Vincent Tabak and the Murder of Joanna Yeates

[[...]]

               I Am Going To Start Explaining The Searches Dr Vincent Tabak Was Supposed To Have Made!!


I did want you to remember this quote and the timing of the release of the Video....

What I can tell you is we still haven't found the pizza, we have searched bins in the aarea and we are working through 292 tonnes of domestic rubbish seized in the vacinity....

8:20AM GMT 05 Jan 2011:

And this quote:

By Gordon Rayner, and Martin Evans By Gordon Rayner, and Martin Evans 1By Gordon Rayner, and Martin Evans 12:58PM GMT 05 Jan 2011
Det Ch Insp Phil Jones said it was possible the killer had kept the grey knee-length ski sock as a macabre trophy, and issued an urgent appeal to the public to help find it in the hope that it could be the vital clue that will crack the case.

12:58PM GMT 05 Jan 2011

I'm having to work out approximateley when the time lines relate to what date???

At Line 340 of the prosecution chart
Tabak Googled on 26 Dec 2010

 

So with the quote above from Dr Vincent Tabak line 340 of the timeline is the 26 th Decemeber 2010

At Line 368 of the prosecution chart
Tabak searched for the Press release about
‘domestic rubbish’
‘Yeates’
‘architect’s killer’
‘maps for Clifton Road’
‘Clifton Road rubbish’
‘393 tons of rubbish trawled through’
‘household collections- Bristol City Council’
‘recycling’

So we have jumped 28 timelines at this point: to get to when the Police release the video dated 5th January 2010 to talk about the 292 tonnes of rubbish they have trawlled through???

Does the timeline mean the 5th January 2011??? or the 3rd from the press article??

Remember the press release was at 8:20AM GMT 05 Jan 2011: Wednesday

So where is Dr Vincent Tabak at 8:20pm on 5th January 2011..... well he's either on his way to work or about to leave...

Why doesn't it say on home computer??? we still don't know if that timeline is the 5th January 2011!!!!

If this search is on the 5th January... where is his search that says PIZZA!!!! Even if it's before where;'s the Pizza search???

I think he went to work around 9;00am normally: 

Defence Counsel: What time do you leave for work?
Tabak: 9.00 am.

That was on a different day so I don't know if that applys to his usual time for leaving work....

At Line 369 of the prosecution search
Tabak searched for the words
‘amounts of rubbish seized’

Now.... Dr Vincent Tabak is an incredibliy intelligent man... he has PHD's... etc....

Again... it's the DETAIL...... well if on line 368 it says the amount of rubbish being:

‘393 tons of rubbish trawled through

And notice it's not even the correct amount of tonnage..........

Why on line 369... would he then search

 

Tabak searched for the words
‘amounts of rubbish seized’

Hello aren't we talking about a highly educated man here???????????

Why would he look after for the amounts of rubbish seized if he already knows how much rubbish was searched!!!!!!!  Der.......

Up until the about 5th January 2011 Nothing had been mentioned about the grey ski sock:

A range of date between 26th Dec 2010 and 4th January 2011:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=missing+sock+found+joanna+yeates&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=1006&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A26%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A04%2F01%2F2011&tbm=

Nothing .... so the first mention is at the media conference on the 5th January 2011 at 12:58PM GMT ??????

At Line 369 of the prosecution search
Tabak searched for the words
‘amounts of rubbish seized’
 At Line 372 of the prosecution chart
Tabak Googled the words
‘BCC household rubbish collections’
 At Line 376 of the prosecution chart
Tabak’s research was categorised by the police analyst into ‘
‘Google’
‘forensic’
‘location’

At Line 378 of the prosecution chart
Tabak Googled the word
‘Yeates’
Tabak went to Google map and searched for the words
‘Clifton Bristol’
‘woods and surrounding area’
Then Tabak Googled the words
‘average rubbish per person in UK’
‘Yeates’
‘rubbish’
 At Line 382 of the prosecution chart
Tabak Googled
‘Yeates pizza’
‘Avon police seize rubbish’
‘Yeates
‘Sky news images’
‘Yeates’
‘police’
Tabak also searchedhe BBC news article for
‘missing sock when found’
‘Avon & Somerset police’
Then Tabak researched for a Dutch article of ‘18 year sentence for murder’

I've done it this way because we're trying to establish when timeline 368 and 369 is: they could be the 3rd January 2011..  I found an article on that date....

Because next we have:

On 5 Jan 2011 lunchtime, Tabak Googled
‘press coverage’
At 3.05 pm, Tabak Googled the words
‘press coverage’
‘missing sock’

And again before that he searched

At Line 382 of the prosecution chart
Tabak Googled
‘Yeates pizza’
‘Avon police seize rubbish’
‘Yeates
‘Sky news images’
‘Yeates’
‘police’
Tabak also searchedhe BBC news article for
‘missing sock when found’
‘Avon & Somerset police’
Then Tabak researched for a Dutch article of ‘18 year sentence for murder’

Why would he search ‘missing sock when found’.... very specific on line 382

When they then say:

 

On 5 Jan 2011 lunchtime, Tabak Googled

That sounds like he has searched for the sock before the news of the sock was divulged??????? It was never found... it was never proven to have anything to do with a trophy.....

Thats what they want us to think....

I'd have been more inclinced to believe the search if he'd put HEALEY"S CIDER!!!!

Also what an odd search

‘missing sock when found’

Why when found???? What is it going to reveal.... Remember they say that he put it in the rubbish so it will be as contaminated as the Pizza box in all that RUBBISH!!!!!

You think his concern would be what they found in the Flat if he had been in it!!!!!!

The other odd thing is that there are only 28 timelines between=

26th Dec 2010 which is timeline 340

3rd ish January which is timeline 368

because we know that timeline 382 is where he supposed to check for the sock!!!

When is timeline 382??????

He apparently did nothing according to this from 26th Dec 2010 timeline 340 and about the 3rd January timeline 369.... only 26 timeline for about a week...!!!!!

What is GLARING OBVIOUSLY missing from these SEARCHES???????????????

(1): There is No search on CJ

(2) There is NO CONCERN about DNA

(3)  There is no search on what CAR drove where!!!

(4) There is no extra searches of Longwood Lane (i'll explain later)

(5) No searches for Asda CCTV coverage

We Know that he gave a DNA in Holland on the 31st Dec 2010.... So why not the concern before or up until the 5th January 2011?????

