Author Topic: Tweets about the Case:  (Read 6362 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline [...]

Re: Tweets about the Case:
« Reply #30 on: May 18, 2018, 06:04:00 PM »
Twitter fact file


The main force account, @ASPolice, was set up in March 2009.

We have about 50 Twitter accounts including the main @ASPolice handle as well as specialist accounts like @ASPoliceHorses, @ASPoliceDogs, @ASPCallCentre and @ASPOps_Training, as well as local accounts covering each neighbourhood policing area, and the @ASPoliceLIVE account for live-Tweeting events and breaking news.

There are also a number of officers Tweeting regularly, ranging from PCSOs to the Deputy Chief Constable Gareth Morgan (@DCCGarethMorgan).

The accounts on Twitter that no longer exist in connection with the trial/case... Did they belong to Avon and Somerset Police??

What about Facebook accounts?? Did they have more of them too???

Is that why these accounts don't show anything in 2010???

Which twitter accounts did they have?? or do they have ??

Offline [...]

Re: Tweets about the Case:
« Reply #31 on: May 18, 2018, 06:30:17 PM »
David Hughes

Follow Follow @newsfromhughes
Replying to @HarrietTolputt
Finding coverage from @skynewsgatherer of #TabakTrial very interesting. Also keeping an eye on #dalefarm from @essexalliehb et. al.

12:48 PM - 19 Oct 2011

This tweet caught my attention the other day... maybe now I realise why.... @skynewsgather shows us an image of Harriet Tolputt.. Yet Harriet Tolputt is tweeting herself from the trial... so was @skynewsgather really Harriet Tolputts account or was it one of Avon and Somerset Polices accounts???

Why would Harriet Tolputt need 2 accounts to tweet the trial of Dr vincent Tabak???

The picture of @skynewsgather appears to be a generic picture of Harriet Tolputt as this article about her shows the same image..

Oxfam has announced the appointment of Harriet Tolputt, formerly a producer for Sky News, as head of media.

Tweeting from one account at a trial must be hard enough... why would you tweet from 2 accounts ??

Did @newsfromhughes realise that @skynewsgather wasn't Harriet Tolputts Account?? Because I am begining to wonder if it was!!!

Offline [...]

Re: Tweets about the Case:
« Reply #32 on: May 18, 2018, 08:00:54 PM »
This has been removed from the sky live updates...

Why do they keep removing pages??

Is this account also a made up account... As Jim Old has his own twitter account which doesn't have 69 at the end of it....

Jim Old

Follow Follow @SkyFixerJim
#Tabak found guilty of the murder of #JoannaYeates. He'll be sentenced shortly. More on @SkyNews.

3:18 PM - 28 Oct 2011

The other account..

4:49 PM - 28 Oct 2011Twitter
Jim Old
#Joanna Yeates Police found that VT had researched extradition. Evidence he was planning to flee? No, says Cops

So are the tweets on the live updates actually from these people??? Because again I am begining to wonder!!!

Who made up these accounts???? 
How many of these accounts are made up????

From the live sky tweets update page..

10:18 AM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
Officer Martin Faithfull statement. He was shown the body and caught a glimpse of denim. He closed the road.

Yet this is her twitter page below...

Julia Reid

Follow Follow @juliareid5news
Officer Martin Faithfull statement. He was shown the body and caught a glimpse of denim. He closed the road.

10:18 AM - 14 Oct 2011

Think she may have had a name change...

When you click on Julia Reids sky account on this live update... It takes you to this

It gets better
10:26 AM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
Isabel Webster
#vincenttabak sitting with eyes covered and head in hands as pathologist, Andrew Mott gives evidence about recovering #joannayeates body

Andrew Mott is NOW a PATHOLOGIST!!!!

Oh yes and @skynewswebsters account is also suspended on twitter!!!

Who pretended to be these media people ????

Now I did wonder if @juliereidsky was just a name change.. but in December 2011

Julia Reid

Follow Follow @juliareid5news
RT @cherry_pudding: @juliareidsky  Please support us supporting UK Military this xmas & always Please RT … thanks
But the @julieriedsky name isn't highlighted... why would she tweet to herself?? [/quote]

And this is where it gets weirder....

