Mrswah he got the legal team to challenge the 'porn' that has been posted so much about on here. Why then did he not use the same voice to say he didn't kill whether its manslaughter or murder. He has not done so even after the passing years yet he did manage to he killed her how and why. Followed by a basic sorry and understanding towards the family in court.
These are NOT the signs of an innocent man!
The duress that keeps getting mentions is being put forward as an excuse for a fake confession when it isn't the case, its never been proven witnessed or mentioned by Tabak or anyone else. The only time it gets mentioned is on here as a reason to say a guilty man is innocent!
I have to say I have issues with it....especially his court appearance..
Why Would Dr Vincent Tabak, Just sit there and tell a story????? (IMO)
Because i believe that is it!!! It was Just a story, No truth to it....
A Story to explain how he managed to kill his next door neighbour that he had never meet.......(IMO)
Now doesn't that strike you as Odd!
What does that say????
The media will have us believe that he woke up one morning and decided , oh I know ..Tanja has eft for work, I,ll just watch some porn...
He apparently then comes across a lady in a pink T-Shirt in the boot of a car!!!!
This from:
http://thejusticegap.com/2011/10/vincent-tabak-and-the-law-on-bad-character/People believe this crap!!!
RICHARD MOORHEAD
November 1, 2011 7:44 am
I can understand the judge seeking to make his handling appeal proof.
One of the matters reported, which you don’t comment on, is the (claim?) that Jo’s body was found in a pose very similar to one of the images Tabak had viewed. Isn’t that evidence of intent?
Well on that alone, you have to think that common sense hasn't been applied...
How on god's green earth would Dr Vincent Tabak KNOW that Joanna Yeates would wear a pink T-shirt...
Did he go down the towards the little gate pass the window and see she had a pink T-shirt on and say to himself...
Here's my chance????
Oh Yes... lets re-inact this morning's viewing!!!!!
Well even if you decide you actually believe that he did that for a calculating man you have a problem...
He would have got his car first..
He would have put everything into position before he even rang the INTERCOM........
That hypothosis is Ridculous!!!!
I can understand the judge seeking to make his handling appeal proof.
I NEED to understand this!!! I remember something about the sentence or something, meaning he wouldn't be able to appeal !!! (i'll have to come back to this)
So where sat in court!!
To me he covers the bases... Not enough description, it's like he's following a script.........
When he starts he appears to be confident in what he's saying then it goes to the other extreme of not having a clue.....
When the Defence is talking to him on the witness stand, Dr Vincent Tabak has something to refer to.... because the defence says words to the effect... "
Defence Counsel: Without any help from the timeline, are you able to say what time it
was you decided to go to Asda?
Tabak: No.
I find this statement from the defence council ODD!! ( I will come back to this )...
So he needs to look at the script in his hand... That's the opinion I'm coming too...
What does this script say???
Defence Counsel: Look at our timeline chart again. No 76. Jo Yeates did not get back to
her flat until 8.37 or thereabouts. Timeline 39- you ultimately went to Asda at approx
10.13 pm.
Can you help by telling what time you believe you went to Asda?
Tabak: No not exactly.
Can you help!!!!!!
Hello..... does that not strike anyone as a really strange way of putting a question to an ADULT!!!!
We have seen that the Defence were not a great fan of Dr Vincent Tabak, so why talk to him in this manner???
Do they know something?????
Defence Counsel: Why?
Tabak: I was lonely; bored so decided to drive to the big Asda in Bedminster to buy myself
some treats.
Now saying that he's buying treats is either a Dutch thing or to me it sounds almost child like....
Defence Counsel William Clegg, QC, asked Dr Tabak about what happened in Joanna
Yeates flat.
Tabak: She invited me in.
Defence Counsel William Clegg: Did she open the door?
Tabak: Yes
This is wrong.... She Invited me in????
Now for a young woman who had never met her next door neighbour and as we already know was not looking forward to being in the Flat on her own... why would she invite a complete stranger into her home??
She had an intercom... she could have used that!!!
She had never meet Dr Vincent Tabak.... surely he would have explained how he gained entry to the Flat...
Forced entry... NOT Proven.. The Police say NO Forced entry!!
