Vincent Tabak and the Murder of Joanna Yeates

[[...]]

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


Is It The COATSTAND?????????????? Or is there something else???????


A Cat Tray for a Cat that goes OUT.......

An intercom phone that isn't mentioned...

I'll take another look .... maybe I've missed something!!!!!

[[...]]

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) .

How are Journalists beating me hands down, when they are notaware of what I am writting....

Journalists at the time reported on events, they saw unfolding not investigating whether or not the information afforded to them was  acurate...

The Only Journalist that did ask searching questions was when ITV NEWS questioned evidence left on Longwood Lane and Why they said she wasn't sexually assaulted but then, said it was a sexually motivated attack...

And ITV were the only ones to show the fire engines and the were subsequently banned from the next Police Conference...

So it depends on whether you mean JOURNALIST OR REPORTER... Two different things (IMO)

[PaultheRed]

Splitting hairs 1 write the story on paper the other reports the news and fact .....STOP TRYING TO BE A BILLY BIG BALLS .....


Vincent Tabak is a violent sex obsessed murderer. That’s what the public think, what the jury decided and how the judge sentenced. He was convicted of the murder of Jo Yeates on October 28th 2011 at Bristol Crown Court having pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

The only issue in the trial was whether he intended to kill or cause really serious harm or whether he had inflicted minimum force for death in a panic. The evidence was that he went to her flat, engaged in conversation which he said was flirtatious and then he strangled her. He said he had misunderstood her advances and put his hand over her mouth when she screamed. Expert evidence was that sufficient force was used to strangle her to death and this would have taken time, from which intent to kill could be inferred. The jury rejected his defence and any suggestion that Jo Yeates led him on. They were shown footage of his movements after the event and some of the contents of his computer which showed he was completely in control of his actions and acting in his own self interest. He did not give the appearance of someone who would panic and the jury concluded he was a murderer.

After conviction, details were released of his use of prostitutes and the contents of his computer which showed he had viewed violent and sexual pornography including strangulation pornography. Questions have been asked as to why such evidence was excluded in the trial. In analysing the judge’s decision it has to be borne in mind that not all people who watch pornography are murderers. Evidence of the bad character of a defendant is admissible as part of the prosecution case where it is relevant to the issues and not too prejudicial to a fair trial.

‘Bad character’ evidence is evidence that the defendant has carried out reprehensible behaviour other than the offence charged. It is not limited to criminal convictions. Tabak had no criminal history. The judge concluded that the possession of strangulation pornography was reprehensible and later sentenced on the basis of sexually motivated murder but excluded that material from the consideration of the jury during the prosecution case.

[[...]]

Splitting hairs 1 write the story on paper the other reports the news and fact .....STOP TRYING TO BE A BILLY BIG BALLS .....

 

 

I'll come back to the rest of your quote but..... Oh My....

I haven't got any Balls.....  never have had any... unless they are hiding somewhere about my person that I am not aware of then I don't have any!!!!

[PaultheRed]

YOUR POOR OPINION ON THE SUBJECT IS INVALID & POINTLESS AS THAT IS ALL IT IS YOUR OPINION , NO FACTS, NO SUBSTANCE , NO PROOF, NO NOTHING ONLY YOUR OPINION AND PERVERTED MIND ...You trip yourself up all the time like with your post about the pizza saying no one knew of course no one knew but the killer did!!! So by pointing that out shows even you don't agree with your own opinion at times ......

[[...]]

Splitting hairs 1 write the story on paper the other reports the news and fact .....STOP TRYING TO BE A BILLY BIG BALLS .....


They were shown footage of his movements after the event and some of the contents of his computer which showed he was completely in control of his actions and acting in his own self interest. He did not give the appearance of someone who would panic and the jury concluded he was a murderer.

So... tell me exactly the time and date on this footage that the Jury was shown!!!!!!

[[...]]