Harriet Tolputt

Follow Follow @HarrietTolputt
For updates from #Tabak trial today follow @stallardsky and @juliareidsky. I am back next week.

11:41 AM - 13 Oct 2011

@stallardsky and @skystallard 2 different accounts..

Nathan Hale

Follow Follow @SkyNewsCamera
Team Sky l-r @skynewsgatherer @SkyNewsWebster @skymartinbrunt @skystallard @juliareidsky

9:56 AM - 28 Oct 2011

The @stallardsky account is active now but the other one has been suspended.... that has me wondering what Harriet Tolputt knew?? She apologises for getting the name wrong....

Then we have katie stallards tweet..


Katie Stallard-Blanchette

Follow Follow @katiestallard
Sky friends & colleagues tweeting from #VincentTabak trial today: @skynewsgatherer @juliareidsky @SkyFixer69 @skymartinbrunt @skynewswebster

9:56 AM - 28 Oct 2011

So who are "SKYS FRIENDS???  I take it that it is possibly the suspended accounts??

What on earth are these Twitter accounts actually about.... who are these people on these accounts??

I am at a loss.....  I don't know what is going on anymore.....

Did the media get there tweets from the sky live update tweets... Or was it the other way round?? It doesn't make sense....

Offline [...]

Re: Tweets about the Case:
« Reply #33 on: June 16, 2018, 07:50:55 PM »
This is slightly off topic.... But are Avon and Somerset Police trying to forget Colin Port??


Follow Follow @WickwarDotOrg
Police: Chief Constable is guest of honour at Neighbourhood Watch meeting. (Frenchay): Colin Port, the Chief Const...

2:14 PM - 20 Apr 2010

The tiny url lead to this link.. which of course no longer exists....

Alex Thomas of channel 4 news tweeted...

alex thomson

Verified account
Follow Follow @alextomo
Colin Port is CC of Avon and Somserset and he says:"policing is too important to be left to the police alone"

6:58 PM - 5 Jan 2011

The day after this was tweeted and also the link has been removed....

Avon&Somerset Police

Verified account
Follow Follow @ASPolice
Top Police Award for Teenage Campaigners (Bristol): The Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Police, Colin Port,...

10:56 AM - 6 Jul 2011
the tiny url goes to this link and the page doesn't exist....

So who did Colin Port have in mind to do his Policing for him??  on the 5th January 2011 ?? This was a quiet story at the time, didn't we have the missing sock making the headlines on that day... Maybe more stock should have been made about what Colin Port thought about Policing, especially as he was in the middle of a Murder Inquiry and had already got one suspect on bail....

I wonder what the Interview/ Police page stated at the time....  Is that why we get a civilian taking the stand as the Polices Forensic Officer in the guise of Andrew Mott... Showing us anyone can do a job whether they are qualified or not....  Is this the type of Policing Colin Port was aiming for??

Just a thought!!

Offline [...]

Re: Tweets about the Case:
« Reply #34 on: June 23, 2018, 08:39:16 PM »
This i'll post twice... as a continuation of something on another topic....


Follow Follow @SWNS
#joyeates Tabak felt tired and "under the weather" the next day but was woken to move his car by Chris Jefferies.

11:28 AM - 11 Oct 2011

Now... CJ should have been at trial!!!  He woke Dr Vincent Tabak, that was probably why Dr Vincent Tabak had noticed that CJ's car had moved.... So that has to be off the drive and CJ states at the Leveson that he left it on the road!!

Offline [...]

Re: Tweets about the Case:
« Reply #35 on: July 10, 2018, 11:21:13 AM »
Rupert Evelyn

Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
Bill Clegg QC asks if Joanna Yeates was killed elsewhere and taken to Longwood Lane. Nickson replies "yes".

10:46 AM - 18 Oct 2011

How Did Tanja Nickson know that Joanna Yeates had been killed elsewhere and then put on Longwood lane??

There must have been signs of lividity.. (imo)

Dr Delaney never confirms that Joanna Yeates had been moved as far as I am aware

No descriptions of lividity on the body have been reported and where on the body the lividity was..