Joanna Yeates had sought company that evening as we know...
But that was from People she knew WELL...!
Not some random neighbour she hadn't seen or meet before, I do not believe that Joanna Yeates would have put herself in that position..
She had not drunk very much, so her faculties were there, WHY would she let a stranger in her Flat!!!!
Defence Counsel: Did you take off your coat?
Tabak: Yes.
Defence Counsel: What room did you go into?
Tabak: Kitchen- both of us.
Is he guiding a child through what happened or WHAT!!!
A more acceptable question would be, then what happened??
Already, we are explaining why possibly the fibres of his coat play a part......
Did Joanna Yeates ask him to hang his coat up??? erm..... NO!!
And I have to point out that Joanna Yeates was already relaxing as the prosecution had said..
Defence Counsel: What did you talk about?
Tabak: Being bored. About the cat- she was flirty- she said ‘the cat went into places she
shouldn’t go- a bit like me’; Los Angeles and the sunshine; etc.
THIS....... this is the ONLY Possible subject that Dr Vincent Tabak would have in common with Joanna Yeates, or that is what they want us to believe...
It leads to the assumtion that the cat may have left the flat, we have been made aware that Bernard did go around to Dr Vincent Tabak,s flat when he was away...
But More importantly where was the chit chat about the Careers... That would have been a better topic, the would have something in common.....
Tabak: Being bored. About the cat- she was flirty- she said ‘the cat went into places she
shouldn’t go- a bit like me’; Los Angeles and the sunshine; etc.
The bit about Los Angeles was obviously prepared before the arguement about the PORN!!! (IMO)
Dr Vincent Tabak at this point is setting himself up about the so called ESCORTS..... Funny thing is they never went to court!!!!
He had no need to mention that about going into places a bit like me...he shouldn't!! especially if he was trying to make himself look SAINT like....
So a bit of sunshine and Dr Vincent Tabak cannot resist a pretty girl???? IT WAS WINTER!!!!
Escorts more crap to Bolster the conviction!!! (IMO)
OH YES... The other Glaringly obvious error!!!!!!
she said ‘the cat went into places she
shouldn’t go-
OMG!!!!!!!! Remember the cat is called BERNARD...... Probably because he is MALE!!!!!!! Not FEMALE!!!!!!
So she wouldn't make that STATEMENT!!!!!!
He knows Jack shit about that CAT!!!!!
But the Jury don't pick up on the fact that the cat is Male... And are content in listening to this rubbish....
They have to make a connection that Dr Vincent Tabak would have a common topic to talk to Joanna Yeates and of course the Cat having been around to his flat before seems like the perfect example..
My Lord.... Kipper and stitched springs to mind!!!! (IMO)
Not known either Reardon or Yeates.
Cat came into Flat 2 whist he was in LA.
This is said before Timeline: 11 before Dr Vincent Tabak mentions talking about the Cat..
This is Stated....... WHY???????????
Why would the Jury need to know this??????
Only to bring the supposed conversation about the FLIRTY SHE CAT.. into play......
BUT BERNARD IS MALE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I believe the Defence is setting the stage (IMO)
And then we go on to say.................
Defence Counsel: How long did you converse for? Did you decide to do something?
Tabak: Yes, I did.
Defence Counsel: What did you decide to do?
Tabak: To make a pass at her.
Didn't reply to the first question??
But the third question I find most Interesting...............
Defence Counsel: What did you decide to do?
His Reply....
Tabak: To make a pass at her
NOW.... I don't know about anyone else ... But I find that reply WRONG!!!!!!!
It's an English saying..... The Dutch wouldn't say that.....
Making a pass is defineatley ENGLISH!!!!!
The dutch would say:
"Verleiden"..... which means to SEDUCE..... My brother in law did say this, But I will get him to clarify it..!!!!
So if Dr Vincent Tabak had said he tried to SEDUCE her, then it would be more believeable....
But of course he didn't because he didn't prepare any statement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He's from a different country, they have there own quirks and sayings...........
But the Jury are English... they understand what making a Pass is!!!!
They wouldn't have understood if Dr Vincent Tabak said he tried "TO SEDUCE HER"......
