrong (again). Bouncing ideas around sometimes just fills in a gap. There is a very detailed website on this case which has lots of ideas and points out many suspect areas in the investigation, but is quite in error at different points. It does, however act as a resource for people like us to read and reassess, which at this early stage (for us) gives something to work with. None of us want to detract from the efforts gone in here, but we are following another inquiry line and we don't want to appear unreasonable, we just hope to apply the same logic processes we used elsewhere. I know my comments look too personal but if you try to account for all of the oddities it seems to me like Tabak took the rap, and was trying to protect someone. Who exactly is open to speculation but you can rule out a bloke if the injuries to Yeates are anything to go by.

AH
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: [...] on May 05, 2017, 08:42:18 AM
I don't want to become transfixed on one line of investigation, narrow vision is the key element of policing failure. Visting options then rejecting them in the light of reasoned argument got us where we are today, I'm not afraid of being told I'm wrong (again). Bouncing ideas around sometimes just fills in a gap. There is a very detailed website on this case which has lots of ideas and points out many suspect areas in the investigation, but is quite in error at different points. It does, however act as a resource for people like us to read and reassess, which at this early stage (for us) gives something to work with. None of us want to detract from the efforts gone in here, but we are following another inquiry line and we don't want to appear unreasonable, we just hope to apply the same logic processes we used elsewhere. I know my comments look too personal but if you try to account for all of the oddities it seems to me like Tabak took the rap, and was trying to protect someone. Who exactly is open to speculation but you can rule out a bloke if the injuries to Yeates are anything to go by.

AH

Could you point us in the way of this very detailed website on the case ..AH ??
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Leonora on May 05, 2017, 09:14:46 AM
I don't want to become transfixed on one line of investigation, narrow vision is the key element of policing failure. Visting options then rejecting them in the light of reasoned argument got us where we are today, I'm not afraid of being told I'm wrong (again). Bouncing ideas around sometimes just fills in a gap...
My post wasn't intended as negative but it may have come out that way. When I used the word "personal", I meant "personal to Joanna Yeates". I was trying to distinguish between the kind of scenario where the choice of victim is the result of who they are and what they may or may not have done, and the kind of (sociopath) scenario where the choice of victim is determined by WHAT they are, e.g., petite blonde. I am constantly being surprised by suggestions for possible lines of inquiry that had never occurred to me before.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: AerialHunter on May 05, 2017, 11:08:31 PM
My post wasn't intended as negative but it may have come out that way. When I used the word "personal", I meant "personal to Joanna Yeates". I was trying to distinguish between the kind of scenario where the choice of victim is the result of who they are and what they may or may not have done, and the kind of (sociopath) scenario where the choice of victim is determined by WHAT they are, e.g., petite blonde. I am constantly being surprised by suggestions for possible lines of inquiry that had never occurred to me before.

Ok no worries.  We have a bunch of possible lines to look at now. As is quite normal for us we just end up closing off certain lines of inquiry and then have a look at what's left. If our suspect was responsible then you have to think on another level. Yeates would have been an irrelevance, a simple means to an end, the target was associated with her and the intention was to get the police to target them. The first thing we are going to look at is CJ as he is the only real constant. Might take some time as we only have so much time to spend and we are already quite thinly spread.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: [...] on May 05, 2017, 11:54:52 PM
Ok no worries.  We have a bunch of possible lines to look at now. As is quite normal for us we just end up closing off certain lines of inquiry and then have a look at what's left. If our suspect was responsible then you have to think on another level. Yeates would have been an irrelevance, a simple means to an end, the target was associated with her and the intention was to get the police to target them. The first thing we are going to look at is CJ as he is the only real constant. Might take some time as we only have so much time to spend and we are already quite thinly spread.

If I entertain what your suggesting.... why do you think someone was targeting someone else??

Why would Joanna Yeates have got in the way?? or been a target?? Tanja's just as likely to have been a target as she had lived there longer...

Is it the Flat... being number 1... and it's history??

Or is it simply like I have always believed someone close to Joanna yeates who was either annoyed with her or it was an accident??


Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: AerialHunter on May 07, 2017, 05:23:14 PM
If I entertain what your suggesting.... why do you think someone was targeting someone else??

Why would Joanna Yeates have got in the way?? or been a target?? Tanja's just as likely to have been a target as she had lived there longer...

Is it the Flat... being number 1... and it's history??

Or is it simply like I have always believed someone close to Joanna yeates who was either annoyed with her or it was an accident??

What we believe is that out suspect has attacked a large number of women and has attempted to use planted evidence to incriminate his true target. He has been observed on a number of occasions in the near vicinity of his intended target(s) and is unlikely to desist from further attacks in the future.

Our train of thought at this moment is a sort of multi level arrangement, the top level being ideas (that's all they are at the moment) that might provoke a retaliatory strike. The next level down is really the chance of a random attack just because he's seen Yeates walking alone in the dark, his most popular mode of attack.

For what it's worth we are looking to find out if CJ fired our suspects wife from her job as an English teacher when she fell pregnant, a long shot in the dark but something we wish to eliminate. If we are right then it gets flagged up as a potential, not a definite. We think our suspect is very much one to bear a grudge forever and a day and will strike years later. Once having stalked his prey for a while and collected sufficient material to plant in areas he knows the police will look then he strikes. He is not really an opportunist but a detailed planner. His escape route is always his first priority after his choice of target. He then takes out a vulnerable lone female and either rapes and tortures them before releasing them in a very controlled fashion or smashes both sides of their skulls with a blunt instrument and uses either fire or running water (rivers etc) to help cover his tracks. He always operates in areas he knows well, Clifton being one of them.

I could go on but there is little point at this stage. We have six specific lines of inquiry to follow up on, that often throws up something we hadn't even considered so it tends to mushroom before we review and eliminate.We are not sure why the police are avoiding speaking to us directly, probably to avoid giving us any form of recognition or just to cover their own irrevocable mistakes. Either way we will come up with something or nothing.

As it happens, one of our number has suggested that if Yeates had returned home and encountered Tabak she might have ended up in his flat leaving evidence of her presence unintentionally. After Morson returned, she, being a she, wasn't going to miss this and may have confronted Yeates at a later point, leading to the untimely demise of the relatively diminutive Yeates. That goes some way to explaining the half drunk bottle of cider and the missing pizza and the fact that all Yeates gear was back in her flat. Was Tabak prepared to cover up an attack perpetrated by Morson?? Who's to know??

We hadn't considered the thought that there may be a historic attachment to the flats in Canynge Road, but we are already thwarted in our attempts to check as the central library in Bristol (uniquely) restrict access to the register of electors on their shelves. If we can fund a court order to force them to grant us access then we can move forward on that one.

All for now.

AH
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Leonora on May 10, 2017, 12:05:35 PM
What we believe is that out suspect has attacked a large number of women and has attempted to use planted evidence to incriminate his true target. He has been observed on a number of occasions in the near vicinity of his intended target(s) and is unlikely to desist from further attacks in the future.

Our train of thought at this moment is a sort of multi level arrangement, the top level being ideas (that's all they are at the moment) that might provoke a retaliatory strike. The next level down is really the chance of a random attack just because he's seen Yeates walking alone in the dark, his most popular mode of attack.

For what it's worth we are looking to find out if CJ fired our suspects wife from her job as an English teacher when she fell pregnant, a long shot in the dark but something we wish to eliminate...
Vincent Tabak didn't rape Joanna Yeates, and we have always been told that he didn't know her either. Until recently, I had always believed that she was assailed by someone who knew her very well, and who was being shielded by the police.

However, the recovery of her body from Longwood Lane tips the balance of probability towards the likelihood of her having been the victim of a serial killer. The fire & rescue officer wearing a harness (just revealed by "Index") and all the other pumping paraphernalia suggests that the perpetrator himself may have tipped the police off about where to find her, since it is hard to go on believing their official line that her body was discovered by dog walkers, dumped beside the Lane itself.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: [...] on May 10, 2017, 03:49:35 PM
Vincent Tabak didn't rape Joanna Yeates, and we have always been told that he didn't know her either. Until recently, I had always believed that she was assailed by someone who knew her very well, and who was being shielded by the police.

However, the recovery of her body from Longwood Lane tips the balance of probability towards the likelihood of her having been the victim of a serial killer. The fire & rescue officer wearing a harness (just revealed by "NINE") and all the other pumping paraphernalia suggests that the perpetrator himself may have tipped the police off about where to find her, since it is hard to go on believing their official line that her body was discovered by dog walkers, dumped beside the Lane itself.

I've never been convinced of the location... It's too visible...   I still don't understand why her parents thought she had been abducted...

If someone is going to be Abducted the perterator is hardly likely to take a Pizza and make sure the door is locked behind them.....

But her mum believed this... so much so she was banging on cars up and down the road!!!!

And on saying that her mum would have been aware the door was locked and the pizza was missing at this time... (IMO)
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: mrswah on May 10, 2017, 04:14:35 PM
Vincent Tabak didn't rape Joanna Yeates, and we have always been told that he didn't know her either. Until recently, I had always believed that she was assailed by someone who knew her very well, and who was being shielded by the police.

However, the recovery of her body from Longwood Lane tips the balance of probability towards the likelihood of her having been the victim of a serial killer. The fire & rescue officer wearing a harness (just revealed by "Index") and all the other pumping paraphernalia suggests that the perpetrator himself may have tipped the police off about where to find her, since it is hard to go on believing their official line that her body was discovered by dog walkers, dumped beside the Lane itself.

Nobody is very clear about where Joanna's body was found, and nobody appears to know why all that fire and rescue equipment was needed. However, I am inclined to believe the dog walkers must have discovered the body, as no ordinary member of the public is going to agree to lie in court.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Leonora on May 10, 2017, 04:48:36 PM
Nobody is very clear about where Joanna's body was found, and nobody appears to know why all that fire and rescue equipment was needed. However, I am inclined to believe the dog walkers must have discovered the body, as no ordinary member of the public is going to agree to lie in court.
Neither of the dog walkers testified in person. A statement by Daniel Birch, describing how they found Joanna Yeates's body, was read out in court. Nor were the Birches or even their chocolate labrador dog Roxy ever seen, let alone interviewed/patted, by any of the press. Nor was anything in Mr Birch's imprecise statement incompatible with their having been groomed by the police to walk Roxy along a particular route in the vicinity of Longwood Lane which took them past a body in a position that was totally invisible to the uninitiated - a position that needed a man with a climbing harness to get within recovery distance.

I am not saying that the dog walker Daniel Birch lied, even in his statement. Nor am I saying that he is the innocent dog-owning witness that we have been told. He may well have a whole string of unpaid parking fines on his conscience, which the police offered to overlook in return for this little favour. Who is to say whether he or his wife isn't a prison officer? Do you know for certain that he isn't Detective Superintendant Daniel Birch? - or Customs & Excise Officer Daniel Birch, handler of Bristol Airport's champion sniffer dog Roxy?
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: [...] on May 10, 2017, 05:36:41 PM
Neither of the dog walkers testified in person. A statement by Daniel Birch, describing how they found Joanna Yeates's body, was read out in court. Nor were the Birches or even their chocolate labrador dog Roxy ever seen, let alone interviewed/patted, by any of the press. Nor was anything in Mr Birch's imprecise statement incompatible with their having been groomed by the police to walk Roxy along a particular route in the vicinity of Longwood Lane which took them past a body in a position that was totally invisible to the uninitiated - a position that needed a man with a climbing harness to get within recovery distance.

I am not saying that the dog walker Daniel Birch lied, even in his statement. Nor am I saying that he is the innocent dog-owning witness that we have been told. He may well have a whole string of unpaid parking fines on his conscience, which the police offered to overlook in return for this little favour. Who is to say whether he or his wife isn't a prison officer? Do you know for certain that he isn't Detective Superintendant Daniel Birch? - or Customs & Excise Officer Daniel Birch, handler of Bristol Airport's champion sniffer dog Roxy?

It sends me a bit sideways this dog business leonora.... I remember the original reports that they were walking their dogs.... Plural... So why did it end up being just one dog!!!

Quote
Joanna Yeates's snow-covered body was found on Christmas morning by a couple walking their dogs in Longwood Lane in Failand, North Somerset.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jan/18/joanna-yeates-find-killer

And why would they not appear in court????

The people who "Witnessed"...  the location her body was in should have been in court... Not send the court an "Excuse Me Sir Letter "!!!....

 

Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Leonora on May 10, 2017, 07:15:53 PM
It sends me a bit sideways this dog business leonora.... I remember the original reports that they were walking their dogs.... Plural... So why did it end up being just one dog!!!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jan/18/joanna-yeates-find-killer

And why would they not appear in court????

The people who "Witnessed"...  the location her body was in should have been in court... Not send the court an "Excuse Me Sir Letter "!!!....
Chief Superintendant Jon Stratford gave a TV interview from Longwood Lane before the pathologist and the fire brigade had arrived. He spoke the word "dogs", probably because no one had told him that the Birches only had one dog, but he knew there were two dog walkers so he may have been playing safe. I don't think you should hold it against him, nor blame some of the subsequent reports for following his lead.

Even if the Birches had appeared in court, it could hardly have helped the jury decide whether the crime was manslaughter or murder, could it? They decided that on the basis of the 43 injuries plus the signs of a struggle that Vincent couldn't account for. Not to mention Nigel Lickley QC describing Vincent Tabak as if he were Saddam Hussein and addressing him as if he admitted to fatally gassing a whole lot of women and children by accident.

Most of the witnesses who appeared in court were experts who were paid a fee or a salary. Only a small proportion of the private persons whose testimony was heard appeared in person. I imagine that the press would very much like to have photos of the Birches and Roxy, and that is why they were never called to appear in court in person. If they had done, Mr Clegg would have felt obliged to cross-examine them, and then the cat would have been out of the bag, wouldn't you think?
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: [...] on May 10, 2017, 07:36:00 PM
Chief Superintendant Jon Stratford gave a TV interview from Longwood Lane before the pathologist and the fire brigade had arrived. He spoke the word "dogs", probably because no one had told him that the Birches only had one dog, but he knew there were two dog walkers so he may have been playing safe. I don't think you should hold it against him, nor blame some of the subsequent reports for following his lead.

Even if the Birches had appeared in court, it could hardly have helped the jury decide whether the crime was manslaughter or murder, could it? They decided that on the basis of the 43 injuries plus the signs of a struggle that Vincent couldn't account for. Not to mention Nigel Lickley QC describing Vincent Tabak as if he were Saddam Hussein and addressing him as if he admitted to fatally gassing a whole lot of women and children by accident.