Ordinarily witness's do not tend to stay or come back to listen to proceeding at a trial... (imo) And especially professional witness's such as Dr Cary... I would have thought that once their evidence had been given, then they would, be busy with their work...

Looking for Longwood Lane as usual... I got distracted and ended up on this post and wanted to findout about Dr Delaney...  This next tweet is

Jon Kay

Verified account
Follow Follow @jonkay01
Dr Russell Delaney - who carried out first post-mortem - is here listening. Last week he said most of Jo's injuries happened BEFORE death.

2:28 PM - 21 Oct 2011

So did Dr Delaney sit through the rest of the trial??? And why??

on the 17th October 2011 according to the Telegraph.. Dr Delaney gave his evidence..

Mr Lickley asked pathologist Dr Russell Delaney about Tabak's statement that he held Miss Yeates's throat "for about 20 seconds".

Dr Delaney replied: "That period of time would be sufficient to cause the signs of venous obstruction and would be long enough to result in her death."

n his statement produced on 22 September 2011, Tabak said he had not intended to kill Miss Yeates or cause her serious harm.In the statement, which was read out by the prosecuting QC Nigel Lickley, the jury at Bristol Crown Court heard: “The mechanism of death as best the defendant can recall is as follows: The two were facing each other. He put one arm around her back with his hand in the middle of her back, she screamed.“He put the other hand on her mouth which caused the screaming to cease. He removed his hand from her mouth and the screaming continued.

He then put his hand around her throat – he believes it was the one that had behind her back – and held it there for about 20 seconds. He applied no more than moderate force.

"He did not intend death or serious injuries. The actions above killed Miss Yeates, the defendant accepts his actions were unlawful.”

Re-reading that statement... Who is Dr Vincent Tabak referring too? It sounds like he witnessed something...

Mr Lickley..

* The mechanism of death?... 
   Is that what is written on the statement or is that Mr Lickley description?

* He put his hand around her throat...
   Who put her hands around her throat? Is Dr Vincent Tabak a witness?

* he believes it was the one that had behind her back – and held it there for about 20 seconds. He applied no more
   than moderate force....
   This sounds like he is recalling what he witnessed... 

How would Dr Vincent Tabak an Computer/ Architectural Engineer know to described the amount of force used?? And the significance of the type of force? That goes with intent... He would have to know... Those are terms used by medical professional.... No a Dutchman who is NOT a medical Dr... Or what the Police may say and use when describing force... Or the Cps for instance...

I had found an article the other day about intent... Having problems locating it...  so will use 2 examples..

 examine public views on fairness and frequency that police use of force -
specifically the use of moderate and excessive force in different scenarios
and circumstances and views on the IPCC’s role in this context

During the trial, the Deputy State Pathologist said moderate force would have caused the three wounds to Ms Cawley’s head, which resulted in blood loss and asphyxia; her obesity and enlarged heart were contributory factors. He said she might not have died if medical help had been summoned more quickly.

Reasonableness of the punishment
The Court of Appeal in the case of R v H, The Times 17 May 2001 adopted the guidance set out in the case of A v UK and considered the factors to be taken into account where a defence of reasonable punishment is raised. Therefore, in such a case, limited to common assault by s58, the following factors will assist in determining whether the punishment in question was reasonable and moderate:

the nature and context of the defendant’s behaviour;
the duration of that behaviour;
the physical and mental consequences in respect of the child;
the age and personal characteristics of the child;
the reasons given by the defendant for administering the punishment.

So why would Dr Vincent Tabak know that the use of the words "Moderate Force" would be needed.... I mean does he know the law on Intent/Intention??  If moderate force were not the words used by Dr Vincent Tabak, then why is Mr Lickley telling us that this is what Dr Vincent Tabak says... He applied no more than moderate force.

What is written and described in Dr Vincent Tabak's statement that should have been read out to the jury?? How is Mr  Lickely determining the "Moderate Force"? What actually words did Dr Vincent Tabak used to describe what had happened??

I question why the jury appear not to have heard the entire content of Dr Vincent Tabak's witness statement... It surely would have been reported upon...