They would want to understand what lead him to believe that Joanna Yeates was in a position to have lead a Dutchman on so much that he felt like he wanted to "SEDUCE HER"...
But in English... making a pass is something and nothing... it can be done in various ways as we are all aware... It's a much gentler approach....
The Jury would have expected a full explanation to the word SEDUCE...
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/seduceto make someone feel attracted to you and want to have sex with you, often someone younger or less experienced:
Now our English interpretation is as above!!!!
If Dr Vincent Tabak had used the words SEDUCED.... Which is the what the Dutch would say... Then why wouldn't Joanna Yeates have made her excuses and made him leave!!!!!!!!
Defence Counsel: Did you think she would respond?
Tabak: Yes.
Why would he think she would respond???? Erm..... Nope!!
He's used the wrong terminology and do you not think at this point Joanna Yeates would tell him where to get off!!!!
Not then do this........
Defence Counsel: Did she offer you a drink?
Tabak: Yes. I declined.
So we are to believe at this point that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't want to continue with being Flirty!!! And Joanna Yeates was not shocked by the Dutchmans response.......
But lets go with the Defence and the EXPLANATION........
Defence Counsel: Did she offer you a drink?
Tabak: Yes. I declined.
WHY would he decline a drink???
If he was so intent on making this a sexual contact he would have accepted the offer of a drink, it would have made it more of a relaxed enviroment, he would have felt that she was interested in him and he would have been happy to continue in her company..
Talking about CATS!!! in wrong places...
I believe why he says NO to the drink ..... Is to make us believe that he was still Planning on going to ASDA!!!
Now again........... If his only reason to go to ASDA was to pass the time because he was bored then, he had company... he didn't need to worry about one small drink.. It was early enough, his alchol level would have dropped by the time he went to pick Tanja up....
So Asda wouldn't have been needed as a trip... His time is taken up conversing with his next door neighbour....
He could have said No to the Alcohol..... But A coffee would be great.....
If he felt that he had a chance of engaging with Joanna Yeates you would think he'd of been finding away to make their time together be longer, so he could put his powers of persuasion into play!!!!
Defence Counsel: Doing as best you can describe to the court exactly what you did.
Tabak: I put my hand in the small of her back and went to kiss her.
Doing as best as you can???????????
Again is this an Adult he's Talking to?????
Clegg made the Jury very aware of his distain for his client... so why the gentle guiding through his movements???
Why didn't Joanna Yeates Grab his HAND!!!! Remove it....
They're being disrepectful to her......She is not going to allow this to happen and the next quote..
Defence Counsel: Did you kiss her?
Tabak: Noooo.
Noooo.....
The suggestion to him sounds like it's something he would not do... His response is like it's something terribly wrong (IMO).......
Defence Counsel: What did she do?
Tabak: She started to scream quite loudly.
OK........ She wouldn't....
They wouldn't have got as far as her offering him a drink if he had made a pass, never mind to the point where she starts screaming!!!
She wouldn't immediatley start screaming quite loudly....
She'd of either slapped him or made it plain that he had mis-interpreted her intentions!!!! (IMO)
I believe the screaming is needed.... I will explain, the jury needs to understand that when they have the statements from the party goers that the screams they heard where that of Joanna Yeates!!!
I believe this is rubbish......
The Prosecution and the Defence completeley ignored the fact that KINGDOM heard someone shout "Help Me".. on mid morning of the 18th Decemeber 2010
But his statement didn't fit with what they wanted the Jury to believe!!!!!!
I'm sure if they had CJ on the stand instead of Dr Vincent Tabak.. Then Kingdoms statement would have been used!!!!!!!!!!
Defence Counsel: What did you say?
Tabak: I’m sorry. Please stop. I kept my hand to her mouth.
He says:........ "sorry!!! Please stop...
Joanna Yeates has enough common sense to just take the situation into her control and talk him down, maybe say something along the lines of..
"It's ok.. A misunderstanding... I think you should leave"..... That's why I think his hand still is across her mouth!!!
Are we all to believe Joanna Yeates JUST stood there!!! Didn't disuade Dr Vincent Tabak that his attentions were unwelcomed?????
