Author Topic: The Defence Will State Their Case  (Read 253433 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline justsaying

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1980 on: October 09, 2018, 03:51:46 PM »
The fact that he didn't have enough knowledge of said crime and was unable to answer 80 questions, could be interpreted in two ways....

Being unable to answer questions and refusing to answer questions are two entirely different things. It is not uncommon, Nine, for suspects to give no comment answers to questions in interview.

Offline justsaying

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1981 on: October 09, 2018, 03:58:15 PM »

Saying he went to Asda, isn't proof he went to Asda... There a man walking around Asda that may resemble Dr Vincent Tabak... It may not be him..... Just because someone has told me it is him doesn't make it so....
The footage could be at 5:00pm on the 18th December 2010... blowing the prosecutions idea, that Dr Vincent Tabak is driving around with Joanna Yeates in the car.... So we need to establish the facts and not just take the say so of someone....

He admitted that he went to Asda. He admitted that it was his car seen on CCTV. It is strong evidence considering he accepted it as fact. That is why people find your view on things really strange, the perpetrator accepted it himself yet you do not... Perhaps he should have ran about with a neon sign and his name flashing in lights. Although I am not sure that would convince you still.

Offline justsaying

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1982 on: October 09, 2018, 04:18:14 PM »
Wasn't it a fact that he messaged his girlfriend whilst he was in Asda, telling her he was in Asda buying crisps? Why would he do that if he was not there? Why would he make that up, especially to his girlfriend? The time of the text message and the time on the CCTV in Asda most likely matched, so the prosecution could safely say he was in Asda at that time.

Also, why would he search the definition of sexual assault, body decomposition, the difference between murder and manslaughter and bin collection times? Why would he say he searched bin collection times because he was worried the police would find the pizza etc, etc? If you stopped with the conspiracy theories and applied some logic you would reach the conclusion that he did in fact kill Joanna and there is an abundance of evidence which points to his guilt. 

Offline jixy

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1983 on: October 09, 2018, 04:22:14 PM »
 

The person we know as Dr Vincent Tabak has done nothing to put himself bang in the middle of an investigation... If he had the evidence of this would have been used at trial....

There were various Police officers around at the time also... Do I put them bang in the middle of the Investigation??

[/quote]

Im sorry Nine but the parts justsaying has highlighted clearly shows this just isnt true!
you can disguise your face but you have forgotten your footprints !!! ....

Offline Nicholas

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1984 on: October 09, 2018, 04:23:41 PM »
Nine you stated:
Quote
I have not seen an autopsy report, so I have reports that skim on the evidence of what this report actually tells us of Joanna Yeates... For all I know she may have been pregnant.... She may have already had had a child,.. I am not stating this as fact, but saying nothing about Joanna Yeates has been fully explained... telling me she has bruises, doesn't tell me how she sustained said bruises, and by what mechanism, not telling me whether or not she had DNA under her finger nails, doesn't tell me whether she fought back

Why would you?


A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline jixy

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1985 on: October 09, 2018, 04:31:42 PM »

He maybe sleep deprived, he may have been questioned for ever we don't know... But I can walk away from my computer... I can freely move about.... But Dr Vincent Tabak did not have that luxury... So was he brainwashed into believing he had committed this act?? or brainwashed into believing that he would be incarcerated for this act and evidence supports that it is him therefore admitting to Manslaughter, would be the safer option....



[/quote]

You really cant believe this? So he was sleep deprived yet stood up in court, showing emotion saying sorry? Even if he had the longest interview possible, why didnt he speak up?

The years have rolled on... why not now?

Brainwashed? are  you sure that isnt you Nine? this is becoming unreal that you wont accept ANYTHING he admitted but will make up stories to suit your very vivid imagination. Im sure even without sleep that a few weeks prison would bring him to his senses and say what the heck am i doing here?

Look at any other case, see what is available in the media. You might be very surprised that it doesnt fit your mould of how a trial should be especially when someone has pleaded guilty!
you can disguise your face but you have forgotten your footprints !!! ....

Offline jixy

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1986 on: October 09, 2018, 04:40:59 PM »
Just reading the parts about fighting back...firstly what you think you would do and what you actually do can work out very differently, i know that first hand!

Secondly if it was 20 seconds .... what you can do it that time? You dont know where she was, standing sitting. You only have his word that any of that was actually how it happened.
you can disguise your face but you have forgotten your footprints !!! ....

Offline justsaying

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1987 on: October 09, 2018, 04:49:01 PM »
Just reading the parts about fighting back...firstly what you think you would do and what you actually do can work out very differently, i know that first hand!

Secondly if it was 20 seconds .... what you can do it that time? You dont know where she was, standing sitting. You only have his word that any of that was actually how it happened.

She sustained over 40 injuries, that does not sound like he merely strangled her for 20 seconds. There were bruise marks on her neck etc. He clearly lied to play down the fact that he did in fact assault her prior to/during the strangulation. He said on the stand that he could remember dumping items in bins etc, yet he could not remember how she got all those injuries... If he did merely try to kiss why would she scream? Why would she not decline and tell him to leave or at worst slap his face? He probably did try to kiss her and she refuted his advances so he went on to attack/kill her. He could have walked away but he chose not too. He tried to blame an innocent person for the crime. That is the type of person the "placid" Tabak is.