And i don't understand why Dr Delaney would sit in the court 4 days later once he has given evidence... ? I find that very odd..!

Dr Russell Delaney - who carried out first post-mortem - is here listening.

Or should the question really be "Sat where listening"?? In the court or some other location??

Offline [...]

Re: Tweets about the Case:
« Reply #36 on: July 10, 2018, 11:31:26 AM »
mechanism of death..Is that a term the prosecution would use? Or Dr Vincent Tabak...?  It's an odd turn of phrase, and maybe it is the prosecution using the term.... Therefore what was actually written in the statement that he signed in September 2011, that must of had such detailed descriptions for Mr Lickley to describe in court the type of force used by Dr Vincent Tabak... When we have no idea what this statement says.... Or how many pages long it is...

The statement is not from a Police interview...

But 'Moderate Force ' sounds like the answer to a question... We have no transcripts in court or CCTV interviews at the Police station of Dr Vincent Tabak ever being questioned....

These interviews would go a long way to visibly showing us how un-cooperative Dr Vincent Tabak had been... He makes "No Comment" throughout the interviews apart  from a  question around a mobile phone, that DCI Phil Jones told us..

So does moderate force relate to the mobile phone??

This has my mind racing again....

Apply the term "Moderate Force" to the only topic Dr Vincent Tabak had answered any question on.... The mobile phone

What questions could be applied for Moderate Force to be an answer? And in which context?

* Did you try to take the mobile phone from Miss Yeates?
* Did you grab it from her hand....
* What force was used to obtain this phone?

You see it doesn't really work... But it made me think of a different scenario... and maybe applying moderate force and DCI Phil Jones telling us that the mobile phone was the only subject, that Dr Vincent Tabak  spoke of and said no comment to anything else... Has me trying to imagine why The Mobile phone is important...

I suggested that maybe Dr Vincent Tabak had found this mobile phone and had pranked it..... But maybe not....

Was Joanna Yeates mobile phone planted in her pocket?? Many girls might put it in their jeans pocket or handbag, or carry it in their hand, If Joanna Yeates had been carrying her phone and we know she had because she talks to her friend Rebecca Scott.. Then did Joanna Yeates still have her mobile phone in her hand??

We are all attached to our phones ... we rarely put them down... Even when we are talking to people we are checking our phones... For updates on facebook and twitter for instance...  We have been told Joanna yeates did not alway reply to a text in a timely manner... And it is possible that maybe she was always busy on facebook etc... she didn't want to be alone and was looking for company we have been told... So did she chat on Facebook on her way home or at home??

The point I am coming to is why the importance of the mobile phone?? And can ascertain 2 possibilities that it was still clutched in her hand when she was killedor when she was alive... And it had been removed... And the force required to remove this mobile phone from Joanna Yeates hand was moderate, which would go with the timings that DCI Phil Jones talks of... Because I am sure that would indicate how long Joanna Yeates had been dead before the phone was removed as rigamortis would start to set in after a certain amount of time....

Or that when the attack happened someone tried to grab the mobile phone out of Joanna Yeates hand and the force used to get it from her would be moderate.... maybe it was the phone that caused the injuries to her chin and  fractured her nose??

But either way we need to know what the question was about a mobile phone that was put to Dr Vincent Tabak...

For instance..

* If I asked you to pull this mobile phone from my hand...(demonstrating a firm grip) how much force do you reckon it would take?

(A) Minimal ?

(B) Moderate ?

(C) Excessive?

Therefore the answer would be more than likely moderate, defending on how tight the grip on this phone was... Giving us the answer"Moderate Force"

But what if the questions were in relation to the phone and Joanna Yeates?? Then my assumption would be she had to have had it removed her hand... (imo) Meaning it had been removed after her death.. going with the timings the Police had.. Or that it was removed in a struggle, and it was the phone which had caused the injuries to her face..(imo)

Otherwise what relevance is the mobile phone when questioning Dr Vincent Tabak??

Offline [...]

Re: Tweets about the Case:
« Reply #37 on: July 10, 2018, 07:25:07 PM »
Harriet Tolputt

Follow Follow @HarrietTolputt
Cross examination of Dr Russell Delaney continues. Tells William Clegg, QC, he has previous experience of at least 1 case of strangulation.