Where are the searches about Cj's arrest... where are the Searches about the forensic's on the DOOR????

Why isn't he..... CONSTANTLY CHECKING THE INTERNET AT THIS POINT!!!!!!!!!

Remember the Police woman said when she saw Dr Vincent Tabak in Holland on the 31st January 2011:

He was Vague in some area's... He was over interested in other area's, Particulary around our Forensic examination...
There was things in his account that just didn't seem right.... to me.
And then his reluctance to give his DNA at the end of the process.......  Again started to Ring Alarm Bells

So he's so interested in the Forensic's and every detail of this investigation, by the 5th January 2011... he hasn't
even checked out whether the DNA sample he gave in Holland on the 31st Dec 2010 would be a PROBLEM to him??????


You would think between Line 340 and line 368... if Dr Vincent Tabak was worried about DNA samples he's of been checking that all the time and the Prosecution would have JUMPED ON IT!!!!!!!!

On 5 Jan 2011 lunchtime, Tabak Googled
‘press coverage’
At 3.05 pm, Tabak Googled the words
‘press coverage’
‘missing sock’
At 4.03, Tabak searched online newspaper articles for the words
‘frozen DNA’
‘rubbish collection Clifton 23 December 2010’

They manage to get to the DNA .....  So suddenley after all this time he then thinks .... Hang on a wee moment there.... I'll check about frozen DNA... but I won't check whether the Police have a right to use the sample I gave them on the 31st Dec 2010...... 

And will they need to take another sample if they Arrest me????

To me these searches sound like someone following the case..... OR these searches weren't actually on Dr Vincent Tabak's computer!!

No search for DNA up until the 5th January 2011?????? I wonder what line number that search is????

At Line 376 of the prosecution chart
Tabak’s research was categorised by the police analyst into ‘
‘Google’
‘forensic’
‘location’

 

Line 376 does not mean that Dr Vincent Tabak Catergorised these events into GOOGLE..... FORENSICS.... LOCATION.....

It is the POLICE who do this at TIMELINE 376.... So if a jury member isn't on the ball they might just write these words down and the timeline number!!!

It would give the impression that Dr Vincent Tabak looked at these things on timeline 376

When we already know.. that he didn't look at FORENSICS by timeline 382!!!!!

But it's been planted in the minds of the JURY!!!!

That line of 376 should have been clarified by the DEFENCE!!

He was Vague in some area's... He was over interested in other area's, Particulary around our Forensic examination...

So what possible other area's has Dr Vincent Tabak got an over interest in.....

(1): Time of Death??
(2): Finger print analysis???
(3): What CJ could have told the Police
(4): The  Front Door of Joanna Yeates???
(5):CCTV Footage of Clifton Suspension Bridge
(6):CCtV footage in and around Clifton:
(7):Asda CCtv
(8): Cars seen On Longwood Lane
(9): A Man actiing suspiciously on Longwood Lane on Friday 17th Dec 2010
(10):How much DNA gets leftbehind in the scene of crime
(11) EU Law and extradition....

I could go on......

At 4.03, Tabak searched online newspaper articles for the words
‘frozen DNA’

Now this is almost laughable..... That was the HEADLINE from the NEWSPAPER (Only in the sense of the words FROZEN DNA)....

Police hope frozen DNA sample on body will solve Joanna's murder as they warn women 'not to go out alone after dark'

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343462/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Police-hope-frozen-DNA-sample-body-solve-murder.html#ixzz4SorklMZS    UPDATED:   19:19, 3 January 2011

This is the only article on the words "FROZEN DNA" and the time is 19:19 .....

How many articles did he search????
A Range of dates from 17/12/2010 till 5th January 2011 only give you one result:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=frozen+DNa&biw=1920&bih=1006&espv=2&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A17%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A05%2F01%2F2011&tbm=


Now if this article was available on the 3rd January 2011 AND.... Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to be following every single move of this investigation......

WHY.... did he wait 2 DAYS to check about the FROZEN DNA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You see by this point you would have thought Dr Vincent Tabak would not of hung around Britain, if he was the supposed murderer:

Defence Counsel: Then in Holland the English police took your DNA. What did you think
would happen?
Tabak: I was thinking I would be arrested anytime.
Defence Counsel: Do you know what DNA is?
Tabak: Yes.
Defence Counsel: What did you think if they found DNA on Joanna?
Tabak: A sure match.
 

If he SAYS.... when he's in court that the DNA Sample he gave on the 31st December 2010 would be a sure match....

WHY is he not planning his escape to Holland?????????

Why don't his early searches indicate that he was trying to flee to Holland????

Remember 48 hours to turn around all the samples ... So... this sample may not have even been tested!!!!

He knows what DNA is:....... So you would think he'd do a search more relevant to himself!!!


Remember this from the 5th January 2011: The Policeman says KILLERS....

He said: "I can assure you, we are determined to solve this crime, and bring Jo's killers to justice."

Lets see how Dr Vincent Tabak's other searches change after this date of 5th Decemeber 2010

Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't look too over interested in the case up until the 5th January 2010!!!!!!

For a man feverishly following everything so he could cover his TRACKS!!!!! He looks like he 's not that fussed!!!!


EDIT:

Jo Yeates' body missing a sock when found, say police

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12117460


he wouldn't search it like it was a google search... why is it written like a google search when he's clicked on an Article??????

Tabak also searchedhe BBC news article for
‘missing sock when found’

The Article isn't worded like that!!!!!!!!

[[...]]

Just because a search has a date stamp to it.... doesn't mean that was the date that something took place:

I've attached 3 screenshots of one of my post today and I brought up my mac date and time ... I changed the date them to the year 2014 and different months :

It's easy enough to do anyone can do it by changing the time stamp.... I didn't join this forum in 2014

The date is shown from my notifications bar.... for some reason the stock and shares have stayed the same...

Anyway at the top of each screen shot will be the date and time I have changed them too.....

Screenshot : 2014-09-09  at 00.45.33
Screenshot : 2014-12-13  at 16.43.04
Screenshot : 2014-12-15  at 16.44.08

So anyone can change anything on a computer....

This is why the searches shouldn't be accepted into evidence .....

Unless they are independently verified by Independant EXPERT.... for both the Prosecution and the Defence

By Having a completley independant IT expert it  would stop any issues of either side saying that the computer evidence has been tampered with.....

Once you change data... some of it you won't be able to retrieve........ 

Personally I would not allow computer searches into evidence .. they are not very safe....... And they don't show intent!!!!

