Vincent Tabak and the Murder of Joanna Yeates

[PaultheRed]

Oh I'm big enough & ugly enough to fight my own corner not taking over from jixy or anyone , yes you are entitled to your opinions but when serious journalists , reports for national and regional press defeat your every point hands down most members of the public would be more willing to accept the words of professionals rather than those of an Amateur Sleuth  (no offence intended) . The problem with internet searches are they are open to being manipulated to say what you or anyone wants them to say , if you search hard enough you'll find the Moon Landings never actually took place but were filmed in a Hollywood Film Studio surely you must see any argument based solely on internet findings is open to ridicule and most if not all your points are based on such as you weren't in court, you don't know any of the participants and apart from a few hours research you have basically no facts to support your case sso we have to believe your opinion, beliefs or your gut feelings hardly a solid base to build a case on .

[PaultheRed]

What else was at the scene well it wasn't  you ,Mrswah or me  was it and as for why were there 8 fire appliances there maybe it might be more productive asking the Fire & Rescue services who will have the actual facts not just conjecture , thoughts or impulses asking such questions is like saying why do cows lie down when it rains ?

[[...]]

Oh I'm big enough & ugly enough to fight my own corner not taking over from jixy or anyone , yes you are entitled to your opinions but when serious journalists , reports for national and regional press defeat your every point hands down most members of the public would be more willing to accept the words of professionals rather than those of an Amateur Sleuth  (no offence intended) . The problem with internet searches are they are open to being manipulated to say what you or anyone wants them to say , if you search hard enough you'll find the Moon Landings never actually took place but were filmed in a Hollywood Film Studio surely you must see any argument based solely on internet findings is open to ridicule and most if not all your points are based on such as you weren't in court, you don't know any of the participants and apart from a few hours research you have basically no facts to support your case sso we have to believe your opinion, beliefs or your gut feelings hardly a solid base to build a case on .

Totally agree on some levels... But Not all!

But it is the papers that Sally Ramage wrote that i have ultimateley used to gain times etc, as to the where abouts of Dr Vincent Tabak..

The Prosecutions own timelines... The Defences Timelines... Nothing to do with the media... It's from a Lawyers own Paper and the transcripts from the trial that she attended...

Its all the information that is held within the Papers that Sally Ramage has written about and has re publish year on year....

I can roughly get from the media certain pieces of info and I agree they could be inacurate... But when I have Transcribed the words from the mouth of different Police Officers that are on the Internet being interviewed on video, I cannot be making that up...

When i look at the leveson inquiry... I cannot be making that up...

when I look at video that CJ himself is videoed saying and is there for all to see... I cannot be making that up...

When I find from The Leveson Enquiry that DCI Phil jones didn't take charge of this investigation until the 27th December 2010 .. I wonder what info he already knew and in what detail before he started arresting CJ....

And as  I have posted many times all of the other information which in my opinion does NOT ADD UP..... Then I'll keep questioning it.....

Can you actually imaging how difficult it was for me to STICK my neckout... knowing I'd be upsetting firstly the Yeates Family... But a Nation would think that i am a complete lunatic to even suggest that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent....

Never mind publically stating it not knowing what type of reaction I would gain....

I'm not doing it for fame... Or else my Name would be emblazend across every post.....

I would not be thinking every time I post that the poor Yeates family may read this and feel someone is just racking over the coals... Just to get some sort of sick attention...

I will say again and again..... Things just don't add up.... And when they don't add up.... SOMEONE IS LYING!!!!

[PaultheRed]

It was in the papers that the Fans at Hillsborough were to blame Oooops but they weren't as since has been proved so the press lie and make things up , strange how you will use the press when it suits your argument but dismiss them when it proves you wrong is that because it's either your way or the highway .

The prosecution had to rely on enhanced DNA, which is known to sometimes be unreliable.  BUT NOT ALWAYS

The flat and VT's clothes---and the front door that was made such a fuss about---should have been crawling with good forensic evidence. WHY HOW DO YOU KNOW IT WASN'T CLEANED DOWN, THAT HE NEVER TOOK PRECAUTIONS NOT TO LEAVE ANY ?

[PaultheRed]

The Defence counsel, William Clegg, QC, had earlier pleaded with the judge, Justice Field, to accept the plea of ‘manslaughter’ but Justice Field was adamant that the charge of ‘murder’ must remain why because the evidence pointed to the fact it was murder and not manslaughter claiming the Defence Team was poor is irrelevant they were only doing their job and it is just hearsay they were poor .
 Why would poor Mr Jefferies attend the trial when Tabak had already admitted manslaughter it's not like had to prove Tabak was guilty it was already confirmed by the man himself plus after his ordeal why would he want to relive it again & after all  what could he possibly add anyway that hadn't already been said .



https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/830193/jo-yeates-murder-trial-vincent-tabaks-online-cover-up/

[[...]]

It was in the papers that the Fans at Hillsborough were to blame Oooops but they weren't as since has been proved so the press lie and make things up , strange how you will use the press when it suits your argument but dismiss them when it proves you wrong is that because it's either your way or the highway .

The prosecution had to rely on enhanced DNA, which is known to sometimes be unreliable.  BUT NOT ALWAYS

The flat and VT's clothes---and the front door that was made such a fuss about---should have been crawling with good forensic evidence. WHY HOW DO YOU KNOW IT WASN'T CLEANED DOWN, THAT HE NEVER TOOK PRECAUTIONS NOT TO LEAVE ANY ?

Because that would have taken more time to do... And the time that was available wasn't enough to complete all of these things....

