Vincent Tabak and the Murder of Joanna Yeates

[[...]]

                                        [ moderated ]   A difference of opinion.

At 31:25 mins: The Policeman says: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4htq8y

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg369062#msg369062

It was around the 20th January, that erm... we positively identified there were components in the mixed DNA.. of Vincent Tabak

Now as I'm re watching the video " Killers: Vincent Tabak"... The lady from the CPS says this: at 28:03 mins

The Police having had his DNA sample obtained voluntarily in Holland and checked against... erm.. findings on Jo's body.. discovered that it was his DNA was on her body...and that was one of the key factors, that lead to the planned arrest of him later in January..

She speaks as if the DNA sample had been checked a lot earlier than the 20th of January... So why the planned arrest???

[[...]]

 at 34:13 (Killers: Vincent Tabak) DCI Phil Jones says:

Very soon we identified that as early as the 19th December at 10:30 that evening he was on google maps at home, on his laptop, looking at Longwood Lane

Now I've gone back to the searches and:

At Line 257 of the prosecution Chart
Tabak searched on Google Maps for
‘Longwood Lane’
At Line 258 (afternoon- at work)
Tabak performed Google searches on the words
‘manslaughter’
‘previous offenders’
‘Maximum sentence Manslaughter’
Tabak then performed a Yahoo search for the words
‘penalty for manslaughter’

So Timeline 257 must be 10:30pm on the 19th December 2010

So not till the afternoon of Monday the 20th Decemeber 2010 did he apparently suddenly start looking for "Manslaughter"...


This must mean than nearly half of the timeline searches are between the 17th December 210 and the 19th Dec 2010

WOW.... they must hold alot of texts emails etc..... in those few days!!!!!!!!

Why would he jump from Longwoood Lane on the 19th Dec 2010... to checking out penalties for manslaughter on the 20th Dec 2010

That makes no sense what so ever... she wasn't found until the 25th Dec 2010... and he hadn't had his DNA sample taken at this point!!!!

I tell ya.... these searches make NO sense.... No sense whatsoever!!!!!!

If it took till 19th of December 2010 to have 257 timelines... for 3 days

That leaves 310 Timelines available until the 19th January when his final search is recorded.. 31 days.. these timelines include Texts, emails and phone calls...  Thats 10 items a day on avaerage and we know that he texted and emailed Tanja regularly... So where is the obsessive checking of everything to do with this case... Because they can't be much of it for 31 days!!!!!

At Line 347 of the prosecution chart
 Tabak searched Google maps for
‘maps to Longwood lane’
‘Mirror newspaper website’
‘BBC news’
‘alcohol –police limits’

Again searches google maps... what would the purpose of that be??????

 These timelines are always interesting.... Think i need to look again at them...


http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf

[[...]]

                            A refresher from the defence.......


These are the quotes from various newspapers at the time:

1:   Clegg said his conduct after Yeates died when he hid the body was "frankly disgusting" and had caused untold anguish and agony to her family.

2:  "I'm not going to ask you to like Vincent Tabak. There's probably nothing to like."

3:   And Miss Morson seems to agree, having failed to make a single  appearance at court.

4:  He had told "lie after lie to the police.

5: “did everything he could to cover his tracks”.

6: He added that he would not try to justify Tabak’s actions after her death, saying his client was “living a lie” by attending dinner parties and attempting to carry on his life as normal.

7:  "I'm not going to ask you to have any sympathy for him. He deserves none.

8: "I'm not going to ask you to excuse his conduct. There can be no excuse.

9: "If I was to set out to win a popularity contest I would lose.

10: He told the court: "Of course, afterwards his behaviour is utterly disgraceful. It's not going to be justified by me

 


https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/19/vincent-tabak-joanna-yeates-court

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8855897/Vincent-Tabak-Totally-detached-crazy-person.html

https://www.channel4.com/news/tabak-to-describe-yeates-death-in-own-words

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/vincent-tabak-branded-manipulating-cunning-liar/story-13664765-detail/story.html#ApuIakqxDvkSwVkp.99


Oh My..... Is all I can say.... No not really... 

These are the words of the defence......Utterly disgraceful  !!!!!

 Aren't the Defence Council supposed to be supporting their client????

[mrswah]

.

Now....  which first statement is he referring too??? 

Because that sounds like he is in custody... So that cannot be his first statement..

Or is he referring to the Interview in Holland????