By demonstrating this... I can say that all Dr Vincent Tabak the Computer expert only needed to Change the Date and time on his computer so that his searches didn't have timestamps relevant to the Joanna Yeates Case...

If he was trying to hide evidence. he could easily have done that..... Altenatively... he could have gone back over to Holland and dumped all of his hard drives... they would never have found them!!!!!

Another thing I would like to point out about searches people do, I think they are quite personal....

People tend to search for things in the same way:... For instance when I'm trying to find something on google.... I would more than likely write a whole sentence...

So ....... How does Dr Vincent Tabak search???????

[[...]]

I was going to edit my post about searches...

But when I was looking at it again... The First search doesn't make sense??

At Line 368 of the prosecution chart
Tabak searched for the Press release about
‘domestic rubbish’
‘Yeates’
‘393 tons of rubbish trawled through’
‘household collections- Bristol City Council’
‘recycling’

How is that a GOOGLE SEARCH????????????

Remember on line :

At Line 376 of the prosecution chart
Tabak’s research was categorised by the police analyst into ‘
‘Google’
‘forensic’
‘location’

The POLICE ANAYLSIST  split the searches into 3 CATERGORIES.... GOOGLE.... FORENSICS.....LOCATION

So how did they show that he used google to search for press releases on rubbish...???

Does it say: To find these Dr Vincent Tabak.... put the words into google then clicked on NEWS?????

Because when you start a search in google you have to go on google first before you get an option to look at news relating to your search... But It doesn't say he went on Google first????

so.....

At Line 368 of the prosecution chart
Tabak searched for the Press release about
‘domestic rubbish’
‘Yeates’

 How did he search for PRESS RELEASES specifically?????

They lumped that lot together without explanation!!!!!

So which online Newspapers did he search????

That is a bizarre way to search????

Is that even POSSIBLE???

I honestly CAN NOT see how that is even possible????

Can anyone shed some light how you can search for PRESS RELEASE about anything without searching google first???
 If he had some sort of news app he could be looking at the News for that day...

But that is not searching???

I'm stumped!!!!!

Because it's not until LINE 376: That the prosecution even says about which Catergories these searches are supposed to be split up into????

AND Press Releases is LINE 368

Ah...... WAS that so They jury would put these searches into CATERGORIES themselves and say:

Look as early as 3rd January he searched for tonnes of Rubbish??? (I'll put that under Google)

AHA... I think that was away to influence the `Jury (IMO)

[[...]]

Oh My Goodness.... I had to do this one...

On 6 Jan 2011, Tabak researched the words
Pizza box
Tabak Googled the words
‘Rubbish collection York Place Clifton Bristol’
‘Jo Yeates rubbish’
 At 4.10 (pm) Tabak searched on Wikipedia for the words
‘Detention of a suspect’
‘letter and label sent to a public house’

This search doesn't make sense.....

But the idea about does work.....

 I'll explain..... I had google in my head so i went to search google for the letter and label sent to pub!!!

So I checked my normal way: Range of dates: 1st January 2011 to the 6th January 2011:... I got this:...

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=letter+and+label+sent+to+a+public+house%E2%80%99&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=966&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A01%2F01%2F2011%2Ccd_max%3A06%2F01%2F2011&tbm=

I thought I remember something about a letter being sent to a pub... So i looked again:..

A letter making reference to murder victim Joanna Yeates and containing a torn-off pizza label was sent to the pub where she enjoyed a final drink with colleagues, it has emerged.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8250162/Joanna-Yeates-murder-letter-containing-pizza-label-sent-to-pub-where-architect-had-final-drink.html

It's DATED 10th January........

But that isn't really the funny part of the search.......

Why on Earth would he search:

 

At 4.10 (pm) Tabak searched on Wikipedia for the words
‘Detention of a suspect’
‘letter and label sent to a public house’

Why would Dr Vincent Tabak be searching WIKI for the Letter and label sent to a Public house?????

How the hell will WIKI help him......

(1) Does wiki give tips on how to send this label

(2) Does wiki tell you how to package these items

(3) will wiki tell you when the label and pizza arrived at the pub....

So two Questions here: How would he know about the Pizza and the label before it was released to the press..

And why would he search WIKI???

Another thought.... If they are implying that Dr Vincent Tabak sent those items to the pub... Then why didn't they get brought to court as evidence....!!!!!!

So like I said before .. if the Jury have the three catergories of GOOGLE... FORENSIC.....LOCATION

Which catergory will they put the WIKI search under??????

[[...]]

I think when you look at the earlier Police Press conferences... even if they do not give loads of information or detail.. They are probably the more acurate as to what is and has happened on a daily basis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8noQpXm0HQU


I want to try and understand how they went from this:


Avon and Somerset Police Conference: Police Announce death of Joanna:

They are taking questions: At 7:13 mins

DATED 28th December 2010:

Caroline from The Daily Telegraph:

Was there any other marks on Joanna's body aside from round her neck?

The Policemans's Reply:

Nothing significant.... As I said the cause of death was a erm.. was er.a compression to the neck which was strangulation..erm and the cause of death

Caroline:

No marks on her at all?

The Policeman:

Well erm... Nothing significant

How did it go from that original STATEMENT that there were no significant injuries to joanna Yeates to:.......


Headline in the Evening standard:

Joanna Yeates suffered 43 injuries in desperate fight against strangler'
Tuesday 11 October 2011

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/joanna-yeates-suffered-43-injuries-in-desperate-fight-against-strangler-6452369.html

I have done a Range of dates From: 28/10/2010 to 31/1/2011 And there is nothing about these injuries in the newspapers!!!!

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=43+injuries+to+joanna+yeates&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=922&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A28%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A31%2F01%2F2011&tbm=

Again nothing there really...

Range of Dates From: 26/12/2010 to 10/2/2011 .....

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=43+injuries+to+joanna+yeates&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=922&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A28%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A10%2F02%2F2011&tbm=

Just one article ... but i think its a list of stories ...So the injures where not available to be see then:

It  takes you to this: http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/briefing/joanna_yeates/

Range of Dates From 26th December 2010 to 28/2/2011 :

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=43+injuries+to+joanna+yeates&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=922&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A28%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A28%2F02%2F2011&tbm=

Nothing again:......  I'm starting to wonder when I will find an Article relating to the 43 Injuries!!!