Most of the witnesses who appeared in court were experts who were paid a fee or a salary. Only a small proportion of the private persons whose testimony was heard appeared in person. I imagine that the press would very much like to have photos of the Birches and Roxy, and that is why they were never called to appear in court in person. If they had done, Mr Clegg would have felt obliged to cross-examine them, and then the cat would have been out of the bag, wouldn't you think?


Did the Birch's drive to Longwood Lane ??? I believe they lived in the BS7 or BS6 postcode area ....

Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Leonora on May 10, 2017, 07:41:52 PM

Did the Birch's drive to Longwood Lane ??? I believe they lived in the BS7 or BS6 postcode area ....
Christmas day 2010 was bright and sunny. Mr Daniel Birch and his wife Rebecca had opened their presents and then set off to walk their chocolate Labrador dog Roxy shortly before 9.00 a.m. They parked their Mini One car near Longwood Lane, Failand, North Somerset. Mr Birch said that after they had walked about 100 metres he had seen a “lump” in the snow, and had carried on walking, but his “mind was saying ‘that was a body back there’”. He said to his wife, “That was a body”, handed the lead to her, went back, and saw the shape of a body in the snow, and saw a jeans pocket, the waistband of underwear, and skin, and then he phoned the police. The dead woman was lying on her right side, with her knees pointing towards a quarry wall. Her right arm was bent around her head while her left was resting straight across her body.

Mr. Birch remembered the top of her white knickers and part of her bare back being exposed through the snow. Mr. Birch’s wife had joined him before he had called the police.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: mrswah on May 10, 2017, 10:57:27 PM
I have no idea who the Birches might be, and Leonora's suggestions, although a little too far fetched for me, are possible, I suppose.

Somebody on one of the forums (don't remember which one) claimed that it was their friend who found the body.

Now, how have the Birches managed to escape press attention?  How have Tanja and Greg managed to escape it?  I am always wondering that. It is one of the weird aspects of this case.

Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: [...] on May 10, 2017, 11:33:24 PM
I have no idea who the Birches might be, and Leonora's suggestions, although a little too far fetched for me, are possible, I suppose.

Somebody on one of the forums (don't remember which one) claimed that it was their friend who found the body.

Now, how have the Birches managed to escape press attention?  How have Tanja and Greg managed to escape it?  I am always wondering that. It is one of the weird aspects of this case.


I saw someone on facebook who said it was a friend who saw the body... I'll have to look see if i screen shot the post.... might take me a while to find ....
Talking of them all escaping the media attention I have idea how that has been achieved....

Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: AerialHunter on May 15, 2017, 03:48:15 PM
The Birches are still on record as living in Long Ashton, right next to Failand, so they do actually exist.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: mrswah on May 15, 2017, 05:08:22 PM
The Birches are still on record as living in Long Ashton, right next to Failand, so they do actually exist.

So, is it worth me trying to get in touch with them too?  I can't believe, for a moment, that they would tell me anything, but if it helps, I will.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: AerialHunter on May 15, 2017, 05:25:33 PM
I'd doubt if there is much to be gained. If they were part of a cover-up they are very unlikely to change their story in any case. They may be willing to point to the very spot the body was found though.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: [...] on August 11, 2017, 02:53:20 PM
I'd doubt if there is much to be gained. If they were part of a cover-up they are very unlikely to change their story in any case. They may be willing to point to the very spot the body was found though.

I have found so many things that point to a cover up, that they clearly should not be ignored.. The photographic evidence in itself, shows that someone in charge had tampered with the "Crime Scene"....  (IMO) Where painting of the Kitchen Window Sill Tiles can clearly be seen to have been done after a "Murder Was Committed    http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg418939#msg418939

The images taken of Dr Vincent Tabak's door in December 2010 allure to the fact that the Police had him in their sights as a suspect.. But continued to interview him as a witness.. not giving him his basic rights to be cautioned.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg418537#msg418537.

The removal of evidence without Proper Protocol being adhered too, by unknown random workmen, from random companies.. using their own teeth to rip gaffer tape and wiping their noses on the plastic gloves, which are worn to prevent cross contamination.. clearly indicates to me that The Police believe that Joanna Yeates did not reach home...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg418543#msg418543

The constant Investigation surrounding that building, before any other leads were established makes me believe that the POLICE already had someone in mind for this "Murder".. And had decided that someone in 44,canygne Road had a connection to this person....

You have to rationalise how the Police jumped straight into a "Complex Crime"...  after the reporting of a "Missing Person".... With so many high ranking Officers being involved in this case in one capacity or another...

All of these "OFFICERS" that were making public statements or being visible at Crime Scenes for the Real Killer to see.. that they were all working feverishly to capture them...

From day one we had DC Mark Saunders of the cold case unit heading the first "Press Conference" about Joanna Yeates whereabouts...

We have Ann Reddrop Head of The Complex Crime Unit.. Seeing Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction through to the bitter end.. when Dr Vincent Tabak's case was NO COMPLEX CRIME!!!!

They were busy trying to connect the dots of other unsolved murders and Cold Cases, with Dr Vincent Tabak... but they just wouldn't fit.... His age for starters make him a non runner... But they may have seen him as an accomplice... But that would mean that he joined in at a later date as these "Murders" and Missing woman has been going on for decades...

I hardly think it is likely that a Serial Killer advertised for assistance... But the Police keep advertising to 'The Serial Killer" that they have him/her in their sights...

For Dr Vincent Tabak's statement to be believed, which was read out on court and he was on the witness stand explaining himself.. The Evidence should wholly support this... But i have difficulty in believing this signed statement as TRUE..... And everyone loves an admission of guilt.... makes their job easier.....

Colin Port puts paid to Dr Vincent Tabak's statement and appearance in court, that he killed Joanna Yeates in her flat... (IMO)..When at the Leveson Inquiry..  He states that the last sighting on CCTV of Joanna Yeates was at 'The HopHouse Pub"... And DC Mark Saunders has viewed CCTV footage on Canygne Road for the weekend of Friday 17th December 2010 and doesn't state that Joanna Yeates is seen in this CCTV footage, but sees many people and vehicle going about their business on Canygne Road at that time.... So... If this wonderful piece of CCTV footage had Joanna Yeates arriving home on 17th December 2010,.. It should and Could have been used at the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak... Also showing how he left Canygne Road to go to ASDA....
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8056.msg418878#msg418878


So if Joanna Yeates didn't reach home.. how could Dr Vincent Tabak kill her ??

The Police never persued the possibility that someone returned her belongings for what ever reason.... They let everyone know so much details of this case so early on that it seemed that we all were aware of what was 'Missing" and what had been left behind... Information that I believe should NOT have been made public as early as 22nd December 2010 the day after she was reported 'Missing"....

This has to be 'SOMETHING that The POLICE kept in reserve to IDENTIFY The KILLER... Something that no-one else but themselves and the Killer are aware of... Something that they should have used in court to say... Yes!! Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates because we have this evidence.... etc...That only her killer would know !!

Lets take the Earring In The Bed under the Duvet.. That was explained away in a ridiculous fashion (IMO)... If Joanna Yeates didn't reach home... then the earring had to be planted in her bed... And the other underneath clothing... If Dr Vincent Tabak had placed Joanna Yeates on or in her bed, he would not have been able to stop transfer... Yet... no forensic evidence supports that Dr Vincent Tabak was even in Joanna Yeates Flat... let alone her bedroom... 
And as far as Dr Vincent Tabaks Flat... There is No forensic evidence that Joanna Yeates was ever in his home either...

There has to be something in Joanna Yeates FLAT to indicate that "SOMEONE" in 44,Canygne Road committed this offence from the very start.... There was NO FORCED ENTRY... If that and that alone was there reason for harrassing the tenants of 44, Canygne Road it seems a poor reason (IMO)... The Police were in and out of the main entrance of Canygne Road on a daily basis...

What EVIDENCE did they have that it was SOMEONE in that building comitted this crime ???? They cannot just jump to the conclusion that she invited Dr Vincent Tabak in... OR CJ had keys.... When there are many other possibilities to investigate...

But they didn't Investigate other possibilities... They stuck fast and firm with that Building.... And right up until they arrested Dr Vincent Tabak there was nothing to indicate that he had even seen Joanna Yeates that evening.. let alone anything else...

But they persued that building to the bitter end until they got a result...

If nothing of Dr Vincent Tabak or any other tenant/owners was found in Joanna Yeates flat... how do you jump from them not knowing anything or her, to them being the KILLER???

I say this because, she is seen at a pub where someone could have easily followed her, could have known her routine for a Friday night... It could also have been someone she knew or had been in contact with.... But the Police dismiss these possibilities and plumb straight for the people in the building!!!

What was it other than her not being at home when Greg Reardon called the Police that made them respond so quickly to that address??

Was there something else in Joanna Yeates Flat that didn't belong to her ??? Something that made 'The Head of The Complex Crime Unit" sit up and all of The Investigating Officers of other high profiled cold cases take notice...

 They may fool the general public with your displays of Canygne Road and all your Photoshopped Pictures... But we are NOT ALL FOOLED... We are not all Gullible.... We will keep questioning why you put people away in prison for crimes they didn't commit... Until you make amends of the lives you too have ruined ...(IMO)..

I will say again... If Dr Vincent Tabak actually killed Joanna Yeates, then prove it..... Prove with all the CCTV footage and the mobile phone signals that he was in Longwood Lane on the 17th December 2010...

Prove how he managed to search the Internet at 1:46am and 1:47am on the 18th December 2010 when he wasn't at his home...

Prove how he managed to paint the Kitchen window Sill when it was a "Crime scene" and no-one other than the Police should have had access... that includes random workmen !!! (IMO) when he probably was already in custody when this event happened ... You can't have 2 images of a kitchen window sill partly painted and the fully painted in a Flat that was supposed to be a time capsule ...!!  but we have !!!

Prove by timings how long it took him to move a dead weight on his own.... Prove how difficult it is to move a dead weight ....

I never understood WHY you didn't have any real supporting evidence in court as to Dr Vincent Tabaks version of Events.... When he is telling you he is on a main road.... when he is in ASDA car Park ..Parking his car... Where is the CCTV of Dr Vincent Tabak Parking his Car in the ASDA carpark????

If Dr Vincent Tabak had a "Serial Killer "mentality" so as to be so cunning deceitful and have the ability to act normally through out this entire time.... Prosecution where was your psychological evaluation to support this fact were was the medical evidence to support the fact that Dr Vincent Tabak had the mindset of a killer ????

Because there is NO evidence in this case apart from a signed statement... Well people sign things all the time does it make it true...

Colin Port signed statement to The Leveson.. Claiming that The Hopwood House was the last known CCTV footage of Joanna Yeates...(I believe Colin Port wouldn't lie to the Leveson)... So on that note.. she cannot have reached her flat on the 17th December 2010, because we know that the Police have viewed the CCTV footage from Canygne Road and that CCTV is never brought to trial... (IMO).. showing what should be footage of Joanna Yeates arriving home on that evening!!!

So what is the truth about Joanna Yeates Murder??? Because everyone has gone along way in putting this Dutchman away, without evidence to support this... Even his defence didn't defend him ....(IMO)...

What makes everyone behave in such outrageous fashions that they can tamper with evidence (Kitchen Tiles).. etc..Mishandle Evidence...(Cross contamination).. Harass neighbours ...  Treat clients outrageously (Call them all the names under the sun and give the a Base metal defence )..... vilify said client in the newspapers all to make the general public believe this story.... And it is a story (IMO)... Lets have the truth and lets have Justice...

And Joanna Yeates deserves better to be honest... She deserves the truth... (IMO)... She deserves not to have been swept up under the carpet... She deserves to be at peace....

EDIT.... Maybe the question about the building should be..... Who other than the known occupants of 44,Canygne Road had a connection to that building??? Seeing as the Police were all over it like a rash !!! (IMO)....
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Leonora on August 11, 2017, 08:31:40 PM
Colin Port signed statement to The Leveson.. Claiming that The Hopwood House was the last known CCTV footage of Joanna Yeates...(I believe Colin Port wouldn't lie to the Leveson)...
He lied. He insisted that he did not endorse off-the-record briefings. But there were at least three of these:

1. He must have briefed the press off the record not to mention the fire engines. All but The Mail and ITN respected this.

2. He must have briefed the press off the record not to mention the inquest. They all respected this.

3. He must have briefed the press off the record that the Plea & Case Management hearing was due to be held in Court 2 at the Old Bailey one day later than the date set by judge Colman Treacy four months earlier. The general public were not notified in advance.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: [...] on August 11, 2017, 10:22:27 PM
He lied. He insisted that he did not endorse off-the-record briefings. But there were at least three of these:

1. He must have briefed the press off the record not to mention the fire engines. All but The Mail and ITN respected this.

2. He must have briefed the press off the record not to mention the inquest. They all respected this.

3. He must have briefed the press off the record that the Plea & Case Management hearing was due to be held in Court 2 at the Old Bailey one day later than the date set by judge Colman Treacy four months earlier. The general public were not notified in advance.


Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Leonora on September 05, 2017, 05:00:30 PM
The proper question should have been, "Why do some think Vincent Tabak guilty?" Anyone who follows even a fraction of the posts on this forum will quickly discover that the entire trial was PHONEY. It was a show trial. That is neither an opinion nor an inference. It is easy to demonstrate on the basis of a large number of known facts that are not in dispute. We have indeed already demonstrated on this forum. Just so as to leave no one in any doubt, I intend to re-examine here and now what I consider to be the strongest evidence that the finding of the trial were nonsense.

It follows automatically that, regardless what the defendant may have said, the likelihood that he is actually guilty is vanishingly small.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: mrswah on September 05, 2017, 05:41:22 PM
The proper question should have been, "Why do some think Vincent Tabak guilty?" Anyone who follows even a fraction of the posts on this forum will quickly discover that the entire trial was PHONEY. It was a show trial. That is neither an opinion nor an inference. It is easy to demonstrate on the basis of a large number of known facts that are not in dispute. We have indeed already demonstrated on this forum. Just so as to leave no one in any doubt, I intend to re-examine here and now what I consider to be the strongest evidence that the finding of the trial were nonsense.

It follows automatically that, regardless what the defendant may have said, the likelihood that he is actually guilty is vanishingly small.