10:41 AM - 17 Oct 2011

If Dr Delaney has had only 1 previous Case of strangulation, why didn't Clegg cross examine him more vigorously?

An Idea opportunity to cast doubt on someone abilities...

If Dr Delaney's expertise can be questioned do we refer back to the Sally Ramage document and view it in a different light...

From Sally Ramage..
It was, in the words of Dr Delaney, expert prosecution pathologist witness, that death had
occurred in less than half a minute; less than 20 seconds, less than 10 seconds even.
 A very important piece of evidence is that what Tabak wrote in his statement is nearly the
same and corroborated the undisputed pathologist expert witnesses.

This quote is from Clegg's opening statement......  The wording could imply that these words were on a document also, but not Dr Vincent Tabak's statement, but what Dr Delaney provided to the Police/cps..

If I am understanding this correctly... It was Dr Delaney who first said that death could take as little as 10/20 seconds... but I do not believe that was in court before opening statements.. Therefore the information had to be obtained from another source and the only other source who be a report that Dr Delaney made prior to trial.... (imo)

These timings are important... Did Dr Delaney talk or correspond with someone on the length of time it was possible for someone to die from strangulation?  Wouldn't it be in the form of a range of possible times rather than a specific time... It therefore seems strange that Clegg didn't challenge Dr Delaney and question him on how he came to such a conclusion..

I have that 10/20 expanse of time stuck in my head thinking and wondering if it is really possible to kill someone so quickly.. I had alway imagined someone would struggle making the event take longer..

But like "Moderate Force" what question had been posed to Dr Delaney prior to coming to the conclusion of 10/20 seconds??  The answer Dr Delaney appears to have given, seems to come from a direct question, rather than a Forensic report which I would imagine would give us a range of times in which it may take to cause death by strangulation...

Therefore my question has to be.... Was the information on which the prosecution and the defence appear to have relied upon at trial, from the autopsy report that was preformed by Dr Delaney or had he also made a statement of sorts??

It's a question to pose...

Offline [...]

Re: Tweets about the Case:
« Reply #38 on: July 10, 2018, 10:48:40 PM »

Cordelia Lynch

Verified account
Follow Follow @CordeliaSkyNews
Dr Russell Delaney shown images of scene. He says jo's upper body and head were not visible but saw 'something that appeared to be a sock'

11:40 AM - 14 Oct 2011
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes

I was under the impression Dr Delaney had been on the stand only on one day...  The description given contradicts the Daniel Birch's statement of what he saw, the reports in the paper are very different.

Mr Birch said he had seen a lump in the snow piled up on the verge of Longwood Lane and noticed a piece of denim poking through.

Miss Yeates had been missing for eight days when her body was found.

Describing the events, Mr Birch said: “I saw a lump in the snow on the left hand verge and I thought I saw what appeared to be a denim jeans pocket .

“I did not think about it straight away and carried on walking. After about 10 paces my mind was saying, ‘that was a body’, to me.“I handed the dog to my wife Rebecca, I remember saying to Rebecca, ‘that was a body back there’, and walked back to the lump in the snow.

“I could see the form of a human body covered in snow. It was lying on its side, facing the wall, parallel to the road.”

He added: “Although the body was almost covered in snow there was a small section with not covered. I could see what appeared to be a rear jeans pocket.

“Although also riding up above this the top edge of what appeared to be white coloured knickers and that made me think it was a female.”

There is a clear discrepancy there... The witness who's hasn't appeared in person in court to tell the jury what he witnessed, has his statement entered into evidence.

We know Dr Delaney turned up at Longwood lane some hours after they found Joanna Yeates... If after all that time
Dr Delaney can only see a  possible sock visible, then how did the man who found her see more... How was he able to identify a body... Her head and body are covered.... Does that mean covered in snow? Covered by what ??

Was she buried?  what was Andrew Mott trying to to stop from thawing on the body??  What was visible on the lower section of Joanna yeates body... Was Joanna Yeates jeans removed  and what about the knickers that Daniel birch apparently sees... Are they seperate is Joanna Yeates wearing them...