Range of Dates 26/12/2010 to 31/3/2011

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=43+injuries+to+joanna+yeates&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=922&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A28%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A31%2F03%2F2011&tbm=

There is very little available at this point!!!!

Range of dates 26/12/2010 to 30/4/2011

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=43+injuries+to+joanna+yeates&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=922&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A28%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A30%2F04%2F2011&tbm=

Again NOTHING!!!!!!!!

Range of Dates 26/12/2010 to 31/5/2011

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=43+injuries+to+joanna+yeates&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=922&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A28%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A31%2F05%2F2011&tbm=

Again Nothing... By this Point you think the media would have been all over it!!!!

Lets not FORGET Dr Vincent Tabak has been to court and pleaded guilty to manslaughter in May... Nothing mentioned in the NewsPapers about the 43 injuries at all up until now!!!!

Range of Dates from 26/12/2010 to 30/9/2011 :

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=43+injuries+to+joanna+yeates&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=922&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A28%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A30%2F09%2F2011&tbm=

NOTHING AT ALL.... till be go to October...... you then get Articles....

'Joanna Yeates suffered 43 injuries in desperate fight against strangler'

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/joanna-yeates-suffered-43-injuries-in-desperate-fight-against-strangler-6452369.html


Why in the very begining did the Police Not Mention This!!!!!!!


It's like another THING to Bolster there case against Dr Vincent Tabak ... (IMO)

Remember Andrew Mott and his unweldly Broom Handle .. prodding and poking!!!!!!

Lets really think about the Implications of this:......

If the discrription of these injuries have been enhanced  and they are marks from bumping herself....  anything that might leave a mark...( Plus obvious signs of strangulation..)

For instance Did she slip on her way home... treacherous weather according to the Police... so its not in the realms of possibility:

Have they made out for court that these INJURIES were CAUSED by Dr Vincent Tabak and this is not accurate!!!

How on earth must Joanna Parents feel having to listen to such inaccuracies...

We Remember Tanja Nickson... it didn't stop her showing a motuary picure in the court to Bolster her wall evidence...
These Photographs of joanna Yeates had already been shown to the jury on the Friday and Joanna Yeates Parents had KEPT away from court so they did not see such distressing Pictures of there daughter:

But..... That didn't stop Tanja Nickson showing the Pictures when she had no need too!! And causing massive distress to the Family...!!!!

Again i'm slightly stumped how we went from:

Well erm... Nothing significant

TO:......

Joanna Yeates suffered 43 injuries in desperate fight against strangler'

When someone is strangled there are always certain injuries associated with that...

I still believe it was someone who Jo knew!!!

If she was fighting back.. someone must have had scratches ...marks on them... she just didn't let someone do this!!!

Did they check Dr Vincent Tabak for this when they first saw him.... Did Tanja notice anything on Dr Vincent  Tabak!!!


Did they just SENSATIONALISE the injuries......  This poor girl...... And poor family...

In someway I hope i'm wrong.... Because it would be a terrible blow to the Yeates Family....

But i Cannot Get over the HEALEYS Cider in the Flat and the TATTINGER REIM Champagne cork also... The photographs of these items were zoomed in at... they were on the Table in the alchove when, the Police allowed the media in to view the crime scene after the Jury had just seen it!!!

Why has nobody NOTICED or MENTIONED these items before???????

What happened to the Original Bottles of Cider that Joanna Yeates Purchased??????

Also Mr Reardon had removed all of his possesions from the flat before the Jury saw it..... If these items were connected to him and Jo he surely would have taken them!!!!

EDIT:   The blood from her nose.... which Apparently was on top of the wall at Longwood Lane....

If this injury was caused by Dr Vincent Tabak in Joanna Yeates Flat....

Where are the Blood samples from the Flat of Joanna Yeates being in a fight and struggle...

THERE are no blood samples from Joanna Yeates that were collected from her Flat!!!!!

So how comes Dr Vincent Tabak manages to get some in the BOOT!!!

There were No evidence of BLOOD in Dr Vincent Tabaks Flat either????

Does that not suggest that this attack may have happened elsewhere???????

The Prosecution NEVER suggested that Dr Vincent Tabak was doing a CLEAN UP of his or Joanna Yeates flat... They say he just took the PIZZA AND THE SOCK!!!!!!!!

So.... Where is the BLOOD!!!!!


Double EDIT:   Just a thought!.. It was never REALLY Established that this was a SEXUALLY MOTIVATED  Attack.......

And all signs are that Joanna Yeates was not SEXUALLY ASSAULTED.........

So All this time they having been LOOKING For A Man who Committed this Crime???

WHAT...... What if it was a WOMAN!!!!!!  Just a thought!!!!!

[[...]]

Like I had done with a post today... I thought I'd go back to the begining to see what was initially said:

And the early reports are quite revealing............


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8noQpXm0HQU

Police Announce Murder Inquiry:Launched over death of Joanna Yeates:

At 9:30 mins:
Daily Mirror

Was Joanna fully clothed when she was found?

Policeman Replies:

She was clothed .. yes

Remember he said... Clothed

DailyMail Reporter

Was there anything missing from her person...... er...Items of clothing at all ... like a shoe or?

Policeman Replies:

erm..She was fully clothed... so..

He SAYS FULLY CLOTHED!!!!

So No SKI SOCK????

At This point he could have said, I'm not at liberty to say!!!

Another Reporter asks:

Can I just Check.. we heard coat was in that the... was in the same coat she was photographed or caught on CCTV was that in the Flat? Is That Correct?

Policeman Replies:

Yes..

Reporter Says:

Did she have a coat on when she was found?

Policeman replies:

erm... As I said she was fully clothed..

Again... FULLY CLOTHED...... "So nothing missing Mr Policeman!!"

Reporter asks:

You can't say whether she had a coat on or not.....?

Policeman replies:

Well I'm not prepared to discuss at this stage..

This is ODD..... 

When did the MISSING SKI SOCK , become Part of the investigation.... ( 5th January if you remember!!!)

He has already said more than once that when they found Joanna Yeates ....She was FULLY CLOTHED!!!!!...

The Reporter even asks if any ITEMS of clothing were missing.... he gives an example of.....LIKE A SHOE!!

The Policeman keeps with that she was FULLY CLOTHED........

So when did the BOOTS suddenly become part of the items left in the flat???  AND The SKI SOCK become the TROPHY???????

WHAT EXACTLY WAS JOANNA YEATES WEARING WHEN THEY FOUND HER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Because according to the Policeman leading the Investigation... She was fully clothed!!!!!!!!!