Well------guess what, Leonora-----I do actually agree with you on this!
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Leonora on September 05, 2017, 06:01:13 PM
The most decisive evidence of a phoney trial is the testimony of Peter Brotherton, whom the court were told was a Salvation Army prison chaplain at the time of the events he described in the witness box. He may indeed be an adherent of the Salvation Army, who had the contract for pastoral care at Long Lartin prison at the time when Vincent Tabak was remanded there. However, he failed to tell the court that he was also a long serving senior prison officer at another prison. This omission alone makes the witness's testimony AND the integrity of Counsel for the Prosecution questionable.

Peter Brotherton was called as a witness for no other reason than to tell the court about the circumstances under which the defendant, a few days after being remanded in custody, had come to confess to him that he had killed Joanna Yeates. The witness reported several conversations in some detail, and his testimony appeared somewhat disconnected. The decisive fact was that he AT NO POINT IN HIS TESTIMONY stated that the defendant had actually told him that he had killed Joanna Yeates.

This fact was alleged ONLY under cross-examination by the defendant's own Counsel, William Clegg QC, in such a way that the witness didn't need to answer "Yes" or "No". It was a flagrant trick. One of a judge's principal tasks in a court case is to stop any barrister who "leads" a witness or makes allegations that are unsupported by the testimony of a witness under oath. But Mr Justice Field made no objection.

The testimony and cross-examination of this important witness was reported in detail by all of the journalists in court, and careful reading of any of their articles in the news media revealed the way he and Mr Clegg tricked the jury and the public. All of these articles have now been removed from the internet, leaving only summaries which reinforce the lie that Vincent Tabak confessed his guilt to the "chaplain".
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Leonora on September 05, 2017, 06:13:45 PM
The Danish fairytale teller Hans Anderson wrote a celebrated story called "The Ugly Duckling". Technically, this story belongs to the genre known as a "picaresque". Cinemagoers will be more familiar with the designation "road movie". The central person goes on a journey in which they encounter pleasant and unpleasant episodes, and end up wiser as a result. At the end of this fairytale, the Ugly Duckling learns that he is not an ugly duckling after all. He is not a duckling at all, but a swan.

One of the things that Peter Brotherton told the court was widely reported, and widely condemned, by people who had no idea what he was getting at. He was pretending to explain why he had breached the prsioner's confidentiality. Of his conversation with Vincent Tabak, he stated, "It was not a religious confession". It was not a confession at all! His reason for doing this must have been to protect himself against ever being called to account for himself if he were accused of perjury. At no other time did he use the word "confession", and on this one occasion he had told the court, "It was NOT a ... confession".
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Leonora on September 05, 2017, 06:24:22 PM
In cross-examining Peter Brotherton, Counsel for the Defence William Clegg pretended to discredit the witness by referring to a statement he had signed on 16th February 2011, recounting verbatim his conversations with the prisoner. Mr Clegg siezed upon what he claimed was a discrepancy between what the witness said and what the statement said. The discrepancy was without significance, and the answer given by the witness was non-committal. Yet it gave the barrister the opportunity to voice the guilty words that the witness himself had never uttered, namely, that the prisoner had already told his lawyers that it was he who had killed Joanna.

Had this been a normal trial, both the judge and the jury would have had a copy of this important witness's written statement, and would have been able to check for themselves what it really said. But this did not happen. The issue of the alleged discrepancy was not resolved at all. Nor did the witness agree under cross-examination that the statement dated 16th February 2011 actually existed. Therefore no such statement existed, and we have only the witness's words in court as to what was actually said in prison.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Leonora on September 05, 2017, 06:32:39 PM
If you have a prisoner who is actually guilty of a killing, why call an important witness who pretends to testify to a confession that never took place? Why did Counsel for the Prosecution. Nigel Lickley QC, tell the jury that the defendant had confessed to a prison chaplain that he had killed Joanna? It was a lie. There was no such confession, and he was no more a real "chaplain" than the ugly duckling was a real duckling.

Why did Counsel for the Defence, an eminent barrister, of all people, turn the witness's rambling testimony into a confession harmful to his own client, using a clever and manipulative trick in open court?

Why did the judge fail to do the very task for which he was there, namely, to alert the participants in the charade that they must not manipulate the jury?

Why did the defendant himself not bat an eyelid?

Ladies and gentleman of this forum, the trial and the behaviour of the lawyers were phoney, and this witness single-hand has given you incontravertible proof of this.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Leonora on September 05, 2017, 06:55:59 PM
Mr Clegg's behaviour in court, both when he opened his mouth, and when he was silent, and the obvious witnesses whom he neglected to call, has to be without precedent in the history of criminal justice. He has already been subject to intense scrutiny on another thread, so I will focus on just one other aspect of his defence. He repeatedly disparaged his own client with a succession of remarks such as, "I do not ask you to like my client" and "We would not win a popularity contest".

He was supposed to be defending Vincent Tabak on a charge of manslaughter. He was claiming that his client had killed Joanna Yeates by accident, and in a panic had disposed of her body in the hope it would never be found. Not only was it unnecessary to voice sentiments that made him sound as if he were Counsel for the Prosecution - he was making allegations unsupported by witness testimony. No witnesses at all had been called to testify to the defendant's character, either by the Prosecution or by the Defence. They were conspicuous by their absence.

He would have had no difficulty in calling both Dutch and English witnesses to his client's good character, since Vincent Tabak had been head-hunted to the UK on the basis of his PhD, which can be read online and includes a very sympathetic preface that was never even alluded to in court. The prosecution never produced any witnesses to testify to any prior episodes such as harassment of women or violent behaviour.

Prior to the end of the trial, the only person to have said anything about Vincent Tabak's character in connection with the case was Prosecutor Ann Reddrop at her first public appearance. She told the Magistrate that Vincent Tabak  had a record of good character, both in the Netherlands and the UK.

One of the judge's concrete responsibilities is to stop either Counsel if they produce allegations that aren't supported by testimony from a witness under oath. Yet Mr Justice Field was silent when Counsel for the Defence cast these unsupported aspersions on his own client.

You do not need any more proof than this that Mr Clegg and Mr Field were in wilful collusion with the Prosecution. Need I add how serious that is?
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Leonora on September 05, 2017, 10:01:57 PM
Another very important and dubious prosecution witness needs to be included in this résumé, namely Detective Constable Karen Thomas, the officer who travelled to Schiphol to interview Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson on the day after Christopher Jefferies was arrested. She is important because she asserted in court that Vincent Tabak first became a suspect during that interview (though Anne Reddrop's statement outside the court casts doubt on this), and because she took the DNA sample that it would be alleged matched DNA on Joanna's body.

There are numerous problems and discrepancies surrounding this witness and her testimony. They have been discussed elsewhere, in depth, on this forum. What concerns us here is that the reason she gave for summoning the couple to Schiphol was their claim that the landlord had moved his car in the night - a matter that could have been settled over the telephone, and would in any event scarcely have occupied more than a few minutes of their conversation. Yet the court was told that the interview lasted 6 hours and that the notes taken occupied 40 pages of DC Thomas's notebook.

Neither Defence barrister William Clegg QC, nor the judge, questioned this witness to find out what had been discussed for the greater part of the 6 hours. They too are therefore implicated in keeping from the jury something that has to be of great significance.

Prosecutor Anne Reddrop was head of the complex case unit at the CPS, and this can mean only that this case actually involved multiple suspects and multiple victims, and/or the arrest of a suspect in another jurisdiction. 6 hours is the limit for holding a suspect without charge in the Netherlands, so it is probable that Karen Thomas actually had a court order to hold Vincent Tabak, even though she told the jury that he volunteered to take part.

The jury was never told that it was a complex case. Whatever the whole truth is, there is no doubt whatsoever that DC Karen Thomas failed to tell it when she was in the witness box, and that it would be seriously prejudicial not just to herself but to the entire conviction.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: mrswah on September 06, 2017, 07:01:43 AM
Yes, as Leonora and others have pointed out, there was a lot amiss with the trial, and with the case against VT.

I know this does not necessarily mean that Vincent Tabak is innocent, but it certainly makes me suspect that he is.

But, people see this in different ways. When, for example, I point out that no forensics were found in the flat that pointed to VT having been in there, I'm told that he must have cleaned up thoroughly.

When I point out that so much fire and rescue equipment was used to retrieve Joanna's body that it is doubtful that she could have been found on a verge, people just tell me that it was all needed because the body was frozen.

When I point out that timestamps were missing from the various  CCTVs that showed VT, some people do not seem to think this is suspicious.

When I point out that VT's defence counsel didn't seem to be defending him, lots of people don't bat an eyelid. After all, he WAS "disgusting", was he not?  Well, yes, if he really did kill Joanna, he was, but that isn't what a defence counsel should be saying.

Most people believe in low copy DNA as reliable evidence, yet it's quite easy to find articles saying that it's not.

Most people believe in VT's so-called "confession", and don't believe that he was anything but sane when he made it (if indeed he did make it). Yet, false memory syndrome and duress are recognised phenomena, and we have no idea how VT was treated in custody.

Most people think it's fine that only one witness testified for the defence, and also that the majority of witnesses for both sides did not appear in court in person.

Most people seem to think that a priest who saw someone who might have been Jo, is a reliable witness (it is very unlikely that he knew her).

Most people seem to think the screams heard on the night of Friday 17th December must have come from Jo, although there were parties going on in the area.

Most people believe everything they read in the newspapers--------this is a major problem, and it caused immense problems for Christopher Jefferies, remember.

Most people don't think it suspicious that VT had no "previous", but that he, apparently decided to murder his next door neighbour after a hard day at work, just because both of them were on their own in their flats!

Most people appear to blindly believe in what they are told re the content of people's computers-----if the media say it's true, then it must be!!

Most people are not suspicious   about the fact that nobody ever talks-----not the media,not people who knew VT, and who must have some idea whether or not he is the sort of person who behaves oddly towards women. People must have some idea about this. Even I had some idea who my "dodgy" colleagues were, and whom to steer clear of!

Nobody ever comes onto this forum and says that they knew VT, are not surprised that he murdered Jo, and that we are all wasting our time. Why not?  They can do so anonymously.
 
So, all my suspicions add up!!!     Just my opinion, of course----------
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: mrswah on September 06, 2017, 07:22:10 AM
And, just to add:

Does nobody think it just a little bit convenient that VT's story was very similar to the scenario put forward in the Mirror on 21st January (cited elsewhere on the forum) ?

Does nobody think it just a little bit convenient that VT was arrested just before a review of the investigation was due?

Well, some of us on here do---but do the majority of the general public?

Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: mrswah on September 06, 2017, 07:27:02 AM
And, just to reiterate------no, I am not 100% sure that he is innocent. I couldn't possibly be, because I doubt whether the public was ever given all the information,  and anyway, I have never met VT.

I sure am suspicious though----for all the reasons stated above.

Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Leonora on September 06, 2017, 10:03:53 AM
Yes, as Leonora and others have pointed out, there was a lot amiss with the trial, and with the case against VT.
...
Yes, mrswah, there was a lot amiss with the trial, but the testimony of Peter Brotherton and his cross-examination by William Clegg QC ALONE prove conclusively that it was a PHONEY trial. Not an "unfair" trial, but a phoney one. This means that no one in their right mind on this forum can question Vincent Tabak's innocence, although there remains a remote possibility that he did kill Joanna, under circumstances so entirely different from those we have been told, that they can be discounted.

Therefore I do not need you to list all these other matters, important though they are, nor the reactions of people who, for reasons known only to themselves, have not yet grasped the solid fact that the trial was held to deceive and mislead us. I need to post about the landlord, because he forms a trilogy with Peter Brotherton and Karen Thomas, and you have forcefully diverted attention from the importance of this trilogy.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: mrswah on September 06, 2017, 10:17:24 AM
I wasn't intentionally "forcefully diverting" attention from anything! 

I was merely woken up too early, by the dog, and felt like "saying my piece"!!!
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Leonora on September 06, 2017, 10:32:40 AM
DC Karen Thomas told the court that Vincent Tabak had attempted to incriminate Christopher Jefferies by claiming that the landlord's car had been moved during the night. The judge took her word for this in his sentencing. This implies that she knew that the landlord had not moved his car. Counsel for the Defence William Clegg QC was therefore obliged to call Mr Jefferies as a witness, to cross-examine him as to whether or not he had moved his car. However, as is well known, Mr Jefferies was not called as a witness, and his absence from the court adds to the serious doubts already cast on the integrity of the DC, the barristers and the judge.

It is a small point, but the landlord is a central character in this case because of his 2nd witness statement. The importance of this statement lies in its timing and the fact that it has NEVER been made public, despite the enormous public attention that is still being accorded to Christopher Jefferies. Therefore, this statement MUST contain something which both he and the police are determined to hide.

The 2nd witness statement arose in response to the first public appeal by Detective Superintendant Mark Saunders, Joanna's parents, and Greg Reardon. Therefore Christopher Jefferies MUST have seen something or someone that contradicted something he heard in the public appeal.

All we know with certainty about the contents of this statement is that Christopher Jefferies told the police that he saw and heard two or three persons on Joanna's front path just after 9 p.m. on the evening in question or another evening. We do not know whether or not he identified the persons, nor whether it included other evidence as well.

What we do know with 100% certainty is that the police never appealed for these persons to come forward. Obviously, these persons had to be very important witnesses, whichever evening they were on Joanna's front path. Therefore we can be equally sure that both the police and Mr Jefferies are guilty of keeping important facts back which the jury should have heard.

We know that Mr Jefferies told other people about what and whom he saw and heard, and these other people must have included Vincent Tabak and Tanja. Therefore it is almost certain that the major part of the Schiphol interview was taken up with the discrepancies between what the landlord told his tenants, and what he angrily told Sky News when he was doorstepped the day before his arrest. This probably included not just persons, but evidence of activity in Joanna's flat, such as lights being switched on and off, during the Saturday and Sunday when she was supposed to be dead.

We can therefore be almost 100% confident that the arrest, bail and silence of Christopher Jefferies was a build-up to the phoney trial that Anne Reddrop was already planning for Vincent Tabak
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: [...] on September 06, 2017, 10:51:46 AM
DC Karen Thomas told the court that Vincent Tabak had attempted to incriminate Christopher Jefferies by claiming that the landlord's car had been moved during the night. The judge took her word for this in his sentencing. This implies that she knew that the landlord had not moved his car. Counsel for the Defence William Clegg QC was therefore obliged to call Mr Jefferies as a witness, to cross-examine him as to whether or not he had moved his car. However, as is well known, Mr Jefferies was not called as a witness, and his absence from the court adds to the serious doubts already cast on the integrity of the DC, the barristers and the judge.