After the pass.. I don't believe she would have screamed ... I believe she would have said something to Dr Vincent Tabak at least, then the apology would come then she would take control of the situation... That is my OP
WHY.........
Did she not move????
Did she not try get him to leave????
Did she not kick him in the Knackers?????
No.... apparently according to this script she stood there doing nothing!!!!!
Defence Counsel: When you took your hand away what happened?
Tabak: She continued to scream.
So... Is this the screams the other couple heard???? Nar... don't believe there where any screams.....
Where are her protestations !!!! Where does she run to the door???
Where does she actually either try to escape her flat or throw him out!!!!
Is all she does is scream....
Her heart would be pounding if she was under attack, she would be thinking on her feet, Not just stood there allowing something to happen to her without resistance..........
Defence Counsel: What did you do then?
Tabak: I put my hand around her neck. I panicked.
Defence Counsel: What did Joanna do?
Tabak: Nothing at all.
Well that explains the hands around the neck.... And thats the problem!!!!! ONE HAND!! when we know Two were used...
I panicked.... well get yourself out of there!!!!
And Joanna Yeates did nothing..... THIS I cannot believe!!!!!!!!!!!
Did NOTHING..... Just allowed it.....
Complete and utter RUBBISH (IMO)...... She's supposed to be fighting for her life... she would have kicked scratched ,... struggled, not just stand there....
Did Dr Vincent Tabak have any injuries due to his contact with Joanna Yeates...???? NO!!
Did Dr Vincent Tabak leave any DNA of his own in the Flat????? NO!!
Did Dr Vincent Tabak say Joanna Yeates reacted in any other way apart from to scream??? NO!!!
WHY NOT!!!!!!
He's supposed to be convincing a JURY that this is MANSLAUGHTER...
More detail is needed...
He's not supposed to be just covering the bases... And I believe that all that is being said!!!!!
A Jury would not be convinced of the story he is saying... They are not daft..
They would come to the conclusion that Joanna Yeates would have reacted several times by this point!!!
And would have spoken... Can you believe she hasn't spoken????
I can't.....
Defence Counsel: Why did you put your hand around her neck?
Tabak: I was just trying to stop her screaming- to calm her down.
What kind of explanation is this????? trying to stop her screaming...
Then his supposed first response of putting his hand across her mouth, would work again....
The Defence are telling us he DOES NOT KNOW how to converse!!!!!
Where is the ... Stop screaming and I'll let go... ?????
Joanna Yeates is doing nothing to protect her own life... AND that is Impossible!!!!!
It is not a normal approach.... Come on.. Do people believe this?????
If he was so intent on engaging with a random female, he could have simply wandered around Bristol until he came across one!!!
Defence Counsel: How long did keep your hand there?
Tabak: Only for a short time.
Now the next quote is interesting.....
Defence Counsel: I will tell you to start to remember what you did and when you took
your hand away from Joanna's neck. Now. When you took your hand away, what did she
do?
Tabak: She went limp and fell
EH??????
I will tell you to start to remember?????
What kind of statement is that!!!!!!!!
That in my opinion is a PROMPT!!!!!!! It's like saying keep to the SCRIPT, (IMO)
A reminder from the Defence as to what order thing happened in...
Defence Counsel: I will tell you to start to remember what you did and when you took
your hand away from Joanna's neck. Now. When you took your hand away, what did she
Again..... TELLING HIS CLIENT!!.. come on, next part.... Where is what happened when you took your hand away....
This man is an ADULT!!!!!!
Surely he is able to continue with what took place without PROMPTING from the Defence...
I have an idea about Dr Vincent Tabak's possible behaviour and responses , which i'm going to try to cover.... In a different post
But I will have to continue this on another post... running out of characters!!
I'll get to the confession... But what I'm explaining at the moment is the supposed basis of his CONFESSION!!
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdfEDIT:... Just a reminder about the screams!! DI Jo Goff
Those screams were of particular interest because, it helped us to time when ..er.. when the actual incident happened within the flat 1.. which resulted in Joanna death
Joanna Yeates - Crimewatch the full story - Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRDtLjPfdw0
