Other High Profile Cases and Persons of Interest > The murder of landscape architect Joanna Yeates in Bristol in December 2010.

The internet searches allegedly done by Dr Vincent Tabak.

<< < (2/3) > >>

Holly Goodhead:

--- Quote from: Nine on April 06, 2017, 05:13:34 PM ---Hiding her body????? well if she laid in Plain Sight for 8 days she was hardly hidden.... That is why I do NOT believe she was on Longwood Lane for 8 days people would have seen her...

And the searches do not prove Intent... The searches could apply to anyone... I peronally do not believe that the searches are that of Dr Vincent Tabaks'.... His computer, his works computer were NEVER brought into court as evidence.... A slide show was shown of searches that could be any Tom Dick Harry or even Tanja..

Did the slide show differentiate, which Laptop/Computer each of these searches came from????? Or were they all just Lumped together????

Because Buro Happold's computers would be interesting to me... Most Employees Do Not Allow for such activities on their work computers... So I would like to see Buro Happolds computer when it says at work:....

These searches along with the supposed Porn searches he did at work... Do the work computers have the ability and access to various sites that the Prosecution say that they have?????

Dr Vincent Tabak helped a lot of his work colleagues on their computers... are there NO searches on them????  Did anyone at Buro Happold have access to Dr Vincent Tabak's Computer?????

Did the Defence check this ???? (probably not ) (IMO)

Without having the Computers from Buro Happold in the Court room and an expert from the defence questioning these searches... how do we Know that Dr Vincent Tabak made them????

``There could have been people in the Office who could verify that he wasn't at his own computer at certain times.... But that avenue was NEVER explored!!!!

--- End quote ---

I believe the victim was found in snow.  The weather conditions during 2010 were quite extreme:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_2010%E2%80%9311_in_Great_Britain_and_Ireland

How do you know VT made any searches on work computers/devices?  He may have made them on personal devices using roaming data (or whatever the tech term is eg 3G) but on his employers premises.

Holly Goodhead:
Do you have any evidence VT used his employers computers for searches?  Or is it the case that the times of seaches on his personal devices coincided with when he was on his employers premises ostensibly 'working'.

[...]:

--- Quote from: Holly Goodhead on April 06, 2017, 06:09:08 PM ---Do you have any evidence VT used his employers computers for searches?  Or is it the case that the times of seaches on his personal devices coincided with when he was on his employers premises ostensibly 'working'.

--- End quote ---

No... they never say that the searches are conducted on his mobile phone.... It isn't that way at all... The evidence was supposed to be on his own laptops and his work laptops... This is how apparently they found the so called child porn... on his work and home laptops.. Not his phone!!!

I wish they differentiated between all the devices... that is what the Defence should have done (IMO)...

Holly Goodhead:

--- Quote from: Nine on April 06, 2017, 06:16:51 PM ---No... they never say that the searches are conducted on his mobile phone.... It isn't that way at all... The evidence was supposed to be on his own laptops and his work laptops... This is how apparently they found the so called child porn... on his work and home laptops.. Not his phone!!!

I wish they differentiated between all the devices... that is what the Defence should have done (IMO)...

--- End quote ---

Maybe he used his mobile to tether to his personal/work laptop:

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



 

Leonora:

--- Quote from: Holly Goodhead on April 06, 2017, 06:29:09 PM ---Maybe he used his mobile to tether to his personal/work laptop:

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

--- End quote ---
This is 2010. Very few people had smartphones. "Tethering" wasn't thought of.

Vincent Tabak is the sort of person who might have had an iPhone (?or a Blackberry) - but throughout this case, we and the jury were told only about "mobile telephones", "texting", "e-mails", "computers" and "laptops". Not until his trial for possession of images of child abuse in 2014 did anyone even mention the brand of laptop he used, namely, a Dell. It's as if what we have been told - by the police, the journalists, and the lawyers in court - has been carefully dumbed-down to make it sound plausible and easy to understand.

The only witness who testified in person about a connection between any person and any content on any technical device was Joanna's best friend, who told the court that she received a text message from the police on her own phone, and her attempt to phone Joanna's phone, which was answered by Greg Reardon. The witness who took the court through the 1300-page timeline did not herself testify that she had computer analysis skills, nor, while in the witness box, did she link any items on the timeline and on the screens in court to the defendant or any other person. That was done by Mr Lickley.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version