It is a small point, but the landlord is a central character in this case because of his 2nd witness statement. The importance of this statement lies in its timing and the fact that it has NEVER been made public, despite the enormous public attention that is still being accorded to Christopher Jefferies. Therefore, this statement MUST contain something which both he and the police are determined to hide.

The 2nd witness statement arose in response to the first public appeal by Detective Superintendant Mark Saunders, Joanna's parents, and Greg Reardon. Therefore Christopher Jefferies MUST have seen something or someone that contradicted something he heard in the public appeal.

All we know with certainty about the contents of this statement is that Christopher Jefferies told the police that he saw and heard two or three persons on Joanna's front path just after 9 p.m. on the evening in question or another evening. We do not know whether or not he identified the persons, nor whether it included other evidence as well.

What we do know with 100% certainty is that the police never appealed for these persons to come forward. Obviously, these persons had to be very important witnesses, whichever evening they were on Joanna's front path. Therefore we can be equally sure that both the police and Mr Jefferies are guilty of keeping important facts back which the jury should have heard.

We know that Mr Jefferies told other people about what and whom he saw and heard, and these other people must have included Vincent Tabak and Tanja. Therefore it is almost certain that the major part of the Schiphol interview was taken up with the discrepancies between what the landlord told his tenants, and what he angrily told Sky News when he was doorstepped the day before his arrest. This probably included not just persons, but evidence of activity in Joanna's flat, such as lights being switched on and off, during the Saturday and Sunday when she was supposed to be dead.

We can therefore be almost 100% confident that the arrest, bail and silence of Christopher Jefferies was a build-up to the phoney trial that Anne Reddrop was already planning for Vincent Tabak


Indeed leonora..

What did they need to keep Dr Vincent Tabak quiet for???  what did he know???? What indeed did CJ tell him and Tanja...

Is this the real reason that Tanja Morson didn't appear in court as a witness for her boyfriend???

Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Leonora on September 06, 2017, 11:08:44 AM
Peter Brotherton, DC Karen Thomas and Christopher Jefferies each has crucial knowledge about this case that has deliberately been kept secret. Each of them could be summoned as a witness in any new court hearing resulting from or connected with the murder of Joanna Yeates.

As I explained, Peter Brotherton has already protected himself against accusations of perjury in the event of any new court hearings, though it is possible that the statement he is alleged to have made to the prison authorities never existed. It is also possible that DC Karen Thomas's notebook has been "lost". However, we can be certain that Christopher Jefferies and his lawyers have copies of his 2nd witness statement in safe keeping.

Absolutely everyone associated with this case has been compromised by the extent of the corruption needed to carry out such a phoney trial. This includes the press and the Leveson Inquiry. There are even grounds to suspect "noble cause corruption", but that discussion belongs elsewhere.

My purpose is to demonstrate to anyone prepared to read my recent posts on this thread is that anyone who was charged with libelling any of these compromised persons would have the opportunity, in their defence, to compel Peter Brotherton, DC Karen Thomas and Christopher Jefferies to reveal what they have been hiding. It is obvious that the testimony of any one of these alone, in a libel trial in a public court of law, would be sufficient to demolish the conviction of Vincent Tabak. That is not going to happen.

Therefore, neither we posters, the moderators, nor the administrators of this forum, are at any risk from a fair, open and objective public discussion of the roles of any of the other parties to this case. It is important that the moderators understand this, and that they henceforth refrain from censoring legitimate posts that do not pose any risk of libel action, as they have previously been inclined to do.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: [...] on September 06, 2017, 11:33:35 AM
Peter Brotherton, DC Karen Thomas and Christopher Jefferies each has crucial knowledge about this case that has deliberately been kept secret. Each of them could be summoned as a witness in any new court hearing resulting from or connected with the murder of Joanna Yeates.

As I explained, Peter Brotherton has already protected himself against accusations of perjury in the event of any new court hearings, though it is possible that the statement he is alleged to have made to the prison authorities never existed. It is also possible that DC Karen Thomas's notebook has been "lost". However, we can be certain that Christopher Jefferies and his lawyers have copies of his 2nd witness statement in safe keeping.

Absolutely everyone associated with this case has been compromised by the extent of the corruption needed to carry out such a phoney trial. This includes the press and the Leveson Inquiry. There are even grounds to suspect "noble cause corruption", but that discussion belongs elsewhere.

My purpose is to demonstrate to anyone prepared to read my recent posts on this thread is that anyone who was charged with libelling any of these compromised persons would have the opportunity, in their defence, to compel Peter Brotherton, DC Karen Thomas and Christopher Jefferies to reveal what they have been hiding. It is obvious that the testimony of any one of these alone, in a libel trial in a public court of law, would be sufficient to demolish the conviction of Vincent Tabak. That is not going to happen.

Therefore, neither we posters, the moderators, nor the administrators of this forum, are at any risk from a fair, open and objective public discussion of the roles of any of the other parties to this case. It is important that the moderators understand this, and that they henceforth refrain from censoring legitimate posts that do not pose any risk of libel action, as they have previously been inclined to do.


Wow leonora... I am naive as the day is long......  I didn't actually know they did training for this:

Quote
Noble Cause Corruption and Training
Noble cause corruption is a teleological (ends-oriented) approach to an ethical dilemma that says law enforcement professionals will utilize unethical, and sometimes illegal, means to obtain a desired result.

I know you said it needs to be discussed elsewhere, maybe you could start a new thread on this topic.... I believe it is very much warranted!


Quote
Updating Ethics Training—Policing Privacy Series: Noble Cause Corruption and Police Discretion

Much has been written about the proper execution of police discretion, values, and the decision-making processes associated with crime fighting. Because policing is such a unique profession, wherein street-level supervision is limited, much emphasis is placed on the personal and professional integrity of the men and the women tasked with policing neighborhoods. Furthermore, there has been a much-heralded training emphasis in the last decade regarding the ethical dilemmas officers face on a daily basis. Police ethics training is not novel in its conceptual application, but it must continue to evolve as policing continues to evolve. Contradictions in training, at times, regarding whose values are to be enforced through the application of governmental authority, must be organizationally clarified. This confusion, and failure at times, comes from a misapplication of the police mission and the police values and a misunderstanding of privacy expectations. Misapplications in training and supervision create a street-level environment rife with cutting corners, unethical rationalizations, and liability.

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/updating-ethics-trainingpolicing-privacy-series-noble-cause-corruption-and-police-discretion/

https://www.policeone.com/chiefs-sheriffs/articles/2003646-Noble-cause-corruption-Do-the-ends-justify-the-means/
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Leonora on September 06, 2017, 12:11:34 PM

Wow leonora... I am naive as the day is long......  I didn't actually know they did training for this:

I know you said it needs to be discussed elsewhere, maybe you could start a new thread on this topic.... I believe it is very much warranted!

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/updating-ethics-trainingpolicing-privacy-series-noble-cause-corruption-and-police-discretion/

https://www.policeone.com/chiefs-sheriffs/articles/2003646-Noble-cause-corruption-Do-the-ends-justify-the-means/
It is much more important to start a thread about Joanna's boyfriend - Why the press and the general public were so convinced that he was implicated, and why the police were so quick to leap to his defence, and then to ignore him. We need to we able to do this in the confident knowledge that he is not going to haul us into court.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: [...] on September 06, 2017, 12:17:11 PM
It is much more important to start a thread about Joanna's boyfriend - Why the press and the general public were so convinced that he was implicated, and why the police were so quick to leap to his defence, and then to ignore him. We need to we able to do this in the confident knowledge that he is not going to haul us into court.

Just discovered something...  Who had access to Avon and Somerset Computer bases????

Was just reading this article and it appears that there were weakness's in it's IBM systems...   

Quote
“SAP was built on the cheap by IBM to serve three different customers – the County Council, Taunton Deane district council and the Police. It would have made sense to bung in a few partitions to stop council eyes taking a peek at police matters, or vice versa. But that would have cost money – perish the thought.”   


Officials black out IT security report after it’s published in full
Posted on February 5, 2014 | 1 comment


Quote
In one of the most bizarre regressions since the FOI Act came into force in 2005, officials at Somerset County Council have redacted an audit report on SAP security weaknesses after the report was published in full.

Would Dr Vincent Tabak's  ever be in a position to access these files????


Where they actually after something else on Dr Vincent Tabak's laptop????

https://ukcampaign4change.com/category/public-private-partnerships/page/2/


You can read the report here:...

Quote
SAP Access to Sensitive Tables SM30/SM31
The organisation has 22 users with access to sensitive table data
editing transactions SM30 and SM31. A review of the
organisations that these individuals work for identified a mixture of
IBM, Somerset County Council, Taunton Deane Borough Council,
Avon & Somerset Police and EPIUSE. All have been seconded to
SW One, with the exception of IBM and the EPIUSE user. Access
in all cases was authorised by SW One.
Access to these transactions under certain conditions can allow
customised data tables to be edited directly, potentially resulting in
unauthorised entries or database integrity problems.

So who actually had access to Avon and Somersets data base ?????

http://www.liddellgrainger.org.uk/images/DOCUMENTS/Grant_Thornton_Report.pdf

Edit.......

Did Buro Happold have access to IBM systems within it's framework of Building Design???

Quote
Technology companies such as
Living PlanIT, IBM, Siemens, Cisco and others
have developed a series of products aimed at
creating ‘operating systems’ that allow cities to
control their utility and transportation networks
in real time through the deployment of sensors
that collect data and to feed into an overarching
control system.


https://www.burohappold.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/BH-Planning-smarter-cities.pdf


Is it possible that Dr Vincent Tabak stumbled across Avon and Somerset Police's Data base ????

And if so did he change something within it???

Would that then be classed as a "Complex Crime"???

Is that the reason the trial is made up of only the Searches???

Did Dr Vincent Tabak search Avon and Sommerset's Police data base????

I'm sure they'd be able to find out who had accessed it!

Double Edit...  If that was the case I can completely see why Buro Happold would distance themselves from Dr Vincent Tabak.... with such a breach!... Their reputation would be in tatters....(IMO)...

Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: [...] on September 06, 2017, 01:09:36 PM
My above post may seem a ridiculous idea, but thinking about it... It has potential...

(1): What Information on the data base related to any Dutch Inquiries???

(2): Buro Happold would want their reputation kept

(3): What Investigations could be seen??

(4): What budgets could be seen

(5): Would someone be able to access everything??  Emails.. memo's.. All Operational databases??

For Dr Vincent Tabak to be on the Polices radar immediately  without any prior history... he had to be involved in something significant....

Did he know Joanna Yeates.... In the begining everyone said he did.... Now I am questioning the same possibility again....

Edit.......   You could understand why The Head of The Complex crime Unit might get invovled if this was the case.... as i am sure plenty of their communications would also be on the data base....

to quote leonora
Quote
There are even grounds to suspect "noble cause corruption", but that discussion belongs elsewhere.

Would this possible revelation be grounds for Noble Cause Corruption????

What impact would it have on Convictions and Cases if it were known that somebody had accessed 'The Avon and Somerset' Police's Data Base????

Double Edit...

I'm going to run with this a little more... 

If Dr Vincent Tabak was Aspergers (which has been suggested before)...  that could explain him delving into something out of curiosity....

With NO MEDICAL ASSESSMENT... being brought before the court of Dr Vincent Tabak, maybe that condition would have surfaced.....

So I will ask again... Did Dr Vincent Tabak access Avon and Somerset Police's Data Base ????

Because if he did... That would be Catastrophic !!! (IMO)!!


Just another little edit.......  That also would make sense why all of the other Police forces were involved in this case.... Didn't Avon and Somerset Police sign a  Cooperation agreement with other Forces ... I'm sure i posted on this matter... There agreement was signed in early December 2010!!!

Where other Police Forces compromised?????



Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: [...] on September 06, 2017, 02:05:37 PM
I know we shouldn't speculate.... But Dr Vincent Tabak was a man of Good character, before this whole case....

And out of nowhere he is the Prime Suspect, in a Murder Investigation....  There has to be something significant for the Full Force of all of those Law enforcement Agencies being involved....

Not only that.. The Head of The Complex Crime Unit.. herself

The Prosecution

The Defence and The Judge, for them all to want Dr Vincent Tabak put away for a very long time ...... Without any Evidence whatsoever..... (IMO)...

Question.... Is this the reason that Dr Vincent Tabak appeared in Court Room 2 of The Old Bailey ??

A special court room made for terrorists and such cases ?????


Edit..... There has to be something that connects them all.... Even Buro Happold..... (IMO)...

Could it be classed as a National Security Breach????
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Leonora on September 06, 2017, 03:43:04 PM
...
But, people see this in different ways. When, for example, I point out that no forensics were found in the flat that pointed to VT having been in there, I'm told that he must have cleaned up thoroughly.
...
What you SHOULD point out is that none of the prosecution witnesses told the jury anything in court about the forensic examination of the flat, even though the news media reported at the time that such an examination took place, and the jury members saw chemical residues when they visited the flat. During the two-day cross-examination of the defendant, neither Counsel asked him if he had cleaned up after killing Joanna. If the trial had been anything other than phoney, Counsel for the Defence would have asked the witnesses from LGC what forensic evidence against his client had been found in the flat, and if they had answered, "none", Counsel for the Prosecution would have been obliged to cross-examine the defendant to discover if he had cleaned up after him.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Leonora on September 06, 2017, 03:55:53 PM
...
When I point out that so much fire and rescue equipment was used to retrieve Joanna's body that it is doubtful that she could have been found on a verge, people just tell me that it was all needed because the body was frozen.
...
Did the news media report that this equipment, manned by 23 officers, was needed to recover the body? - No, they did not. What does that tell these people? - That the media were prohibited from reporting it, on pain of banishment from the next press conference.

Did the FoI document give the full co-ordinates of the location of the body to be recovered? - No, only to the nearest 1000 metres. What does that tell these people? - That Joanna's body lay up to 1000 metres away from the grass verge where the jury was told she laý.