What happened in this Investigation!! It's gone from:

FULLY CLOTHED with NO SIGNIFICANT INJURIES

To............

MISSING A SKI SOCK AND 43 Injuries through fighting for her Life?

So did Joanna yeates have a Jacket or something similar on seeing as the Policeman keep saying she was fully clothed....

If that is the case... Does this also prove that Dr Vincent Tabak could NOT have been involved:

It could prove that HIS CONFESSION WAS FALSE!!!!!!!!

What Dr Vincent Tabak said on the witness stand:

Defence Counsel: After you put the body in the boot of your car, what did you do next?
Tabak: I went back to Joanna’s flat and switched off the TV and the oven; I took away the
sock and the pizza.

I always wonder how she managed to fit those great big socks under her tight boots:..... Her jeans are skin tight and her boots are tight....

The Ski socks are not over her boots... And they would ride around if they weren't secure and slip about... they'd be uncomfortable...

So did she even wear SKI SOCKS??????



EDIT:........ Is THAT WHY ....... there are NO SEARCHES For MISSING SKI SOCKS... On Dr Vincent Tabak's Computer till EARLY JANUARY??????????

[[...]]

Just thought i'd give one more example of changing the date on GOOGLE:

This is from my GOOGLE search HISTORY......

I have one search for "Tabak" Dated Friday 1st January 2038

And the other is a Daily Mail Article Dated today but the time is 5:58PM:

Like I said before.... Dr Vincent Tabak was a Computer Expert....  And I am NOT...

So If it's a piece of cake for me.... Covering his Track he could have easily done the same!!!!


I've done this because... I'd put the time FORWARD and the other examples were BACKWARDS:

And also to show that the DATES would Appear in the GOOGLE HISTORY !!!!

Basically:..... ANY HISTORY .. .. or File that is DOWNLOADED.. Pictures.. Films ....ETC!! can easily be changed by CHANGING the DATE ON ANYONES COMPUTER!!!!!!

As I Have Just demonstrated!!!!!

You could actually do it with Emails that are sent..... But... The Recipient would have the Correct Date That they Recieved it on... So There would be a WAY to challenge someone emails!!!!!

But as for Files on A Computer.. They Are easily enough to CHANGE:.....

[jixy]

changing the time of his searches doesn't really help does it as you have stated before . you said he didn't have time to search but maybe he had more time than you think!

It still doesn't take away his searches or the reasons for them

[[...]]

changing the time of his searches doesn't really help does it as you have stated before . you said he didn't have time to search but maybe he had more time than you think!

It still doesn't take away his searches or the reasons for them

Jixy:.. I have explained the problems with the searches: See Below.......

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg367908#msg367908

How could he possibly do a google search at 1:46am  and again at 1:47am when he was seen leaving in Tanja's  hatchback at 1:38am???

I'm sure it would have taken him more than 8 mins to get Tanja, A google map search of Canygne Rd to Park Street , gives a driving time of 6 mins....

he got lost for at least 2 minutes ,Then he rang her for directions... so we now have 0 minutes to find where Tanaj is.... Pick her up go for a burger eat it in the car and drive home....

A quote from the above post:..... There woulld have been No advantage for him changing the time on that search???

He had a witness he was with!!!!

I'm saying the searches are not acurate and what appears relevant isn't!!!!

So how did him searching WIKI help him with the PIZZA LABEL??

Have you ever gone on the Dutch WIKI and put in the word "DOODSLAG"

https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doodslag&prev=search

Manslaughter may refer to:

Manslaughter (euthanasia) , the intentional, but not premeditated, ending the life of another

There is more than one definition... .. Is he looking into Euthanasia... you don't know...!!!

Also if you look closely at the Dutch definition it say it says.. THE INTENTIONAL but not PREMEDITATED ending the life os another!!!! So it means EUTHANASIA in HOLLAND.....

Not as we see the word MANSLAUGHTER in ENGLAND!!!

The May Refer to Part is that theres a film in 2012 as another option to choose..... (Irrelevant To Dr Vincent Tabak)

At Line 271 of the prosecution chart
Tabak searched the Dutch word
‘doodslag’ (English meaning: ‘manslaughter’)

And that's telling you WHAT?????

It's under WIKI as well.... so which Catergory are the Jury going to put it under????

GOOGLE??
FORENSICS??
LOCATION??

There are plenty of searches that could be attributed to him looking at a case on a DUTCHMAN Called: Joran van der Sloot

Here a quote from an Article about him!!

The judges have 48 hours to render a sentence and the presiding magistrate, Victoria Montoya, said the panel would reconvene Friday to do so.

Van der Sloot's trial opened last week but was adjourned until Wednesday after he asked for more time to decide how to plead. He said then that he did not accept the aggravated murder charges the prosecution sought.

Van der Sloot, who wore faded jeans and an untucked light-blue button-down shirt, had confessed to the May 30, 2010, killing long ago.

He told police shortly after the murder that he killed Flores in a fit of rage after she discovered his connection to the disappearance of Holloway on his laptop while they played poker online.

The defense says it was manslaughter, for which the minimum sentence is 5 years.

http://www.cncpunishment.com/forums/showthread.php?4635-Natalee-Holloway

This story about the Dutchman Joran van der Slootwas all over the paper he would have seen in when he was in Los Angeles...

At Line 292 of the prosecution chart
Tabak Googled the words
‘manslaughter sentencing’
Then he went to Wikipedia website to search the words
‘manslaughter in English law murder in English law’
Tabak left work at 5.06pm \on 22 Dec 2010
and at home he Googled
‘Los Angeles murder case’

Why is wiki supposed to be the font of all knowledge??? can't see that ...

For a Clever man with a PHD you think he would actually look for Law papers on the internet that would give him that proper information!!!!! (download a pdf)....

Yes I do believe that Dr Vincent tabak didn't change any of his search times... And as I've said before he could have taken his Laptops and Hard drives over to Holland on the 31st December.. And DUMPED them!!!!!!

Dr Vincent Tabak was in Los Angeles for a month returning home on the 11th Dec 2010...  So the searches could definetaley be attributed to : Joran van der Sloot!!!!

JiXy has nothing I've found out changed you opinion in anyway???????

Explain the: HEALEY"S CIDER AND THE TATTINGER REIMS CHAMPAGNE CORK!!!!!!!

The Trouble with INTERNET SEARCHES is that you CANNOT prove what someones .... INTENTION WAS!!!!!