YOUR POOR OPINION ON THE SUBJECT IS INVALID & POINTLESS AS THAT IS ALL IT IS YOUR OPINION , NO FACTS, NO SUBSTANCE , NO PROOF, NO NOTHING ONLY YOUR OPINION AND PERVERTED MIND ...You trip yourself up all the time like with your post about the pizza saying no one knew of course no one knew but the killer did!!! So by pointing that out shows even you don't agree with your own opinion at times ......

WOW... Feathers and Ruffled springs to Mind....... 

That's your opinion.... doesn't make it right though does it!!!!!

You can shout as much as you like, But evidence from the trial itself proving he couldn't make searches because it wasn't home is not something I magiced up out of fresh air....

Paul you have been very quiet on this subject and today you have come out all guns blazing at me...

Odd..... very Odd indeed....

Maybe something I have posted of relevance is getting hidden as we argue back and forth about whether or not I have BOLLOCKS!!!!

Well i don't....

[PaultheRed]

For someone who claims to be so well educated you really do show all the intelligence of a gas fitter ....

[[...]]

For someone who claims to be so well educated you really do show all the intelligence of a gas fitter ....

I Am NOT DREW ASHMAN.....


I just Apply Common Sense And Logic..... something people of my generation have always used!!!!!

[Kayden Paradox]

Not Drew? I bet he's sat not very far from you is he Amy!

[[...]]

Not Drew? I bet he's sat not very far from you is he Amy!

On My God... we have another one popping up out of nowhere...

MY NAME IS NOT DREW

MY NAME IS NOT AMY

Infact I thought you were AMY!!!!!!


EDIT... Well you disappeared sharpish after I posted that....

Edit again.... Oh No... Your Back.....

[Kayden Paradox]

Sorry to disappoint. For the record when I briefly logged out you hadn't posted. Me Amy? Try and deflect all you want it won't work. How's your Kleeneze round going, many customers?

[[...]]

Sorry to disappoint. For the record when I briefly logged out you hadn't posted. Me Amy? Try and deflect all you want it won't work. How's your Kleeneze round going, many customers?

WHAT...... What you on about...... I haven't got any customers...

Kayden... what has made you chirp up this evening???????

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Kleeneze&oq=Kleeneze&aqs=chrome..69i57.3674j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I don't live in Bristol.... if `i did ... I'd be around measuring that Kitchen window height to see if it was possible for Dr Vincent Tabak to Actually see in and for Joanna Yeates to be able to see him....

I'd walk all the routes... I'd get my husband to drive me so I could time everything....

So whoever you think I may be your mistaken.......

[Kayden Paradox]

Do I need to have a reason?  A question for you nine or rather two questions to be honest. You often refer to Sally Ramage, where exactly does it say she was in court for the trial and also where does it say she is a lawyer?

[[...]]

Do I need to have a reason?  A question for you nine or rather two questions to be honest. You often refer to Sally Ramage, where exactly does it say she was in court for the trial and also where does it say she is a lawyer?

There are references in the very early part of this thread regarding Sally Ramage... She all over the internet, but on saying that apparently according to some........ references on the internet aren't valid....

So No matter what I say to you ... you will always be of the opinion that I have something to do with Drew Ashman and I'm off my Trolley......

Well go with that if it makes you happy.. But I'll keep plodding on with what I see as unfair and maybe finding other avenues to get people to look at it...

You talk like everyone else hasn't got a brain cell.... If they believe I'm talking RUBBISH, they can inform their own opinion....

How do I know who you lot are... You all arrive as a group....  One speaks the other one chirps up.....

You could be something to do with this case for all I know...

And at the end of the day, I'm a forum user with an Opinion,...might not be the same as everyones elses, but It's an opinion all the same....

And if you don't like it you don't have to respond to it....

Simple as that really......


What Have I said from Page 41, that has you lot are getting excited with me today for ????....

 I been chatting to myself for ages and nothing from you lot.....

Is there something lying between the posts???????