Was the jury told about the 23 officers and their equipment? - No. What does this tell these people about the trial? - That is was phoney through and through, and even the Home Office pathologist was being economical with the truth.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Leonora on September 06, 2017, 04:08:27 PM
...
When I point out that timestamps were missing from the various  CCTVs that showed VT, some people do not seem to think this is suspicious.
...
What you SHOULD point out is that no witness under oath testified to the integrity of any of the CCTV clips shown to the court, nor to the times and dates that had been removed. You should point out that the chroma component had been redacted out of the CCTV clips from the Bristol Ram pub, but could not entirely disguise the fact that the blouse Joanna was wearing in the pub did not fit the description of the blouse found on the body.

This deliberate interference with evidence suggests that the police and the lawyers knew very that Joanna's death occurred on the Saturday or Sunday, when Vincent Tabak had an alibi and Joanna had changed clothes at least once. If they really believed that she had changed her blouse just after getting home, and was then killed by Vincent Tabak the same evening, Counsel for the Prosecution would have been obliged to ask the defendant what colour blouse she was wearing, and he would certainly have been able to remember, if it really were he who had strangled her.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Leonora on September 07, 2017, 12:00:03 PM
Most people believe in low copy DNA as reliable evidence, yet it's quite easy to find articles saying that it's not.
You can lead a sceptic to the water trough, but you canot make him drink. On the other hand, you can draw these people's attention to Lindsay Lennen's remark when she was interviewed some months after the trial by a journalist from The Guardian. She expressed disappointment that her own DNA forensic evidence in the Joanna Yeates case had not been tested in court. As a prosecution witness during the trial, she was cross-examined by Defence QC William Clegg, who made no effort to discredit her DNA testimony. Instead, he put to her a succession of lengthy questions (requiring only short answers such as "Yes", "No", or "Possibly") that actually reinforced the case AGAINST his client.

This is just one more concrete example that proves that Mr Clegg was busy scoring own-goals, and that Mr Justice Field was not raising his eyebrows as a normal judge would have done.

The company for whom she worked, LGC Forensics, state that their analysis was carried out after enhancing the DNA, by a process on which they hold patents. They don't use the term "Low copy number".
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: [...] on September 07, 2017, 12:03:08 PM
What you SHOULD point out is that no witness under oath testified to the integrity of any of the CCTV clips shown to the court, nor to the times and dates that had been removed. You should point out that the chroma component had been redacted out of the CCTV clips from the Bristol Ram pub, but could not entirely disguise the fact that the blouse Joanna was wearing in the pub did not fit the description of the blouse found on the body.

This deliberate interference with evidence suggests that the police and the lawyers knew very that Joanna's death occurred on the Saturday or Sunday, when Vincent Tabak had an alibi and Joanna had changed clothes at least once. If they really believed that she had changed her blouse just after getting home, and was then killed by Vincent Tabak the same evening, Counsel for the Prosecution would have been obliged to ask the defendant what colour blouse she was wearing, and he would certainly have been able to remember, if it really were he who had strangled her.

In the Police Conference they say that the didn't know when she was killed....  She could have been killed any time over that weekend... But they needed the  story to fit Dr Vincent Tabak's only time alone.... Thats why the screams come into play...

Thiose screams are pointless... They do not prove that they came from Joanna Yeates flat.... There were screams the Police ignored because it didn't fit with Dr Vincent Tabak....

The ones that Kingdom heard... Kingdom who lived directly behind Joanna Yeates bedroom window I believe .... Mid Morning on the Saturday 18th December 2010 he heard someone say something like..."Help me"....

Now that sounds more like someone in trouble....  Than the screams from party goers on the Friday... DI Joe Goff does say on The Crime Watch program that was aired after the trial... That it was the screams that gave them the time of her murder.....

Which is ridiculous.... (IMO)...
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: mrswah on September 07, 2017, 12:14:53 PM
Yes, IMO, too, totally ridiculous.

I have often heard "screams" around here, especially on Friday and Saturday nights, but nobody has been murdered. I suppose there is the odd "domestic", but it's usually youngsters messing about/"enjoying themselves".

There were parties going on in Clifton on that Friday night. Also, the area is full of students. Some would have gone home for Christmas by then, but I would imagine many were still around, enjoying the nightlife that Bristol has to offer. There is at least one hall of residence in Clifton.

Also the possibility of people having slipped on the ice.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Leonora on September 07, 2017, 12:28:44 PM
Most people believe in VT's so-called "confession", and don't believe that he was anything but sane when he made it (if indeed he did make it). Yet, false memory syndrome and duress are recognised phenomena, and we have no idea how VT was treated in custody.
Most of these people will also have seen on TV or read detective stories in which a suspect makes a confession, which is rejected by the wise detective, who is able to work out that the suspect is protecting someone they love, who often turns out not to have been the culprit anyway. You could ask any of these people which kind of police they prefer - those who act wisely and fairly, or those who don't mind arresting the wrong suspect, and are only interested in convicting somebody, regardless of whether they did it or not.

There isn't much evidence to support a theory that the guilty plea attributed to Vincent Tabak was a result of false memory syndrome or ill-treatment in custody, but there are at least 13 separate items of evidence that suggest that his plea via video-link was entered by an imposter. We know for a fact that no one in courtroom 2 at the Old Bailey knew Vincent Tabak personally - not even his girlfriend Tanja was there - and most of the people whom we know WERE in court, definitely had never met him before.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Leonora on September 07, 2017, 01:50:44 PM

Wow leonora... I am naive as the day is long......  I didn't actually know they did training for this:

I know you said it needs to be discussed elsewhere, maybe you could start a new thread on this topic.... I believe it is very much warranted!

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/updating-ethics-trainingpolicing-privacy-series-noble-cause-corruption-and-police-discretion/

https://www.policeone.com/chiefs-sheriffs/articles/2003646-Noble-cause-corruption-Do-the-ends-justify-the-means/
I don't think a new thread is needed, but I appreciate your reaction, as there is indeed some evidence that the conspiracy or cover-up may have a higher purpose than the sordid protection of a clever serial killer or powerful group of unpleasant citizens.

(1) The absence of any books about the case written by independent investigators

(2) The myriad of TV films re-telling the whole crazy story that you couldn't make up even if you tried

(3) The systematic trolling of internet discussions like this one

(4) The massive propaganda in support of the poor vilified landlord by the wicked tabloid press

The question for us is whether this imagined higher cause is synonymous with the "national interest" - versus, e.g., the interests of the Netherlands as a nation, mobile EU citizens, the architecture industry? - or merely the desparate protection of the reputation of the police confronted with a serial killer so smart that no one can touch him?

One of the elephants in the room is the problem of "bad law" - law that turns responsible citizens into criminals. Because nobody talks about this, there is no great awareness that all laws contain unethical elements, and many laws, indeed, are 100% contrary to the widely agreed moral values of the jurisdiction that administers them.

As far as I am aware, Mr Clegg didn't break any laws by conspiring with the prosecution, nor did Vincent Tabak break any laws by signing an enhanced statement that he knew to be a pack of lies, in return for whatever agreement his lawyers may have negotiated for him. It is indeed possible that he had committed some sort of white-collar compuper-aided crime, unknown to us, for which he wass morally obliged to serve 9 months sentence in prison.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Geraldine on May 28, 2018, 09:24:41 AM
Hello everybody, I just had a quick skim through this thread.  My one question is this: Why would anybody plead guilty to something that they hadn't done? He admitted to killing Joanna (manslaughter).  Sure if you were innocent you would never hold your hand up to killing someone? Genuine question.  I just can't get my head around it. Also wasn't his saliva found on Joanna (although I believe that some police are corrupt, some are thugs - but there are also many honest, dedicated officers).

This is an interesting thread folks!
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: John on May 28, 2018, 09:44:57 AM
Hello everybody, I just had a quick skim through this thread.  My one question is this: Why would anybody plead guilty to something that they hadn't done? He admitted to killing Joanna (manslaughter).  Sure if you were innocent you would never hold your hand up to killing someone? Genuine question.  I just can't get my head around it. Also wasn't his saliva found on Joanna (although I believe that some police are corrupt, some are thugs - but there are also many honest, dedicated officers).

This is an interesting thread folks!

I completely agree.  Tabak went to the trouble of researching murder and manslaughter on his computer before his arrest which indicates that he had already begun to face the inevitable.  He was hoping that his plea to accidental killing or manslaughter would be accepted by the CPS which would have seen him serve a relatively short prison sentence.  In the end though the CPS was having none of it.  The fact that he continued to throttle Joana until she expired was his undoing IMO.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Geraldine on May 28, 2018, 10:02:39 AM
Hi John, yes I guess you wouldn't just be researching sentences for murder vs manslaughter unless you had some kind of interest?  Also if it had been a random attacker they would not have taken Joanna's body away - which points to someone connected to the flats/Joanna. A random attacker would just have fled IMO.

But again why on God's green earth would any body in their right mind admit to killing someone if they had not done so. I would go to my grave shouting my innocence.

I'm going to read through the thread in more depth,  I am always interested to read about all opinions
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: John on May 28, 2018, 10:33:11 AM
Hi John, yes I guess you wouldn't just be researching sentences for murder vs manslaughter unless you had some kind of interest?  Also if it had been a random attacker they would not have taken Joanna's body away - which points to someone connected to the flats/Joanna. A random attacker would just have fled IMO.

But again why on God's green earth would any body in their right mind admit to killing someone if they had not done so. I would go to my grave shouting my innocence.

I'm going to read through the thread in more depth,  I am always interested to read about all opinions

My personal experience of people in such situations reveals that not everyone has the strength to fight miscarriages. Many admit to crimes just to get it over and done with as quickly as possible, a trial invokes a terrible dread in some.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Geraldine on May 28, 2018, 02:43:29 PM
I can relate to that, a trial can be overwhelming.  I know this from bitter experience, having supported a family member who was stitched up by the police (thankfully the jury saw sense). For something like shoplifting or criminal damage maybe, but not killing someone.  I cannot get my head round that. I believe that Tabak is guilty of the murder of Joanna.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: mrswah on May 28, 2018, 08:20:52 PM
Hi Geraldine, and welcome to the thread. It is always good to hear the views of somebody new!!  We don't get many new posters.

I haven't posted much on here recently, merely because I feel I have said all I have to say about this case (unless any new developments come to light).  I began the thread because I felt that there was a lot that seemed "iffy" about the case, but of course, I cannot be sure that Vincent Tabak is innocent----I don't know him, and I don't know anyone who does know him.

I can imagine someone admitting to having committed a crime (even manslaughter or murder) if they were medicated enough, sleep deprived enough,or  had undergone relentless questioning, so much that they didn't know what was what any more. I cannot be sure this happened in VT's case, but it is possible, in my opinion.

Please do read through the threads. I look forward to your comments.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Geraldine on May 29, 2018, 07:52:43 AM
Hi mrswah and thanks for the welcome. I will for sure read through these threads in depth and let you know my thoughts.  I appreciate what you say about people confessing under stress etc - think about poor Stefan Kiskzo back in the 70s.  But that was before PACE, and all interviews are taped now of course.  That said, I will devote some time to a thorough read of the thread. 

I remember thinking how heart-breaking this case was, and just so bizarre - a lady attacked and killed in her own home whilst doing something we have all done, just relaxing and having a little supper after a works xmas party. Also poor Mr Jefferys the landlord who was falsely arrested and had horrible stories plastered all over the press about him. Hoping that Joanna's family and Mr Jefferys have found the strength to try and carry on with their lives.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: [...] on June 07, 2018, 08:12:59 AM
I can relate to that, a trial can be overwhelming.  I know this from bitter experience, having supported a family member who was stitched up by the police (thankfully the jury saw sense). For something like shoplifting or criminal damage maybe, but not killing someone.  I cannot get my head round that. I believe that Tabak is guilty of the murder of Joanna.

Hi Gerladine, welcome to the forum... everyone has a difference of opinion, and as you can see from this thread mine differs from yours... I hope you spend some time to read what has been written, and maybe come to a different conclusion... One thing is for sure, nothing in this case adds up...
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Angelo222 on June 07, 2018, 08:40:43 AM
Hi Gerladine, welcome to the forum... everyone has a difference of opinion, and as you can see from this thread mine differs from yours... I hope you spend some time to read what has been written, and maybe come to a different conclusion... One thing is for sure, nothing in this case adds up...

I disagree Nine.  The events which occurred hold no mystery for me.  Tabak has admitted his guilt but he thought that by doing so he would get away with a manslaughter charge and be out of prison in a few years. Joanna wasn't accidentally killed, Tabak strangled the life out of her.  Granted it was not premeditated but he panicked, the rest is history.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: foĺlowedeverytimeileaveuk on August 03, 2018, 12:40:49 AM
Tabak is innocent.
3 days after Joanna was reported missing Greg Reardon references Joanna in the past tense claiming, 'She was my future'.
Joannas body had not yet been discovered. She was still missing.

When someone is missing in unknown circumstances and a very close person very soon starts to reference their loved one in the past tense it indicates that they have guilty knowledge that the missing person is dead.

If you look online you will find Joannas parents taking part in documentaries and press interviews. You will not find any videos of Greg Reardon.

Not only do I firmly believe Tabak is innocent I am very sure there is much more to this as to why the real killer is not in prison.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: [...] on August 03, 2018, 02:53:29 AM
Tabak is innocent.
3 days after Joanna was reported missing Greg Reardon references Joanna in the past tense claiming, 'She was my future'.
Joannas body had not yet been discovered. She was still missing.

When someone is missing in unknown circumstances and a very close person very soon starts to reference their loved one in the past tense it indicates that they have guilty knowledge that the missing person is dead.

If you look online you will find Joannas parents taking part in documentaries and press interviews. You will not find any videos of Greg Reardon.

Not only do I firmly believe Tabak is innocent I am very sure there is much more to this as to why the real killer is not in prison.

Hi.. welcome to the forum... not many believe in Dr Vincent Tabak's Innocence... It has been said before about Joanna being talked of in the past tense on more than one occasion..

I believe the Police already knew that she was dead also... Their approach early on suggests this... The Forensics examinations of the Flat before Joanna yeates body had even been discovered, suggests that they knew a crime had been committed...

This link here:
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/police-forensics-officers-working-at-the-flat-that-yeates-news-footage/659296240

Is a small clip made on the 24th December 2010.. The Forensic Officers are working on the bay windows of the Flat we have lead to believe is Dr Vincent Tabak's, this is long before he is even a suspect .. But I believe that the flat has to be Joanna Yeates flat, and we have been mislead as to which Flat Dr Vincent Tabak lived in...