The Real Problem With Anyone using Wiki as a Form of Knowledge is that too many INDIVIDUALS Contribute to it... So it is not always ACCURATE...

Which I'm sure Dr Vincent Tabak would have been aware of........

WIKI just Ain't gonna Cut It!!!!!!!

EDIT:...... Another question..... why are all his searches in ENGLISH?????   He's DUTCH!!!!

Here's WIKI's page on Joran vander Sloot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joran_van_der_Sloot

There are plenty of words he could click on regards :

(1): Murder

(2) Manslaughter

(3) Extradition

How did he search wiki for a film of a BODY DECOMPOSING??????

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=film+of+body+decomposing&title=Special:Search&go=Go&searchToken=6bcdwbkhuu1mk1xxap9hhv69t

At Lines 311 (a to g) of the prosecution chart (on 23 December 2010)
Tabak searched Wikipedia for the terms
‘decomposition’
‘ how fast does body decompose’
‘ film of body decomposing’
‘what takes place from hour to hour after death’
‘what happens to human body after death’

WIKI SEARCHES:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=Search&search=what+takes+place+from+hour+to+hour+after+death%E2%80%99&searchToken=1qepvyjij0lax5jfto23mls8y

DOESN"T EXSIST!!!!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=Search&search=what+happens+to+human+body+after+death&searchToken=8yk85ldkhsmfqpv6ycns8gspx

AGAIN...... DOESN'T EXSIST

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&profile=default&fulltext=Search&search=how+fast+does+body+decompose&searchToken=8r48f1wo0l73zvksthomu1x3r

Which one did he CHOOSE?????

Decomposition is a Maths TERM..... Seeing he might use Maths for his work!!!!!

[[...]]

I keep saying these searches are NONSENSE...........

On 5 Jan 2011 lunchtime, Tabak Googled
‘press coverage’
At 3.05 pm, Tabak Googled the words
‘press coverage’
‘missing sock’

Range of dates: 1/1/2011 to 5/1/2011

Press Coverage you get this: 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=press+coverage%E2%80%99&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=1006&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A01%2F01%2F2011%2Ccd_max%3A05%2F01%2F2011&tbm=

So the PRESS COVERAGE search was A waste of TIME!!!!!

What is searching the words "PRESS COVERAGE" going to tell him??? Unless he has a specific search that goes with it!!!

AND.....  The Prosection show Press Coverage AND Missing Sock as Two SEPERATE SEARCHES!!!!!

Missing Sock you get this:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=press+coverage%E2%80%99&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=1006&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A01%2F01%2F2011%2Ccd_max%3A05%2F01%2F2011&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:01%2F01%2F2011%2Ccd_max:05%2F01%2F2011&q=missing+sock

But most of the stories are well after 3:05pm  and the other just have a Date.... So what does IT PROVE???

At 4.03, Tabak searched online newspaper articles for the words
‘frozen DNA’
‘rubbish collection Clifton 23 December 2010’

I've already covered the FROZEN DNA.....

He'd get this:....... Range of dates from 20/12/2010 to 5/1/2011

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%E2%80%98rubbish+collection+Clifton+23+December+2010&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=1006&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A20%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A06%2F01%2F2011&tbm=

So Nothing there then!!!!!

On 6 Jan 2011, Tabak researched the words
Pizza box
Tabak Googled the words
‘Rubbish collection York Place Clifton Bristol’
‘Jo Yeates rubbish’

Here we GO.............  Pizza box  Range of Dates:   20/12/2010 to 6/1/2011

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=pizza+box&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=1006&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A20%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A06%2F01%2F2011&tbm=

So Pizza Box Search was a waste of time...


Rubbish collection York Place Clifton Bristol’ Range of Dates 20/12/2010 to 6/1/2011

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%E2%80%98rubbish+collection+Clifton+23+December+2010&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=1006&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A20%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A06%2F01%2F2011&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:20%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max:06%2F01%2F2011&q=Rubbish+collection+York+Place+Clifton+Bristol%E2%80%99


Again A Point less Search!!!!!!!!

Next one:......

Jo Yeates Rubbish


https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%E2%80%98rubbish+collection+Clifton+23+December+2010&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=1006&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A20%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max%3A06%2F01%2F2011&tbm=#tbs=cdr:1%2Ccd_min:20%2F12%2F2010%2Ccd_max:06%2F01%2F2011&q=Jo+Yeates+Rubbish

Tells you what???? Seems an odd way to search... He's not going to get anything in particular!!!

These Searches are ABSOULTE TOSH........ They are supposed to be showing Dr Vincent Tabak's INTENT....

What they are showing.. IS THEY ARE POINTLESS!!!!!!!!!

Again:

And at 5.00 pm, Tabak researched on
Google map
‘Clifton Richmond Terrace’

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=clifton%20richmond%20terrace

AND..... That search tells him EXACTLY WHAT!!!!!!!!!

Again POINTLESS........

I find this all very telling.............. These searches do not appear credible...(IMO) they make no sense what so ever........

I know if i did every search that Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have done I'd find the same:

In a much early post i covered:

On 23 Dec 2010 at 4.00 pm
Tabak searched the Dutch Wikipedia for the words
‘extradition’
‘Yeates’
‘missing persons’
‘% of grey cars in UK’
‘Renault Megan cars in UK’

And Dutch wiki doesn't even have an Answer for it...... BECAUSE THEY ARE DUTCH!!!!

They don't need to no % grey cars in the UK
Renault Megan cars in the UK

They have No use for that information!!!!

And for Missing Persons you would get this:......

https://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%E2%80%98missing+persons%E2%80%99&title=Speciaal:Zoeken&go=article&searchToken=60814if5eyot5unfthzr9bdup

Anyone Can work out that these searches are completely IRRELEVANT And NONSENSICLE

What else can I say.......

AGAIN I"LL SAY........ Which Catergory will the Jury put them under????

GOOGLE
FORENSICS
LOCATION

Tabak also searched the BBC news article for
‘missing sock when found’
‘Avon & Somerset police’
Then Tabak researched for a Dutch article of ‘18 year sentence for murder’

Was Dr Vincent Tabak On a DUTCH WEBSITE?????  Because he's reasearch for a DUTCH Article 18 years for Murder???

So is this even more telling???????


DOES HE LOOK FOR HIS SEARCHES IN THE DUTCH LANGUAGE????  Because that last search suggests that!!!!