I believe as Dr Delaney is the man whom examined Joanna Yeates and appeared in court, his description would more than likely be the evidence on balance to side with as he performed the autopsy and we are aware he attended the scene...

So who is Daniel Birch?? Who is this man that was allowed to have his statement read out in court and no-one could check to see if he had been mistaken...

From the reports we have PC Martin Faithful's statement, that back's up Daniel Birch\s witness statement... But he didn't attend court either as far as I am aware...

* Who actually found Joanna Yeates??

* What was clearly visible when she was located

* Why didn't PC Martin Faithful appear in court

* Was Joanna Yeates fully clothed

* Other than the sock what other articles of clothing were removed??

* Was Joanna Yeates body actually covered in snow??

* Was Joanna Yeates found in the water at the quarry

I have another question now... Dr Delaney arrives at the scene and does an initial examination around 6:00pm He finds Joanna Yeates obviously still covered her upper body and head. If Tanja Nixon finds blood on the wall, at what time did she discover this?? Was the blood on the wall not documented before Dr Delaney sees Joanna Yeates.. How did Tanja Nixon determine that the blood on the wall had come from Joanna Yeates nose?

Dr Delaney does not describe Joanna Yeates upper body or head covered in snow... Only that they were covered..

If Daniel Birch's statement tells us that Joanna Yeates jeans and knickers were visible, does that infer that someone covered her body in snow or that her jeans were not on...??

Dr Delaney's omission may suggest that Joanna Yeates lower body was visible.... Or is it more in keeping with the idea that she was somewhere other than the grass verge.. 

What was her upper body covered in... "A bicycle cover??

That information needs to come from somewhere....  What was the exact location of Joanna Yeates body... had it been retrieved from a different location and then place on the grass verge, for Dr Delaney to make his initial examination??

Therefore making it difficult to understand the birch's statement... 

What images is Dr Delaney viewing??  The Grass Verge on Longwood Lane?? Or the quarry and water on the other sides? How many images was he shown?? Did they have exhibit numbers to these images?? Was Joanna yeates buried under something??

[attachment deleted by admin]

Offline [...]

Re: Tweets about the Case:
« Reply #39 on: August 13, 2018, 11:14:14 PM »
Verification that the first appeal was on the 21st December 2010 by ITV Westcountry on twitter

ITV News WestCountry

Verified account

The parents of 25 year old Joanna Yeates who's been missing since Friday have made an emotional appeal for her safe return.

2:40 PM - 21 Dec 2010

Yet we are told the first appeal was on the 22nd December 2010... How else could ITV West Country news know about the appeal?? Unless they too have a crystal ball...

Offline [...]

Re: Tweets about the Case:
« Reply #40 on: August 24, 2018, 10:39:37 AM »
One Persons tweets I haven't really covered... and whilst thinking about them I had another thought.....

Mark Williams-Thomas

Verified account
Following Following @mwilliamsthomas
No signs of any forced entry at home address- home subject to thorough forensic examination (which is normal)  #JoannaYeates #helpfindjo

3:06 PM - 24 Dec 2010

It's the 24th December 2010... we have a Missing Person... Why is MWT talking about no forced entry at this point??


Following Following @mwilliamsthomas
RT @AlfieConn: Y r Sky News running a strap saying Jo Yeates Landlord saw her on night she disappeared,over an int where he says he didn't?

6:32 PM - 29 Dec 2010

Then I found this article...

In The media Mark Williams-Thomas has covered, and been an advisor in, nearly all high-profile crime cases over the last 3 years. These have included the death of Baby P and the Plymouth Nursery Paeodphile Investigation, the murder of Joanna Yeates, The Cross Bow Killer Stephen Griffiths, the Ipswich Serial Killer. Steve Wright and Cumbrian Spree Killer Derek Bird. As well as the disappearance of Madeline McCann, Shannon Mathews  and Jaycee Duggard (US)

Now I do not really know very much about MWT to be honest, apart from he's an EX Police Officer and he does Investigative programs..

But my surprise is the mention of Joanna Yeates in this article... He if I remember correctly did a couple of on camera Interviews at Canygne Road and Longwood Lane.. But other than that he has done very little...