Offline jixy

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1988 on: October 09, 2018, 04:52:52 PM »
And then blaming an innocent man and his interest in the case lead to his downfall as we said earlier. He put himself right in the middle of it all
you can disguise your face but you have forgotten your footprints !!! ....

Offline mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
  • Total likes: 637
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1989 on: October 10, 2018, 11:46:32 AM »
Does nobody find it very strange that, although it seems, from media reports, that Joanna's flat was thoroughly examined forensically, no trace of Vincent Tabak's DNA was found in that flat?

He was supposed to have taken Joanna's body to his flat, but no trace of her DNA was found there.

The police believed that Joanna was killed in her flat, and VT said he killed her there, so why no DNA? 

He would not have been able to clean up every trace, IMO. That must be pretty hard to do .

DNA from VT in Jo's flat, or DNA from Jo in his would have been better evidence than the low copy stuff. If there was any, therefore, why was it never mentioned? 

In my opinion, there wasn't any.  How do you kill someone and inflict 43 injuries on them without leaving a trace of yourself at the scene?

Offline justsaying

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1990 on: October 10, 2018, 12:59:49 PM »
Does nobody find it very strange that, although it seems, from media reports, that Joanna's flat was thoroughly examined forensically, no trace of Vincent Tabak's DNA was found in that flat?

He was supposed to have taken Joanna's body to his flat, but no trace of her DNA was found there.

The police believed that Joanna was killed in her flat, and VT said he killed her there, so why no DNA? 

He would not have been able to clean up every trace, IMO. That must be pretty hard to do .

DNA from VT in Jo's flat, or DNA from Jo in his would have been better evidence than the low copy stuff. If there was any, therefore, why was it never mentioned? 

In my opinion, there wasn't any.  How do you kill someone and inflict 43 injuries on them without leaving a trace of yourself at the scene?

In this case, no I do not find it strange. There are a number of scenarios, he could have cleaned up where he had been in Jo's flat. We know that he went back to his flat after killing the victim (before removing her body) He could have laid something out to put her body on, hence no DNA evidence in his flat. There was a billion to one match of DNA evidence on her breast, of all places. Let us not forget there was no trace of any other person's DNA in her flat either, so did this mysterious killer manage to clean away all of his DNA even though you allege it would have been impossible for Tabak? He told the police he may have stepped foot in her flat, this was probably so he could dispute any traces of him if they were found.

I have argued this point in Luke Mitchell's case and what I have said there is I find it quite impossible that he could have removed every trace of his own DNA whilst managing to leave DNA belonging to other people behind. Either he should have been successful in removing every bit of DNA, including that belong to other people, or his DNA should have been there along with the others. (My opinion)

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1991 on: October 10, 2018, 01:03:07 PM »
In this case, no I do not find it strange. There are a number of scenarios, he could have cleaned up where he had been in Jo's flat. We know that he went back to his flat after killing the victim (before removing her body) He could have laid something out to put her body on, hence no DNA evidence in his flat. There was a billion to one match of DNA evidence on her breast, of all places. Let us not forget there was no trace of any other person's DNA in her flat either, so did this mysterious killer manage to clean away all of his DNA even though you allege it would have been impossible for Tabak? He told the police he may have stepped foot in her flat, this was probably so he could dispute any traces of him if they were found.

I have argued this point in Luke Mitchell's case and what I have said there is I find it quite impossible that he could have removed every trace of his own DNA whilst managing to leave DNA belonging to other people behind. Either he should have been successful in removing every bit of DNA, including that belong to other people, or his DNA should have been there along with the others. (My opinion)

Let us not forget there was no trace of any other person's DNA in her flat either,

Doesn't that therefore tell you that a professional cleanup had taken place in said Flat!!! 


Offline justsaying

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1992 on: October 10, 2018, 01:09:20 PM »
Let us not forget there was no trace of any other person's DNA in her flat either,

Doesn't that therefore tell you that a professional cleanup had taken place in said Flat!!!

The short answer to that is no it does not tell us that. I am assuming her boyfriends DNA would have been in the flat considering he lived there. I should have said no trace of DNA from persons that should not have been there.

Offline justsaying

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1993 on: October 10, 2018, 01:14:03 PM »
What I will say is that they would not have forensically tested every single part of the flat. I know of a person who claims he is not guilty, he tried to appeal on the basis his DNA was not found at the scene. He was told that the reason his DNA was not found at the scene could be because all areas are not DNA tested, just areas that are of interest... Doors, door handles, places where there is blood, the body etc. True fact!
« Last Edit: October 10, 2018, 01:24:16 PM by justsaying »

Offline justsaying

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1994 on: October 10, 2018, 01:57:06 PM »
May I ask, where is the source which suggests low copy techniques were used to establish a DNA profile in this case?