So who Translated Dr Vincent Tabak's Computer info... if he searches in DUTCH!!!!

WHY.......Would he even bother to combine searching in ENGLISH THEN DUTCH!!!!!
Again total TOSH!!!!!


I've just text my Dutch Brother inlaw... Asked him about how Dutch People would do internet searches!!!

His Reply:

We Dutchies Google in Dutch!

[[...]]

Just a small one:

At Line 451 of the prosecution chart
Tabak did further research on 11 Jan 2011
Tabak continued his research

And That explains EXACTLY WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!

Be Specific...... 

What the Hell was he supposed to be searching for!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Research on:

(1):  How many people you can fit in a lift

(2): What is the most popular day people are born

(3): How shit is WIKI

(4): Can Elephants really hide in custard

(5): How cold was it in Dec 2009

(6): Whats the latest Gadget on the Market

(7): Should I ask Wiki for advise

(8): How long does it take a caterpillar to turn into a butterfly

(9): How tall is the average Dutchman

(10): What does my Birth Sign mean

(11): Do sheep sleep standing up

(12): What does the ther side of the moon look like

(13): How long should you boil an egg for

(14): Which is the best side to sleep on

(15): What is pencil lead made from

(16): How many trees in a forest

(17): How many tulips do the Dutch grow

(18): How hard is it to Juggle

(19): Does the Queen fart

(20): Is Elvis still alive     

Again... Explain... You are allowing the Jury to think he spent all his time researching anything that has to be Related to Joanna Yeates and the case.... When he could be looking at anything!!!! So if his SEARCHES were Related....... PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!

But... The problem is  A Half Asleep Jury might just think...

He's been RESEARCHING ALL THIS TIME....WHICH Again the PROSECUTION have NOT PROVEN!!!!!!

So ...... What Catergory will they choose????????



11th January... what is he searching for when the PIZZA LABEL debarcle was the 10th January 2011

Wiki won't tell you about a PIZZA DELIVERY!!!!!

What the Hell is he continued his RESEARCH supposed to mean??????

Do you really want me to start again........

(1): How to fly a kite

(2): How do babies recognise their mothers

(3): What's the highest IQ

You get the Picture....... And AGAIN..... Why didn't the Defence challenge THIS????????

But... The Jury have in their Minds "RESEARCH" = Joanna Yeates Case....... And Covering His Tracks....

But does it REALLY!!!!!! ............. PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!!

[[...]]

Here Another Conundrum:

Police hope frozen DNA sample on body will solve Joanna's murder as they warn women 'not to go out alone after dark'

How can they identify a DNA Sample if it is FROZEN........????????

They may have gotten samples... But how do they know that the sample contains DNA?????

Did it stand up on its own ???? Here I Am?????????

They May have taken swabs.... But........... A FROZEN DNA Sample???

If the Sample is on the surface of the skin... It would Defrost pretty quickly...

 Andrew Mott... Trying to stop the body from THAWING... So Any flesh That was EXPOSED would have THAWED FIRST!!!!!

So.............

Question:  How do you get a FROZEN DNA SAMPLE?????????

The only way to get  FROZEN DNA sample is to FREEZE some DNA ....

And not the other way round!!!


EDIT:.......................

I've been trying to establish..WHEN the sample of DNA was ANAYLISED On Joanna Yeates BODY:....

And I do believe I have found the ANSWER!!!!!  19:19, 3 January 2011


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343462/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Police-hope-frozen-DNA-sample-body-solve-murder.html

                                                 "Could DNA Traces Unlock Mystery"

A Sample of DNA found on Joanna Yeates body could be a crucial discovery in the hunt for her killer.....
It is understood that Police Forensic Specialist are working round the clock to find out to whom it belongs.

The sample was taken from Miss Yeates body soon After it was dumped at the side of a road on Christmas Morning.
Althought the freezing temperatures meant post-mortem examination results were serverally delayed, crime experts say as the cold weather provided excellent conditions for preserving the DNA evidence.
The sample is being tested for a match against DNA previously stored by police... as well as against samples that have been taken during the investigation..It is understood several potential DNA matches were tested within hours of the find.

The revelation came the day after the only man arrested over the killing so far was released,Chris Jefferies 65 spent three daysin police custody before being freed pending further inquires,and has had his flat two floors abovethe one rented to Miss Yeatesand her boyfriend turned upside down by forensic teams.
The forensic examination at Mr Jefferies flat continued Yesterday, with two crime scene investigators.. entering carrying brown evidence bags.

Scientists have also examined at least three vehicle kept near the building in which Miss Yeates lived.
This followed an immediate and intensive inch by inch search of the area surrounding the spot where her body was discovered on a roadside in Failand outside Bristol.

Again I'm going to break it down and cross reference:.......

The sample was taken from Miss Yeates body soon After it was dumped at the side of a road on Christmas Morning.
Althought the freezing temperatures meant post-mortem examination results were serverally delayed, crime experts say as the cold weather provided excellent conditions for preserving the DNA evidence.

So... the sample is taken on the 25th Dec 2010...... NOT DNA RESULTS!!!!!!


Remember samples that have been taken already.......

Lyndsey Lennen said:

"The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky." Under the media glare, the work was flat-out: clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours.

That makes the time they had the DNA turned round 27th Dec 2011.........

The revelation came the day after the only man arrested over the killing so far was released,Chris Jefferies 65 spent three days in police custody before being freed pending further inquires

So when they arrested CJ they would have had his sample done immediatley... So it was not the DNA that they were keeping CJ under Arrest for...!!!! Also CJ says:

All the people who lived in 44, Canygne Road... were interviewed, statements were taken... So... my statement was taken along with everyone else...
DNA samples were taken, finger prints, were taken.... It was all entirely Voluntary..But obviously nobody had anything to hide....
So nobody was in the least bit concerned.. erm.... about co-operating in that way...

So if CJ had given a sample very EARLY ON.... Why did they keep him on POLICE BAIL till MARCH!!!
They new very early on in the investigation it could not have been CJ's DNA.....

So the DNA sample you see CJ giving on the Honour of CJ.. Is his second!! They didn't really need it!!!!!!

Because...................

It is understood several potential DNA matches were tested within hours of the find.

So they had  TESTED.... THE FROZEN DNA OF JOANNA YEATES BY THIS POINT...... NO GETTING THAT WRONG..