I couldn't remember who first mentioned No Forced entry... And I would assume he has connections with the Police and they gave him the information... He mentions this on the 24th December 2010... Someone else could have said this I do not know... But... This is where my brain started doing back-flips...

He talks of straps.... And i have said before that I believe everything that came to trial had been mentioned on social media before... maybe not in the same context, but the wording is there.... (coincidence)

I do not know what other Interviews that MTW did on this subject... ITV were banned from conferences etc...

Daniel Wright

U can follow the criminologist in last nights 'controversial' ITV News #Yeates VT ( 5.30 in) on twitter @mwilliamsthomas

12:29 PM - 5 Jan 2011

Never saw this piece, he did, but this was when ITV were banned if I remember correctly....  This was my light-on moment came from....

ITV, may have been banned... But who was actually banned?? Was it MWT that they didn't want at conferences anymore or reporting on this Investigation??

He is on Canygne Road on the 24th December 2010 then we see him again on Canygne Road on the 4th January 2011 and also he does a piece on Longwood Lane..

You see I talked myself out of the idea when he had already done a piece on the 24th December 2010 and questioned the Polices Investigation... But then I remember that they changed SIO on the 27th December 2010 to DCI Phil Jones.

And I believe he states he kept a tight ship.... So did DCI Phil Jones not want MTW reporting on this case anymore??
(MTW didn't report about the straps he did a re-tweet)... (He wasn't reporting was he.. he was re-tweeting..And tweeting isn't really reporting is it..... )

I cannot find any other Interviews he does whilst the Investigation was taking place, but that doesn't mean that there isn't any...

I have searched and searched twitter and he rarely reports on the case...... I'll post more on his tweets or lack of them...

What amazes me about MTW is this case.... he must be aware the Police thought that there were killers... He must be aware that another profile was found on Joanna Yeates, he must be aware of the trainers found under the sink unit that DCI Phil Jones told the Leveson, now even if he is happy that Dr Vincent Tabak is in prison for 20 years.. As an Investigative criminologist and Ex Police Officer, I would have thought he would have questioned the Case that is Dr Vincent Tabak, and looked for an accomplice..

I would have thought he would have Investigated the Case full stop... seeing as he is so experienced, he must be aware that NONE of it makes sense...

He tells us in the interviews how incompetent he believes A&S Police are being, so if he is that clued up, why is he not all over this case like a rash??

I don't get it personally... Yet again we have someone in an excellent position to explain this case and he doesn't...

There are not many people like MTW who have experience in the force as well as being a know figure on TV... What really surprises me about this and the talk of an accomplice... I would have thought it would have been right up MTW street to be honest... The idea that there is another person who could be involved in the Murder of Joanna Yeates who has connections to Dr Vincent Tabak who had been to court on child abuse images..

This being what he is an expert in... this is why I do not understand why he doesn't touch this case... I had imagined he would have tried to contact anyone who may have a connection to Dr Vincent Tabak, in the vain hope he may find an accomplice.....

So now I come around in a full circle again.... If the case is not real and Dr Vincent Tabak is not real, then of course he cannot find anyone connected to him...

Then I would ask the same question.... why as a person in his position, does he not then expose the Case that is Dr Vincent Tabak??  He's know for the exposure of Jimmy Saville... so why not this case.... My God if I was in his position I'd be on it quick sharp... A Case where he could really make a name for himself... It should shake all the cherries from the tree... It would be explosive...

But again I am chasing a ghost... If not...

MTW come on... lets see you do this as one of your programs and show the world what really happened to Dr Vincent Tabak and how he was shafted by the system... Because there was NO evidence at trial to connect him to this murder.....  Now that should spark your curiosity.. And expertise...

As I say... I do not really know anything about MTW.. I do not really watch TV..

[attachment deleted by admin]

Offline [...]

Re: Tweets about the Case:
« Reply #41 on: August 24, 2018, 11:10:28 AM »
Mark Williams-Thomas

Verified account
RT @BabyPFund4NSPCC: Disgusted but not surprised by the vile armchair theorists & griefers on Facebook & twitter #yeates

6:27 PM - 28 Dec 2010

Griefers.... I had to look that one up never heard of it.... 