Why would they be doing forensic examinations on neighbours windows or in fact on Joanna yeates windows ,if they believed she was a Missing person??

As for why the real killer isn't in prison, I have no idea.... I have just always believed that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent...
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: mrswah on August 03, 2018, 09:17:38 PM
Tabak is innocent.
3 days after Joanna was reported missing Greg Reardon references Joanna in the past tense claiming, 'She was my future'.
Joannas body had not yet been discovered. She was still missing.

When someone is missing in unknown circumstances and a very close person very soon starts to reference their loved one in the past tense it indicates that they have guilty knowledge that the missing person is dead.

If you look online you will find Joannas parents taking part in documentaries and press interviews. You will not find any videos of Greg Reardon.

Not only do I firmly believe Tabak is innocent I am very sure there is much more to this as to why the real killer is not in prison.

Welcome to the forum!

In the early days of Joanna going missing, there was an interview in which her parents and boyfriend took part, but this mysteriously disappeared from the internet!!

Talking about a missing person in the past tense, does not, IMO, necessarily indicate guilt:  if someone is missing, it is natural enough to suspect they might be dead (again, in my opinion).

However, I have never felt happy about Vincent Tabak's conviction. Do take your time to read through the thread!
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: John on August 04, 2018, 01:54:55 PM
Posters are reminded of the forum rules and in particular should keep comments, RELATIVE, AMIABLE and CONSTRUCTIVE.  You could call it the RAC of the forum world.

Please do not engage in sniping, goading or name calling as such conduct will attract penalties.

Have a great weekend everyone!!
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: foĺlowedeverytimeileaveuk on August 04, 2018, 09:17:35 PM
Thankyou for the welcome all.

I hadnt seen any discussion on the statement analysis front on this thread so I thought I would add it.. But I do grant that Greg Reardons past reference statement could be interpreted another way depending on what he was told by the police in the first few days. It is the opinion of professional statement analysts that a close loved one referring to a missing person very soon in the past tense without a clear indication of a death having occurred (which there wasnt)indicates guilty knowledge.  I would love to hear a transcript of the 999 call. But among other things, the dissapearance of Gregs interviews online compound my suspicion that he had guilty knowledge and a whole host of people are aware of it.

The statement analysts and the body language analysts professionals as well as regular sleuths would have been all over it.

Something that really interests me in our modern era is how internet and mobile information is portrayed as part of evidence. I would be interested to have it reported factually  whether Tabak looked up Murder vs Manslaughter before or after Joanna was reported missing.

Because if Tabak was planning to kill and get away with manslaughter, I think he would be clever enough not to leave evidence of him searching it before or after murdering someone.

If he searched it after she was reported missing then it could easily have a very innocent explanation.. Your next door neighbor goes missing and everyone you talk to plus the newspapers and the nation is speculating about what could have happened. Many people at the time speculated that she could have been killed accidentally in a domestic arguement, manslaughter. So it piqued his interest and he looked up the concept on the internet. Information is only valuable within the context.

As for the search for Longwood lane. Did Tabak search that before she was reported found there or after? If it was after, then its totally irrelevant as that information was already in the public domain. But if it was before she was found I would consider the following...

Imagine you had access to someone's search history. You've got a body hidden somewhere and someone else has to go away for it. Theres a man who isnt from the area who is searching for nice places to go walks having been given directions and he's looked up a few places online. Alongside other things you could just move the body to one of those locations and voila you've got your Fall Guy.  A Fall guy (I cant remember the word for a person who gets set up for someone elses crime) Who is now put on the back foot to explain why hes looked up the exact area theyve found a dead body in.

( I think they went to great lengths to convice the public that the body had been there for a long time and was frozen to the ground when it had infact been moved to that location to be found.)

Even easier you could remotely access your decoy's computer and just do the searches yourself but this method would give away a psychological advantage to your target who would have a clear conviction that his computer had been remotely accessed which would show in statenent analysis and lie detector tests..

Given the absolute circus of everything surrounding this case, pulling out all the stops to make a show of determination to leave  'no stone unturned'  have a hoard of officers search through a mountain of rubbish for a missing pizza it is definately within reason that powers would have been used to covertly surveil the internet usage of the neighbours.

Im very sceptical of there ever having been a missing pizza.

I was wondering if any good internet researchers could find a webpage Im looking for where alongside information about the Home office Pathologist Dr Russell Delaney, is featured a very short written slideshow presentation for students on how to carry out a post mortem examination.

If you find the right site Im looking for, as you scroll down the slides you should come to one slide in big bold letters which reads:

DO ONE
DO ONE
DO ONE
BEFORE EVISCERATION!

It is a play on the learning principle in medicine of "See one, do one, teach one" and is describing 3 things you should do before the removal of the organs.

It had some really interesting information on it , and it was formally on the first page of google for a short time. If any research whizzes can locate it there is some interesting information in it I'd like to revisit.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: [...] on August 05, 2018, 03:12:44 PM
If I have found the correct website, it appears to have been removed.....

http://bdiap.org/Trainees2011/Delaney.pdf

talking of Dr Russell Delaney, he doesn't appear in The Law pages, as expert medical witness they have either LGC Forensics or Dr Carey...

So what is the story of Dr Russell Delaney?? Does he no longer practice??

Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: [...] on August 05, 2018, 09:43:37 PM
From this clip we see Dr Russell Delaney at court for the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak...

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/vincent-tabak-trial-doctor-russell-delaney-along-outside-news-footage/656256976

Now here's where I do not understand his connection to Avon and Somerset Police and why he would want to be part of another documentary called "The Murder  Detectives"

We can see him on E02 of the program at 3:21.. The man i have been lead to be Dr Russell Delaney says:

Quote
2 is upper abdomen, edge of the um.. spinal column. 3 and 4 they both go in,one goes in to about 14 centimeter...I'm not sure which.

Why don't you know which!!

Now we have been lead to believe that the man who's images I have attached and the links I have posted, is  Dr Russell Delaney....

Well... I am not sure now... because if the man in both video's is Dr Russell Delaney, why for one is he appearing in a documentary for Avon and Somerset Police, Not only that he appears to be viewing images of the dead man and describing from said images what the cause and injuries appear to be......

Looking at this Cold.... not knowing whom I am supposed to be looking at... i would have thought that the man in "The Murder Detectives" was just another Police Officer.... He doesn't appear to have the knowledge of what i would have expected from a man who has carried and does carry out post mortems... Surely he would know which knife wound went into which rib and between which rib.... He must do.... But as a police officer looking at some images he would not be able to distinguish between which stab wound was which...

But as a home office forensic pathologist, he would and should be able to differentiate between the two...(imo) i know i am generalising here... But..... What happened to the organs that the knife penetrated... What happened to any description of the angle

He wouldn't be blindly looking at images on a computer but have in front of him his diagnosis (imo)... diagrams, notes etc.. which clearly demonstrate which stab wound caused the death of this young man and at which depth they had entered this young mans body.... not state he doesn't know... He should for all intense and purposes (imo) be unintelligible to us mere mortals, with his grasp of medical knowledge..

Sorry , I'm expecting Dr G.. here.... I'm expecting to be floored by medical information I have to google, to grasp and understand what is going on... or have I been watching too many programs??

I have decided that it must be Dr Russell Delaney based on the images and video's I have seen before this program aired... But is it?

The fact that he is sat in the documentary also is problematic for me, as I would have expected someone of Dr Delaney's reputation, not to be actively involved in a documentary for TV... And also not being credited for being in this TV production.... (He is a home Office Forensic Pathologist!)

So is the man we have been lead to believe is Dr Russell Delaney... just a Policeman from Avon and Somerset Constabulary?? Or an extra for LGC Forensics??

If so , who is Dr Russell Delaney? And did he perform the post mortem on Joanna Yeates??  As the Law Pages does not credit Dr Russell Delaney as being involved at all with any examination of Joanna Yeates... It just had LGC Forensics as the prosecutions expert witness.... Dr Delaney is not even mentioned as an independent witness...


So is it me getting things wrong....  Or is the guy on the Murder Detectives just another Policeman... or is it really Dr Russell Delaney, whom they didn't credit for his input??

I cannot find anything about Dr Delaney and this Murder investigation of Nicholas Robinson... But i can see a man on this program that I have always known to be Dr Russell Delaney since the Joanna Yeates murder Investigation...


Now i keep checking back as to how many stabs wounds this young man recieved, because i try to be as accurate as i can be with the information i write....

So From the man they tell us is Dr Delaney.... "2 is upper abdomen, edge of the um.. spinal column. 3 and 4 they both go in,one goes in to about 14 centimeter...I'm not sure which.

Yet...
Quote
The murder was in revenge for his role in a failed bid to buy a firearm. Nicholas suffered three stab wounds to his chest and managed to run out of the house and into Lower Gay Street, where he was able to call the emergency services. Despite being treated at the scene by paramedics, he couldn’t be saved.

So why is the man who they say is Dr Delaney talking of 4 stab wounds?? I am just questioning, because nothing that comes from Avon and somerset Police ever makes sense to me...


Dr Delaney does appear in the first episode of this documentary,... at 3:39 of the video.. togged up looking like he's about to perform an autopsy... But again he is not creditered...

But another observation of this documentary is the car that has driven over the blood and crime scene, that shouldn't be parked there (imo).. at 3:27 of the video...

I just find the documentary strange... probably because i am looking at the key players whom appear... and many of them where there at the Joanna Yeates murder.... And yes .. I'm sure you would say they should be because it's Avon and Somerset Police..... But therefore when did DS Mark Saunders becomes DCI Andy Saunders of the MCTI ?

Too many similar sounding names for me. to cope with... or is that just coincidence??

Anyway back to Dr Delaney... did he?? would he?? appear in a documentary for A&S Poilce, when he is supposed to be an independent home Office Forensic pathologist?? I don't know... But it needs questioning... Especially as he was also involved with The Joanna Yeates Investigation...
I personally would feel a lot happier, if this Pathologist was truly independent...

And what I mean by this... Is that he is interviewed independently of any investigation taking place and explains his role as a home office pathologist.. and how he works independently of the Police and what his findings happen to be are unbiased...

Which they should be (imo).... yes i question everything... And believe you me i think we should... I want to believe in these experts opinions and what they have to say based on their medical knowledge, that should confound me... I should't be left questioning whether a man I see in a video whom I recognise is a fully qualified home office forensic pathologist whom i have been told is Dr Russell Delaney... Having me second guess if he is really the same man... And not that he is another actor appearing in a docudrama...

And the lack of accreditation for his role has me wondering and questioning who the man in the video and images is the real Dr Russell Delaney? And if it is... I must add for me.. I am mighty disappointing in what a small snippet has revealed about his role in a Murder Investigation.... !

But apparently no-one else is looking to see what goes on in these Investigations.... maybe we should! maybe like me everyone should be informed as to who is who... then you wouldn't get the like of me asking basic questions...  i must add.. that on first glances he looks the apparent part... But what I really want to know... IS......
Is he the correct part... Is that Dr Russell Delaney Home Office Forensic pathologist in that video??

And if so... why is he appearing in a docudrama with A&S police??


https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3gavcp
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3gi7mn
https://www.heart.co.uk/bristol/news/local/man-sentence-murder-of-teenager-robinson-stab/


[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Baz on August 06, 2018, 05:02:25 PM
Hello and welcome.

Having said that I'm about to disagree with you:

Imagine you had access to someone's search history. You've got a body hidden somewhere and someone else has to go away for it. Theres a man who isnt from the area who is searching for nice places to go walks having been given directions and he's looked up a few places online. Alongside other things you could just move the body to one of those locations and voila you've got your Fall Guy.  A Fall guy (I cant remember the word for a person who gets set up for someone elses crime) Who is now put on the back foot to explain why hes looked up the exact area theyve found a dead body in.

You make that sound simple but it isn't. They (and 'they' is how I will refer to whatever shadowy organisation you think orchestrated this supposed cover up) found that the guy living next door just happened to have not only "looked up a few places" but also had no alibi and whose movements could be used to suggest he had the opportunity. Also they managed to find a guy who would not only apparently never say "Actually I was just googling nice places to walk" but would actually confess to the crime on numerous occasions.

Quote
Because if Tabak was planning to kill and get away with manslaughter, I think he would be clever enough not to leave evidence of him searching it before or after murdering someone.

If he searched it after she was reported missing then it could easily have a very innocent explanation.. Your next door neighbor goes missing and everyone you talk to plus the newspapers and the nation is speculating about what could have happened. Many people at the time speculated that she could have been killed accidentally in a domestic arguement, manslaughter. So it piqued his interest and he looked up the concept on the internet. Information is only valuable within the context.

Isn't it more likely that he googled the difference between murder and manslaughter after the crime because he had just killed someone and wanted to understand that under the circumstances in which he had taken a life whether he would be charged with murder or manslaughter. Especially when you consider his other searches: extradition, local bin collection, definition of sexual assault and body decomposition. Perhaps it was because all the neighbours were talking about the possible murder and he wanted to innocently understand how her body was decomposing, even going as far as to watch a video of a body decomposing.

Now of course you'll say (as Nine probably would as well) that those searches were planted by those that planted the body where he had just been planning to take a nice walk. You'll also presumably say that his DNA being found on her body was planted. And that his confession in prison was under duress or he was drugged and that he continued to confess in court due to threats or because he wanted to be extradited (for a crime he hadn't commited?!?) But at no point has anyone offered anything like proof that these things are true. Or why he isn't appealing his conviction.

There's that saying that if you hear hoofbeats expect horses not zebras. All the evidence we do have points to Tabak but you and Nine seem to be still expecting zebras.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: [...] on August 06, 2018, 05:34:53 PM
"If expecting Horses not Zebra's" is often the simplest of answers, then why did Ann Reddrop think Zebra's and not Horses when she got involved with this case??

Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Baz on August 06, 2018, 05:57:45 PM
"If expecting Horses not Zebra's" is often the simplest of answers, then why did Ann Reddrop think Zebra's and not Horses when she got involved with this case??

As all the evidence pointed to Tabak (the horse) and this is who she said should be charged, I’m
not sure I see your point?

Admittedly I don’t know all the players and their involvements in this story as well as you do.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Baz on August 07, 2018, 03:50:09 PM
"If expecting Horses not Zebra's" is often the simplest of answers, then why did Ann Reddrop think Zebra's and not Horses when she got involved with this case??