The Article actually refers to the frozen state the samples they were collecting at the time when they took the samples from Joanna Yeates..... 25th Dec 2010

So they DEFINETLY knew it was not CJ's DNA!!!!!!!

But they thought he had an accomplice:

Under Suspicion.. Now I gather that one of the reasons for the delay was that Vincent Tabak when he was arreated.... refused to say anything...And therefore the police continued to entertain the suspicion that possibly there had been some sort of collusion... Between myself and Vincent Tabak

So Cj's still in the picture............

So..... who SHOULD this RULE OUT!!!!!!!

(1): CJ
(2): Possibly Friends of Jo's
(3): Dr Vincent Tabak.......... If he gave the sample like CJ said......

But we will go with the Offical line:

Then his reluctance to give his DNA at the end of the process.....

He did give a sample.... The DATE: 31st Dec 2010 because what test would the yhave used otherwise???

The sample is being tested for a match against DNA previously stored by police... as well as against samples that have been taken during the investigation

Lets Remind ourselves AGAIN...................

It is understood several potential DNA matches were tested within hours of the find.

So.... they are saying that they as soon as they got a SAMPLE OF DNA From someone ....
They tested it within hours.................

The sample is being tested for a match against DNA previously stored by police..

So... that is definately SAMPLES OF DNA Taken before they found Jo...!!!!

Again Dr Vincent Tabak gave a sample of DNA... to The Police woman in Holland on the 31st Dec 2010

Which Again going from what they said ... The sample they already had were tested within hours!!!!!

So Dr Vincent Tabaks Test would be done within hours!!!!! Say they didnt get back till the 1st of January 2010

They would have done it within hours:


But...... There's always a but......... This Article that the quote comes from is DATED:3rd January 2010 !!!!!

They obviously have tested Dr Vincent Tabak's  DNA by NOW!!!! Why isn't it in the Paper?????????

CJ AND Dr Vincent Tabak should have been ruled out by now!!!!!!

We go from this:

The sample is being tested for a match against DNA previously stored by police... as well as against samples that have been taken during the investigation..It is understood several potential DNA matches were tested within hours of the find.

With this to accompany it: From Lynsdey Lennen:

"The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky." Under the media glare, the work was flat-out: clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, all analysed and turned round in 48 hours.

Those two STATEMENTS MATCH UP!!!!



So... why do we then get this:

Then shortly before the reconstruction was due to air... They made a dramatic break through.... Forensic Scientists had spent weeks enhancing the tiny DNA sample found on Jo's body. enabling them to establish a link to Vincent Tabak

AND THIS:..............................


We also have The Policemans statement of:

It was around the 20th January that erm.... we positively identified, that there were components, in mixed DNA of Vincent Tabak

What the **** is that!!!!!!!!!

Those last two statement are an UNTRUE ...(IMO)............

YOU TESTED Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA ALREADY.........

THE TINY SAMPLE OF DNA ON JOANNA YEATES DID NOT TAKE WEEKS!!!!!

They Obviously KNEW that Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA did NOT MATCH......!!!!

Why on GODS EARTH IS THAT MAN IN PRISON......

How many TIMES do I have to say:

 Dr Vincent Tabak is INNOCENT....... They have IMPRISONED A COMPLETELEY INNOCENT MAN!!!!!

A Sample of DNA found on Joanna Yeates body could be a crucial discovery in the hunt for her killer.....
It is understood that Police Forensic Specialist are working round the clock to find out to whom it belongs.

The sample was taken from Miss Yeates body soon After it was dumped at the side of a road on Christmas Morning.

No mistaking Joanna Yeates..... DNA SAMPLE IS DONE IMMEDIATLEY AND NOT WEEKS LATER!!!!!!

Dr Vincent Tabaks Sample was taken at the latest 31st Dec 2010.......

WHY DID IT TAKE 20 days to arrest Dr Vincent Tabak......

Lets NOT FORGET..... They had CJ.. In pretty sharpish.......

Dr Vincent Tabak is No more the Contributor to that DNA sample than I AM!!!!!!

Something SERIOUSLY NEEDS TO BE DONE FOR Dr Vincent Tabak!!!!!! NOW!!!!!

So what is Lyndsey Lennen saying:

"Eventually, we found something," Lennen says. "On swabs and tapes from her breasts, and tapes from three areas of her jeans. There were DNA components that matched one of the suspects, Vincent Tabak." But there wasn't enough, of enough quality, to evaluate – perhaps because of the high salt levels where the body was found, following heavy snowfall.

So the team deployed an LGC technique known as DNA SenCE, which purifies, concentrates and enhances otherwise unusable DNA: "We couldn't say whether the DNA was from saliva, or semen, or even touch. But we could say that the probability of it not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion."

DNA SenCE is the process they use to ENHANCE the Sample that they found on Joanna yeates....

So if Dr Vincent Tabak was a MATCH!!!! It would have come back STRAIGHT AWAY NOT 20 DAYS LATER!!!!!!


Oh.... And do not Forget: THE HEALEYS CIDER AND TATTINGER REIMS CHAMPAGNE CORK on the table in the crime scene:....

Who did they ask about that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Double EDIT:

Ms Lennen said the statistical interpretation of the results from Miss Yeates's jeans showed that it was 1,100 times more likely that the DNA was from Vincent Tabak and another person, rather than two unknown people unrelated to the defendant.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/joanna-yeates-killer-confessed-to-chaplain-2372235.html


But MS LYNDSEY LENNEN..... I thought you said this:

So the team deployed an LGC technique known as DNA SenCE, which purifies, concentrates and enhances otherwise unusable DNA: "We couldn't say whether the DNA was from saliva, or semen, or even touch. But we could say that the probability of it not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion."

HOW DID YOU GO FROM: But we could say that the probability of it not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion.

RIGHT DOWN TO: 1,100 times more likely that the DNA was from Vincent Tabak

AH...... I Know... You were under oath when you said it was 1,100 likely to be from Dr Vincent Tabak....

Naughty!!!!!!!!!!!!







[attachment deleted by admin]

[jixy]

i think searching his searches will send you round in circles... I found some very interesting articles online during a search as little as 3 years ago, they don't appear now no matter how hard you search.

Your search to Tabak's could show various results

[Kayden Paradox]

I agree jixy, I've also done google searches in the not too distant past and oh my what I discovered was unbelievable. Now if I did the exact same searches the same results don't show up. Never mind though screen shots from the time do have their advantages.

[jixy]

Sounds interesting Kayden. Have you been Googling?