"Definition" Actively causing distress to other players  in an online game..

From this post we can tell he never had never spoken to The Yeates..... because Mrs Yeates goes on to say...

They added: “Nearly the whole country has been moved by the tragic events surrounding Jo's murder. Many of us are 'armchair detectives', but if this activity triggers anything please come forward.”

The Yeates obviously didn't mind Armchair Detectives or Facebook, because of the page that was set up by Jaquie Yeates...

So griefers is an odd term to use, (imo).. People didn't see this as a game, Of course everyone has an opinion on what may or may not have occurred..

In a heartfelt statement the couple from Ampfield, Hants, said: “We spend much of our time – as I imagine most of the country does – thinking of scenarios which took Jo, alive in her flat, to being found dead by the side of a country lane. These scenarios change as events unfold, and new facts are made available”

So The Yeates were theorising ... along with most of the country who couldn't understand how Joanna Yeates Flat had no signs of forced entry...

Why is MTW getting on his high horse about people trying to do what they could in this case....   He must have read every facebook post and tweet to even have an opinion on the subject....

And seeing as there were thousands of members on the Missing group on facebook , he must have been very busy... Put that together with the other groups and The facebook Forum I was an original member of, and add twitter to that... He was a very busy boy....

Either that or he read the odd tweet and facebook comment and formed an opinion on that basis... I would have thought he would have offered The Yeates his services as he had already formed the opinion that A&S Police were not handling it correctly..

I don't understand him to be honest.. Why was he not supporting the finding of the killer, instead of wasting time posting tweets that have no basis, which will not help the Police in finding Joanna Yeates killer... I would have expected more from him...

[attachment deleted by admin]

Offline [...]

Re: Tweets about the Case:
« Reply #42 on: August 24, 2018, 12:39:19 PM »
Mark Williams-Thomas

Verified account

What's Happened to the Landlord? & Why didn't police arrest Mr. Tabak earlier? Sky Crime Correspondent blog #joyeates

9:20 PM - 23 Jan 2011

Now this must be one of the most ridiculous tweets ever... (imo)

Dr Vincent Tabak, had been away in Cambridge for Christmas, then he went to Holland... There was nothing that showed that Dr Vincent Tabak could be even a suspect,... At this time no-one knew when Joanna yeates died, and we still do not know...

At this point no-one knew when Joanna Yeates had been put on Longwood Lane.... And we still don't... Dr Vincent Tabak didn't know Joanna yeates.... Dr Vincent Tabak had never meet Joanna yeates... Dr Vincent Tabak had been away in America for 6 weeks working, so had no time to meet his new neighbours..

Why on earth would MTW say that... why would the Police arrest Dr Vincent Tabak earlier??  There was no reason..
No-one knew about the trip to Holland and the taking of Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA on the 31st December 2010..

So why would he think they needed to arrest a man earlier when there was no evidence connecting him to Joanna yeates... And there is still no evidence connecting him to Joanna Yeates..

For a man who's been a Detective, his powers of deduction appear to have failed... Nothing was known about Dr Vincent Tabak as early as 23rd January 2011..

Just because someone was charged.... didn't mean they had the evidence to move forward...

I'm quite surprised by this tweet...

Offline [...]

Re: Tweets about the Case:
« Reply #43 on: August 24, 2018, 12:52:43 PM »

Mark Williams-Thomas

Verified account
Following Following @mwilliamsthomas
Will be interesting to see if the Prosecution in due course accept Vincent Tabak plea to Manslaughter & have no trial #yeates

10:29 AM - 5 May 2011

Mark Williams-Thomas

Verified account

RT @rupertevelyn: DCI Phil Jones 'Tabak has entered a plea to manslaughter however this has not been accepted by the crown' #yeates

12:20 PM - 5 May 2011

Well, you were wrong there... A trial did take place, as we know all to well...


  • Guest
Re: Tweets about the Case:
« Reply #44 on: August 24, 2018, 02:38:17 PM »
he wasnt wrong though was he? He said if they accept his plea of manslaughter...and if they had then the trial wouldnt have gone ahead!