Are you going to elucidate on this? Because I am still none the wiser.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: [...] on August 07, 2018, 05:31:54 PM
Are you going to elucidate on this? Because I am still none the wiser.

Ann Reddrop was the Head of The Complex Case Unit, and the complex case unit deal in multiples as in crime/ murder /fraud etc....

Ann Reddrop's involvement in this case elludes to it being a far more complex case than we have been lead to believe.... A simple Murder , not to put too fine a point on it, is what it apparently turned out to be...

Yet Ann Reddrop pursued this case to the bitter end even telling us at the end of trial what a cunning man Dr Vincent Tabak was.... She had been looking at him since late December 2010...

Now... We know Dr Vincent Tabak hadn't any prior convictions... not even  a parking ticket... yet the full force of the CPS, with the backing of Ann Reddropp is keen to put Dr Vincent Tabak away.... They didn't have any evidence as to what he may or may not have done, yet he was on remand from January 2011...

He wasn't a serial killer or anything of that nature which would have had Ann Reddrops attention... even though as I have pointed out there has been many times various unsolved murders have been mentioned in context to this crime.... ( Glenis Caruthers.. Melanie Hall)...  We have even had those who are part of these cold cases make a visual appearance.... DCI Bevan and DC Joe Goff)..

Yet there is no evidence or no possibility that Dr Vincent Tabak could have been part of these murders...

Dr Vincent Tabak a quiet studious young man finding himself in the middle of this drama....

So to answer your question Baz.... Ann Reddropp must have heard Zebra's and not Horses for her to get herself involved in this case in the first place, because realistically she shouldn't...  Dr Vincent Tabak didn't come under the 21 criteria of the complex case unit.... So why did Ann pursue this case until the bitter end??


In late December 2010 Ann Reddropp had no reason to pursue Dr Vincent Tabak.... The Police went over to Holland on the 31st December 2010 to interview him.... Ann says it was his DNA that she built a case against him... But she says that before the Police go to her in late December 2010.... Where had they got the sample from??

Ann Reddropp outside Bristol Crown Court..

Quote
And Vincent Tabak became the focus of their attention following the finding on his DNA on Jo's body.. Late in December the Police asked for assistance and guidance from the Crown Prosecution service, that assistance has come from The South West Complex case Unit based here in Bristol... I reviewed the evidence, advised that Vincent Tabak should be charged with Jo's murder and began preparing the case for trial...

Now they went to Holland because it had been mentioned that CJ's car had moved position.... He at this point was in custody.... Why didn't they wait till Dr Vincent Tabak came home??

As British Police they will not be able to arrest him without cause and the relevant documentation signed and agreed.. But they only wanted to question him.... The had no Dutch Police present at the time... Or they should have been mentioned at trial.... But if Ann suspects Dr Vincent Tabak of murdering Joanna yeates, surely he should have been cautioned...

But no...... they wouldn't have had enough evidence for the Dutch Authorities to be happy with an arrest or anything else (imo)... But they do question him for 6 hours which as I keep saying is the length of time that Dutch law allows for a suspect to be charged or released.....

Coincidence.... So... protocol appears not be have been followed... Dr Vincent Tabak has been questioned for 6 hours... And hey Ho... we have DC Karen Thomas telling us on the Crime Watch program (video attached)that it was Dr Vincent Tabak's over interest in forensics that got her alarm bells ringing..... Well that has to be an untrue, if Ann is saying it was late December 2010 that the Police had come to the CPS....


The only person the Police at that time had gone to the CPS about would have been CJ... and as we know he was in custody when they went to talk to Dr Vincent Tabak....

Ann Reddrop on the Murder at Christmas  part 2 at 12:57 of video...

Quote
At that meeting one thing the Police did ask for was a voluntary DNA sample from Vincent Tabak, he was somewhat reluctant to do so..erm.. sufficiently reluctant for the officer who took the sample to phone the incident room in bristol and report that reluctance. Being something that concerned her, it wasn't quite right...

So Ann tells us the Police came to the CPS in late December 2010, also before that they have had his DNA (low copy) no strong evidence...

So yes Dr Vincent Tabak has to be the Zebra.... As Ann had apparently realised it had to be Dr Vincent Tabak and a team of Investigators went to Holland to interview him, at the same time as he had began to be investigated.. She must have had a crystal ball.... Because how could Dr Vincent tabak be the subject of the Polices Investigations in late December 2010... We have a day of the 31st December 2010 and the interview according to DC Karen thomas was what sparked their concern... Ann too tells us this on video...

So the British Police have to act on Dr Vincent Tabak's apparent phone call... fly over to Holland meet Dr vincent tabak, interview him for 6 hours... take a DNA sample at the end of the process as DC Karen Thomas tells us.... Fly back to the UK... Get the DNA sample tested... get the results of the DNA sample, then go to Ann Reddrop again and ask her for her assistance..... All in a few hours..... Is she having a giggle??

She was defineatly hearing a Zebra if she within a few hours had Dr Vincent Tabak as her suspect... with no other corroberating evidence on a low copy of DNA.... The appeal by the Yeates hadn't happened yet and the sobbing girl hadn't rung... So what evidence did she have to believe that Dr Vincent Tabak was her man??


She should have been looking for a horse instead of getting The Police to cross the channel to chase a foreign national who could have been spoken too on his return back to the UK!!

So baz... Dr Vincent Tabak is the Zebra.... And Ann obviously likes to chase them, because I cannot see what cause she or the Police had in investigating Dr Vincent tabak, when there was still plenty of people to interview and as we know Dr Vincent tabak had never meet Joanna Yeates or didnt know Joanna Yeates... No forced entry no reason to suspect a placid Dutchman... (imo).. But blindly they go looking for a Zebra because they heard 3 horses were at the gate.... !!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX_vHIC9hJo  (Ann Reddropp outside Bristol Crown Court)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRDtLjPfdw0  ( DC Karen Thomas)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X5I4eOKIBs (Ann Reddropp features greatly.. part 1)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SgoYy3G750 (Ann Reddropp part 2 murder at christmas)


Edit...  Why is Ann Reddropp featuring in a Docudrama anyway???? Why does she feel the need to tell us the story, bit strange if you ask me..!





[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: foĺlowedeverytimeileaveuk on August 09, 2018, 06:02:57 PM
Hello and welcome.

Having said that I'm about to disagree with you:

You make that sound simple but it isn't. They (and 'they' is how I will refer to whatever shadowy organisation you think orchestrated this supposed cover up) found that the guy living next door just happened to have not only "looked up a few places" but also had no alibi and whose movements could be used to suggest he had the opportunity. Also they managed to find a guy who would not only apparently never say "Actually I was just googling nice places to walk" but would actually confess to the crime on numerous occasions.

Isn't it more likely that he googled the difference between murder and manslaughter after the crime because he had just killed someone and wanted to understand that under the circumstances in which he had taken a life whether he would be charged with murder or manslaughter. Especially when you consider his other searches: extradition, local bin collection, definition of sexual assault and body decomposition. Perhaps it was because all the neighbours were talking about the possible murder and he wanted to innocently understand how her body was decomposing, even going as far as to watch a video of a body decomposing.

Now of course you'll say (as Nine probably would as well) that those searches were planted by those that planted the body where he had just been planning to take a nice walk. You'll also presumably say that his DNA being found on her body was planted. And that his confession in prison was under duress or he was drugged and that he continued to confess in court due to threats or because he wanted to be extradited (for a crime he hadn't commited?!?) But at no point has anyone offered anything like proof that these things are true. Or why he isn't appealing his conviction.

There's that saying that if you hear hoofbeats expect horses not zebras. All the evidence we do have points to Tabak but you and Nine seem to be still expecting zebras.

(To begin, when I say 'they' I mean an extended group of people tasked with covering up the true nature of this crime. which is not wholly all that outlandish or crazy safari story stuff really,)
 Do you understand now what I mean about the value of search history?

You are talking about, and 'when he looked up ' x y z as if its a statement of fact that Tabak himself did it. When I have explained that anyone with a little technical knowledge and motive can remotely access someones computer and make it look as though those searches had been carried out by their target.. And you're saying "of course" I'll say this and that it's..not as simple as I say.

But take for instance, if I want to, all I need is a Linux system and a software development kit for generating SS7 packets (which is readily available online) and once I have someones mobile number I can read all their text messages, i can listen in to their calls, delete messages and logs and I can also geolocate them. Gaining access to a laptop and carrying out additional google searches on it is very easy. I think it would be interesting to see what searches were found on the work computer vs the home laptop. Not that i believe we would ever be given the truth about that.

It is not only possible but given the number of things that dont add up about this case it is probable.

Please understand the wider point of what someone can lead people to believe based on access and control of someones personal computer and access to personal information about them, which can be used to steer a tailored narrative.

I think Tabak made some of the searches relating to the case, which had innocent explanations, but I dont think he made the more incriminating searches.

I do think a big kerfuffle was made to try and convice people that the body was frozen to the ground in longwood lane

Is it all that common where a lone male murderer has opted to use his car to dispose of a body that he leaves the body beside a road where it will be easily seen?

We are told that Tabak bought rock salt in Tescos because he dropped her body in the snow outside the flat so he dissolved the snow imprint evidence.

But how heavy was Joanna that tabak supposedly struggled to lift her the distance to his car? He's a big guy 6ft 4 and fit enough to run a half marathon. fool me once...

Alongside this we are supposed to believe 6ft 4 tabak couldnt lift her over the 4ft wall in Longwood Lane? fool me twice?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/cops-hunting-a-white-van-man-1694868

The woman who spotted the van said,

“I can’t understand how she was lying there in that verge for so long without being spotted."

As she is a regular dog walker of the area I think its very important what she is saying .Its a lane frequented everyday by DOG WALKERS.

I believe it is possible that at that point in time somebody was scoping out the area they had been tasked with leaving the body and perhaps even that the body was in the area in a concealed location and the person was tasked with moving it for it to be 'found'.

I think somebody went by with a van tipped the body to the side of the road. Based on what the dog walkers have said they must havehaphazardly mad a bucket with them dumped snow on top of it.

Because, if her body had been lying there totally undisturbed since it snowed, her jeans pocket would not have been showing through the snow. It would have been covered uniformly. The temperature was too low leading up to the day of discovery for the snow to have melted.

One could argue that a a dog could have moved the snow with an unaware owner, but if a dog had found a body it would have made a bigger mess of the snow around it to reveal the body than just the jeans pocket. A dog would have dug out all around the body and any owner would have noticed. A wild animal would have have really disturbed the scene more than just a back pocket. Unless of course the body wasnt covered in snow at all.

 And what happened to the landlord saying Joanna left the house of her own accord with two people?
 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12089150

I do think this is truthful. I think some people she was in contact with lured Joanna out of her house in a planned attack. I think its people joanna was is contact with that her family and friends didnt know about but possibly her boyfriend did know about.

And after giving this statement then the landlord becomes a suspect? Suspect on what grounds? Once he's released they forget about his witness statement. why?
 I think he was arrested because of what he saw was going to tear holes in a carefully preplanned narrative. And the plan from the start was to have Tabak arrested, after a period of time where a collection of supposedly incriminating internet searches would have been implanted into his regular search history about the case until an excuse could be made to go for him.. I believe its possible he was being watched before joanna went missing.  its possoble Joanna was being watched aswell.

We are told "partygoers" heading to a nearby house heard two screams. Who exactly were the party goers? And whose house were they heading to? And why if the screams from the flat were so loud as to be heard from the street didn't the bookish Jefferies hear them?  Perhaps its more likely they came from further down the street where a group of people had left the flat on foot
 
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-case-vincent-tabak

The last sentence in this paragraph from this article I believe is quite important.

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

 "A sample of Tabak's DNA was found on her chest, however scientists could not establish what it came from."

How convenient....

3weeks is a VERY long time after a positive DNA match on a high priority murder case. What was going on with tabaks dna sample in the background which took an unprecedented long time to get a confirmation of a match and hence an arrest?

Note : When Tabak called the police to report Chris Jeffries car having changed direction...If tabak went out around 10 to go to asdas, then his story of him seeing Chris Jefferies car having been parked the opposite direction than it previously was, would have added credence to the story of Chris Jefferies having saw Joanna leaving the flat with two men on that evening as he went out in his car to run an errand.

As for Russell Delaney, his name appears on many articles on the Joanna Yeates case and I just find certain things which appear and dissapear from the internet at certain times to be rather curious.










Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: foĺlowedeverytimeileaveuk on August 09, 2018, 06:16:06 PM
edit: Tabak bought the rock salt from asdas
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Baz on August 10, 2018, 01:51:10 PM
Ann Reddrop was the Head of The Complex Case Unit, and the complex case unit deal in multiples as in crime/ murder /fraud etc....

Ann Reddrop's involvement in this case elludes to it being a far more complex case than we have been lead to believe.... A simple Murder , not to put too fine a point on it, is what it apparently turned out to be...

Yet Ann Reddrop pursued this case to the bitter end even telling us at the end of trial what a cunning man Dr Vincent Tabak was.... She had been looking at him since late December 2010...

Now... We know Dr Vincent Tabak hadn't any prior convictions... not even  a parking ticket... yet the full force of the CPS, with the backing of Ann Reddropp is keen to put Dr Vincent Tabak away.... They didn't have any evidence as to what he may or may not have done, yet he was on remand from January 2011...

He wasn't a serial killer or anything of that nature which would have had Ann Reddrops attention... even though as I have pointed out there has been many times various unsolved murders have been mentioned in context to this crime.... ( Glenis Caruthers.. Melanie Hall)...  We have even had those who are part of these cold cases make a visual appearance.... DCI Bevan and DC Joe Goff)..

Yet there is no evidence or no possibility that Dr Vincent Tabak could have been part of these murders...

Dr Vincent Tabak a quiet studious young man finding himself in the middle of this drama....

So to answer your question Baz.... Ann Reddropp must have heard Zebra's and not Horses for her to get herself involved in this case in the first place, because realistically she shouldn't...  Dr Vincent Tabak didn't come under the 21 criteria of the complex case unit.... So why did Ann pursue this case until the bitter end??


In late December 2010 Ann Reddropp had no reason to pursue Dr Vincent Tabak.... The Police went over to Holland on the 31st December 2010 to interview him.... Ann says it was his DNA that she built a case against him... But she says that before the Police go to her in late December 2010.... Where had they got the sample from??

