Author Topic: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?  (Read 2968 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
« Reply #105 on: August 09, 2018, 06:16:06 PM »
edit: Tabak bought the rock salt from asdas

Offline Baz

Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
« Reply #106 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.


Offline Baz

Re: Why do some think Vincent Tabak innocent?
« Reply #107 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 cant 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?