The Flat when Greg arrived home would have been pristeen, as for him not to leave any evidence... not in mayhem when Greg arrived home from sheffield..

How would it be possible for him to cherry pick what he was supposed to have touched and not supposed to have touched.... if you've just killed someone would you really remember what you had touched... would you really know if you skin cells hadn't shed onto the carpet or any other surface...

Obvious things like the BLUE DOOR are just that....obvious... But what about the real areas he would have come into contact... the coat-stand... kitchen tops... bedroom... there are so many area's that Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA could have come into contact with... why didn't he really try and clean it all up...

And that bring me to another thought i hadn't really considered.....

Why if he has touched the coat stand and hung his coat upon it is it still in the crime scene photo's and not in Police evidence!!!

There are kitchen items galore missing from the crime scene photo's,,.... So WHY IS THE COAT STAND STILL THERE!!!!!!!!!!!

Theres a shard of console there that was never explained by the Prosecution or the Defence!!!
And that piece of info was never in the media!!!!

Edit......... And if as seems he grabbed her and pulled her boots off his DNA would be on them... why the missing sock??? why not just take both of them!!!!!!!

[[...]]

Paul..... One thing i can say to you is that i would really like someone to look at this case with fresh eyes..

The Media or A lawyer.. And maybe they might just come to the conclusion that i have.... How did and how could the Dutchman Do it!!!

Why hide 1300 pages of evidence from a defence... I don't get it...

[PaultheRed]

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

[[...]]

Paul....

How can the Policeman say in one breadth that he got the results on the 20th of January 2011 of Dr Vincent tabak, and arrest him on the same morning,... I cannot see that as possible...

How do the know for certain Joanna Yeates died in that flat on the 17th December 2010 before 9:30pm????

How do they know this.... If even if you accept that he plead guilty to Manslaughter then why charge him between the 16th December 2010 and the 26th Decemeber 2010..

Your prepared to believe everything else he has said.... So if he's say he killed her then.... then the charge should be for that date at least...

If Inferences are true/not true ... like the inferrences to do with the Porn... Its just that an inference..

YOU too cannot decide what inferences are acurate either.. and as the porn was not brought as evidence and proven as  such... it was just as you say an Inference!!!!!!!

[PaultheRed]

the porn wasn't used so the trial could be fair it was used after and he was convicted for it huge difference & exactly none of us know what happened and without seeing the full set of trail papers, interviews and every scrap of official paperwork know one can say one way or the other what is relevant and what isn't .
END OF ......

[[...]]

What else was at the scene well it wasn't  you ,Mrswah or me  was it and as for why were there 8 fire appliances there maybe it might be more productive asking the Fire & Rescue services who will have the actual facts not just conjecture , thoughts or impulses asking such questions is like saying why do cows lie down when it rains ?

Yes........ Healeys Cider and a Tattinger Reims  Champagne Cork!!!!
And Maybe something else I've missed!!!!!

[[...]]

the porn wasn't used so the trial could be fair it was used after and he was convicted for it huge difference & exactly none of us know what happened and without seeing the full set of trail papers, interviews and every scrap of official paperwork know one can say one way or the other what is relevant and what isn't .
END OF ......

Yes the porn wasn't used at the trial.... That was more to do with stopping him appealing against an unfair trial than whether it was relevant or NOT!!!

And I agree.... I would love to see those trial papers and everything else....

Paul... As I say I'm just a forum member... But I believe I have found holes... You can laugh and say I'm an ameture slueth or what ever.... you can possibly pull apart what I say... But unless you can produce those 1300 pages of evidence and show otherwise what I beileve  to be lies....

Then you can't say either if all of the true evidence was revealed in this trial.....



But... I'll say I like Fair..... And this doesn't seem like a fair fight in my opinion... It never has!!!!

EDIT..... people all over this forum speculate  and accuse people of comitting certain crimes...

I am not saying it was anyone else... And I'm allowed to ask questions of something that doesn't make sense.....

Ask them what they think to the cases they are covering .. Jixy was admiring the Mccann Threads.. well that thread is full of accusations...

But according to Jixy it hunky dorey for them to say what ever they come up with... from Media reports!!!!!!

But my information is Not just media reports as I have stated!!!!!

[[...]]

What else was at the scene well it wasn't  you ,Mrswah or me  was it and as for why were there 8 fire appliances there maybe it might be more productive asking the Fire & Rescue services who will have the actual facts not just conjecture , thoughts or impulses asking such questions is like saying why do cows lie down when it rains ?

Fire Appliances don't come in that number that I am aware of to such a scene.. But lets say they do... Maybe it should have been the Fire Chief explaining how they freed Joanna Yeates from the frozen Ground,,, And not Andrew Mott and his unweildly broom handle!!!!!! On the witness stand.......

[[...]]

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

So where is the Direct Evidence that Dr Vincent Tabak Killed Joanna Yeates????
Where is the Direct evidence that he was even in that flat
Where is the Direct evidence that Joanna Yeates was in his Flat
Where is the exact timeline of events that Dr Vincent Tabak comitted this act they say he did!!
Where is the Direct evidence that she was killed in her flat..


There is NO DIRECT EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WHATSOEVER!!!!!

[[...]]

What else was at the scene well it wasn't  you ,Mrswah or me  was it and as for why were there 8 fire appliances there maybe it might be more productive asking the Fire & Rescue services who will have the actual facts not just conjecture , thoughts or impulses asking such questions is like saying why do cows lie down when it rains ?

From PaultheRed....  Answer on next post made an error