Ann Reddropp outside Bristol Crown Court..

Now they went to Holland because it had been mentioned that CJ's car had moved position.... He at this point was in custody.... Why didn't they wait till Dr Vincent Tabak came home??

As British Police they will not be able to arrest him without cause and the relevant documentation signed and agreed.. But they only wanted to question him.... The had no Dutch Police present at the time... Or they should have been mentioned at trial.... But if Ann suspects Dr Vincent Tabak of murdering Joanna yeates, surely he should have been cautioned...

But no...... they wouldn't have had enough evidence for the Dutch Authorities to be happy with an arrest or anything else (imo)... But they do question him for 6 hours which as I keep saying is the length of time that Dutch law allows for a suspect to be charged or released.....

Coincidence.... So... protocol appears not be have been followed... Dr Vincent Tabak has been questioned for 6 hours... And hey Ho... we have DC Karen Thomas telling us on the Crime Watch program (video attached)that it was Dr Vincent Tabak's over interest in forensics that got her alarm bells ringing..... Well that has to be an untrue, if Ann is saying it was late December 2010 that the Police had come to the CPS....


The only person the Police at that time had gone to the CPS about would have been CJ... and as we know he was in custody when they went to talk to Dr Vincent Tabak....

Ann Reddrop on the Murder at Christmas  part 2 at 12:57 of video...

So Ann tells us the Police came to the CPS in late December 2010, also before that they have had his DNA (low copy) no strong evidence...

So yes Dr Vincent Tabak has to be the Zebra.... As Ann had apparently realised it had to be Dr Vincent Tabak and a team of Investigators went to Holland to interview him, at the same time as he had began to be investigated.. She must have had a crystal ball.... Because how could Dr Vincent tabak be the subject of the Polices Investigations in late December 2010... We have a day of the 31st December 2010 and the interview according to DC Karen thomas was what sparked their concern... Ann too tells us this on video...

So the British Police have to act on Dr Vincent Tabak's apparent phone call... fly over to Holland meet Dr vincent tabak, interview him for 6 hours... take a DNA sample at the end of the process as DC Karen Thomas tells us.... Fly back to the UK... Get the DNA sample tested... get the results of the DNA sample, then go to Ann Reddrop again and ask her for her assistance..... All in a few hours..... Is she having a giggle??

She was defineatly hearing a Zebra if she within a few hours had Dr Vincent Tabak as her suspect... with no other corroberating evidence on a low copy of DNA.... The appeal by the Yeates hadn't happened yet and the sobbing girl hadn't rung... So what evidence did she have to believe that Dr Vincent Tabak was her man??


She should have been looking for a horse instead of getting The Police to cross the channel to chase a foreign national who could have been spoken too on his return back to the UK!!

So baz... Dr Vincent Tabak is the Zebra.... And Ann obviously likes to chase them, because I cannot see what cause she or the Police had in investigating Dr Vincent tabak, when there was still plenty of people to interview and as we know Dr Vincent tabak had never meet Joanna Yeates or didnt know Joanna Yeates... No forced entry no reason to suspect a placid Dutchman... (imo).. But blindly they go looking for a Zebra because they heard 3 horses were at the gate.... !!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX_vHIC9hJo  (Ann Reddropp outside Bristol Crown Court)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRDtLjPfdw0  ( DC Karen Thomas)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4X5I4eOKIBs (Ann Reddropp features greatly.. part 1)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SgoYy3G750 (Ann Reddropp part 2 murder at christmas)


Edit...  Why is Ann Reddropp featuring in a Docudrama anyway???? Why does she feel the need to tell us the story, bit strange if you ask me..!

It seems to me that the quote you provide which has led you to this belief can read in numerous ways. She says that it was late December that the CPS was approached for advice (which is presumably normal procedure but I don't know enough to say for sure) NOT that he became the subject of their attention late December. In fact it seems to me from what you have provided that he didn't become a suspect until his unusual behaviour when interviewed in Holland. I don't think it is unusual for Police to travel abroad to question witnesses, especially when it is so high profile and they have so many resources made available to solve the case.

Also I looked at the Complex Case Unit and part of their remit is "High profile murders." There is no doubt that this case was high profile and so seems perfectly acceptable that the unit became involved.

Hope you're well.

Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Baz on August 10, 2018, 02:17:52 PM
(To begin, when I say 'they' I mean an extended group of people tasked with covering up the true nature of this crime. which is not wholly all that outlandish or crazy safari story stuff really,)
 Do you understand now what I mean about the value of search history?

You are talking about, and 'when he looked up ' x y z as if its a statement of fact that Tabak himself did it. When I have explained that anyone with a little technical knowledge and motive can remotely access someones computer and make it look as though those searches had been carried out by their target.. And you're saying "of course" I'll say this and that it's..not as simple as I say.

But take for instance, if I want to, all I need is a Linux system and a software development kit for generating SS7 packets (which is readily available online) and once I have someones mobile number I can read all their text messages, i can listen in to their calls, delete messages and logs and I can also geolocate them. Gaining access to a laptop and carrying out additional google searches on it is very easy. I think it would be interesting to see what searches were found on the work computer vs the home laptop. Not that i believe we would ever be given the truth about that.

It is not only possible but given the number of things that dont add up about this case it is probable.

Please understand the wider point of what someone can lead people to believe based on access and control of someones personal computer and access to personal information about them, which can be used to steer a tailored narrative.

I think Tabak made some of the searches relating to the case, which had innocent explanations, but I dont think he made the more incriminating searches.

I do think a big kerfuffle was made to try and convice people that the body was frozen to the ground in longwood lane

Is it all that common where a lone male murderer has opted to use his car to dispose of a body that he leaves the body beside a road where it will be easily seen?

We are told that Tabak bought rock salt in Tescos because he dropped her body in the snow outside the flat so he dissolved the snow imprint evidence.

But how heavy was Joanna that tabak supposedly struggled to lift her the distance to his car? He's a big guy 6ft 4 and fit enough to run a half marathon. fool me once...

Alongside this we are supposed to believe 6ft 4 tabak couldnt lift her over the 4ft wall in Longwood Lane? fool me twice?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/cops-hunting-a-white-van-man-1694868

The woman who spotted the van said,

“I can’t understand how she was lying there in that verge for so long without being spotted."

As she is a regular dog walker of the area I think its very important what she is saying .Its a lane frequented everyday by DOG WALKERS.

I believe it is possible that at that point in time somebody was scoping out the area they had been tasked with leaving the body and perhaps even that the body was in the area in a concealed location and the person was tasked with moving it for it to be 'found'.

I think somebody went by with a van tipped the body to the side of the road. Based on what the dog walkers have said they must havehaphazardly mad a bucket with them dumped snow on top of it.

Because, if her body had been lying there totally undisturbed since it snowed, her jeans pocket would not have been showing through the snow. It would have been covered uniformly. The temperature was too low leading up to the day of discovery for the snow to have melted.

One could argue that a a dog could have moved the snow with an unaware owner, but if a dog had found a body it would have made a bigger mess of the snow around it to reveal the body than just the jeans pocket. A dog would have dug out all around the body and any owner would have noticed. A wild animal would have have really disturbed the scene more than just a back pocket. Unless of course the body wasnt covered in snow at all.

 And what happened to the landlord saying Joanna left the house of her own accord with two people?
 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12089150

I do think this is truthful. I think some people she was in contact with lured Joanna out of her house in a planned attack. I think its people joanna was is contact with that her family and friends didnt know about but possibly her boyfriend did know about.

And after giving this statement then the landlord becomes a suspect? Suspect on what grounds? Once he's released they forget about his witness statement. why?
 I think he was arrested because of what he saw was going to tear holes in a carefully preplanned narrative. And the plan from the start was to have Tabak arrested, after a period of time where a collection of supposedly incriminating internet searches would have been implanted into his regular search history about the case until an excuse could be made to go for him.. I believe its possible he was being watched before joanna went missing.  its possoble Joanna was being watched aswell.

We are told "partygoers" heading to a nearby house heard two screams. Who exactly were the party goers? And whose house were they heading to? And why if the screams from the flat were so loud as to be heard from the street didn't the bookish Jefferies hear them?  Perhaps its more likely they came from further down the street where a group of people had left the flat on foot
 
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-case-vincent-tabak

The last sentence in this paragraph from this article I believe is quite important.

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

 "A sample of Tabak's DNA was found on her chest, however scientists could not establish what it came from."

How convenient....

3weeks is a VERY long time after a positive DNA match on a high priority murder case. What was going on with tabaks dna sample in the background which took an unprecedented long time to get a confirmation of a match and hence an arrest?

Note : When Tabak called the police to report Chris Jeffries car having changed direction...If tabak went out around 10 to go to asdas, then his story of him seeing Chris Jefferies car having been parked the opposite direction than it previously was, would have added credence to the story of Chris Jefferies having saw Joanna leaving the flat with two men on that evening as he went out in his car to run an errand.

As for Russell Delaney, his name appears on many articles on the Joanna Yeates case and I just find certain things which appear and dissapear from the internet at certain times to be rather curious.

I understand that it is possible to fake someone's internet searches. The only problem is that you have no proof that this is want happened. You offer only conjecture. I could do the same. Aliens did it and then faked all the evidence and then used alien technology to brainwash Tabak into believing he did it. You can't prove that is not what happened just as I can't prove that some shadowy cabal decided to murder a woman (for apparently no reason) and then find the perfect man to set up as the culprit (who would miraculously confess!)

Similarly your evidence for the body not having been where it was claimed to be found. Well you once again offer no proof. A man was sat in a van on the same road for instance is hardly confirmation is it. There's a place to pull over just up from where the body was found - or that is how it looks in the photo in the paper - so it's hardly a surprise that occasionally people stop there. As for the dog's behaviour, well you can't say how a dog "would behave" because all dogs are different. So to use it as proof is just weak. Without seeing what the dog walker saw we have no idea how realistic it is that he saw her pocket but why would he lie? are he and his wife and his dog also part of this conspiracy to kill a young architect?

And what I always come back to, why is Vincent Tabak taking the blame for someone else's crime? Can you answer that with any genuine certainty?

It does seem like you want to bring poor Greg Reardon into this quite often too. But the police ruled him out through his alibi very early and none of the subsequent evidence uncovered seems to point to him. So throwing suspicion on the poor guy seems cruel and insensitive to me.

By your name and how you speak about this case I have to wonder if perhaps you are someone who presumes conspiracy is the answer in a lot of mysteries and high profile crimes? Is it then also possible that you inadvertently view the evidence that is available solely through that lens?
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Nicholas on November 06, 2018, 11:26:13 AM
Not sure about the cat either, but I meant for it to illustrate how discord between neighbours can be entirely disproportionate.

IDOM is the court's final riposte. It stands for "In Denial Of Murder". Essentially if you are convicted of a murder there is no prospect of leaving prison unless you confess you having carried out the act. Think of it as a ducking stool. Once you are accused and found guilty into the depths you go. Confess and you live. Nice hey!

I disagree!
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Nicholas on November 06, 2018, 12:09:36 PM
What we believe is that out suspect has attacked a large number of women and has attempted to use planted evidence to incriminate his true target. He has been observed on a number of occasions in the near vicinity of his intended target(s) and is unlikely to desist from further attacks in the future.

Our train of thought at this moment is a sort of multi level arrangement, the top level being ideas (that's all they are at the moment) that might provoke a retaliatory strike. The next level down is really the chance of a random attack just because he's seen Yeates walking alone in the dark, his most popular mode of attack.

For what it's worth we are looking to find out if CJ fired our suspects wife from her job as an English teacher when she fell pregnant, a long shot in the dark but something we wish to eliminate. If we are right then it gets flagged up as a potential, not a definite. We think our suspect is very much one to bear a grudge forever and a day and will strike years later. Once having stalked his prey for a while and collected sufficient material to plant in areas he knows the police will look then he strikes. He is not really an opportunist but a detailed planner. His escape route is always his first priority after his choice of target. He then takes out a vulnerable lone female and either rapes and tortures them before releasing them in a very controlled fashion or smashes both sides of their skulls with a blunt instrument and uses either fire or running water (rivers etc) to help cover his tracks. He always operates in areas he knows well, Clifton being one of them.

I could go on but there is little point at this stage. We have six specific lines of inquiry to follow up on, that often throws up something we hadn't even considered so it tends to mushroom before we review and eliminate.We are not sure why the police are avoiding speaking to us directly, probably to avoid giving us any form of recognition or just to cover their own irrevocable mistakes. Either way we will come up with something or nothing.

As it happens, one of our number has suggested that if Yeates had returned home and encountered Tabak she might have ended up in his flat leaving evidence of her presence unintentionally. After Morson returned, she, being a she, wasn't going to miss this and may have confronted Yeates at a later point, leading to the untimely demise of the relatively diminutive Yeates. That goes some way to explaining the half drunk bottle of cider and the missing pizza and the fact that all Yeates gear was back in her flat. Was Tabak prepared to cover up an attack perpetrated by Morson?? Who's to know??

We hadn't considered the thought that there may be a historic attachment to the flats in Canynge Road, but we are already thwarted in our attempts to check as the central library in Bristol (uniquely) restrict access to the register of electors on their shelves. If we can fund a court order to force them to grant us access then we can move forward on that one.

All for now.

AH

What about Tabak's confession during his trial?
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Caroline on November 10, 2018, 11:32:29 AM
I disagree!

Neither do I.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: James55 on February 15, 2020, 11:28:23 AM
People are questioning Vincent Tabaks guilt?
Ok, so this is a dark comedy spoof website. Now i get it.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: Nicholas on February 22, 2020, 07:36:38 PM
People are questioning Vincent Tabaks guilt?
Ok, so this is a dark comedy spoof website. Now i get it.

There appears to be a prominent individual on twitter promoting this BS.

Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: James55 on February 23, 2020, 02:58:21 PM
The inclusion of Tabak on here only cheapens the website as a whole and is extremely disrespectful to Joanna Yates.
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: mrswah on February 27, 2020, 12:06:12 PM
There appears to be a prominent individual on twitter promoting this BS.


Can you tell me more? 
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: AerialHunter on November 11, 2020, 07:25:18 PM
Have some more interesting stuff Mrs Wah
Title: Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
Post by: mrswah on November 11, 2020, 11:13:35 PM
Have some more interesting stuff Mrs Wah


Can you PM me?