The first statement (where VT stated that he wouldn't have recognised Joanna had he not seen her picture in the newspaper) was made at the police station, when VT was first arrested.

The interview at Schiphol began as a witness interview------but became a suspect interview. VT's sister, and possibly Tanja too, may well have realised this, which was why they were "fussing" over him. No statement came out of this interview, though.  What was discussed over six hours is a matter for conjecture : Karen Thomas, the police officer who went to Holland, said that she went because of the info Vincent and Tanja had given re the changing position of the landlord's car, but no way could it have taken six hours to discuss that!

In the Judge Rinder programme, CJ is interviewed, and says that all the residents of no 44 had their DNA taken very early on in the investigation, and that all were willing to comply as nobody had anything to hide. So, they had CJ's DNA and also VT's.

[[...]]

The interview at Schiphol began as a witness interview------but became a suspect interview. VT's sister, and possibly Tanja too, may well have realised this, which was why they were "fussing" over him. No statement came out of this interview, though.  What was discussed over six hours is a matter for conjecture : Karen Thomas, the police officer who went to Holland, said that she went because of the info Vincent and Tanja had given re the changing position of the landlord's car, but no way could it have taken six hours to discuss that!

The Holland Interview, no matter how they dress it up has to be a suspect interview...

DCI Phil Jones says on Killer: Vincent Tabak 26:53

So I sent a team.. two investigators out to the Netherlands.. To speak to him and his girlfriend... As a witness to capture that information, because I thought it was crucial to my investigation....

You see.... even he can't contain himself...    He goes from saying " speak to HIM and HIS girlfriend"...

And then he just can't quite hold it!!...  Because he then says "As A witness"....

We started plural, then went straight to Dr Vincent Tabak!!!!

I believe it was Tanja who actually made that phone call and then passed the telephone over to Dr Vincent Tabak... Either that or it was on speaker phone!!!

They had absolutly NO evidence when they arrested CJ... this information from Dr Vincent tabak and Tanja would NOT have changed anything in the UK at the time... They still would have had to let CJ go!!!!!

There was absolutly no need for them to waste tax payers money on a trip to Holland, which was basically going over to ask if a car had changed position...

And.. with DC karen Thomas saying:

He could remember that Chris Jefferies car had been parked on the drive way at Canygne Road, in a particular position. The evening before Jo went missing. And the next morning the car was facing in the opposite direction.

And DCI Phil Jones saying:

He rang up with information stating that on the evening of the 17th December the person in custody  who had a car parked at the rear of that premises in the communal parking area 44 Canygne Road. Their car had moved

Surley they must have believed for more than one reason that Joanna Yeates came to her demise on the SATURDAY!!!!

But At 23:40 of the video DCI Phil Jones says:

At ten o'clock that morning Vincent Tabak and his girlfriend made a telephone call

They concentrate on Dr Vincent Tabak.... surely Tanja Morson had witnessed the same, they both returned home TOGETHER in the early hours of Saturday 18th December 2010, they would have seen the car in the drive as it is next to their flat....

So Tanja Morson had the same view as Dr Vincent Tabak!!!  Lets not forget, she was the most talkative out of the two of them, so I believe it to be more likely that Tanja had called the Police. And Dr Vincent Tabak corroborate what they had witnessed.

Seriously... A car changing position... utter do do!!  They had nothing to hold CJ on.. his lawyer wasn't letting it go that easily...

A Team???? why a team???? simple witness statement from a Placid Dutchman and his girlfriend... One Officer could have managed to take a simple witness statement..

Yes... that is interesting... what do they do?.... Play Good Cop Bad Cop???

If it was a Witness statement, they would only need ONE officer to take any relevant details at that time...

Apparently we are talking about a car changing position, that is all... nothing more... No whistles blowing here!!!!

I am utterly convinced that they went over to Holland to treat Dr Vincent Tabak as a SUSPECT and not a WITNESS...

I do not know about Police protocol, but I would imaging that they would need another officer to corroborate the information that the interrogating officer is gathering!!!!!

And simply need one Officer if it was an interview of a witness!!!!

I believe that DC Karen Thomas took notes!!! So did she not simply take this for him to fill in!!!!

http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguidesc/report/docs/lps9.pdf

or did they use this: http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguidesc/report/docs/lps10.pdf

Which gives powers under section 20(2)(j) to take a compelled statement????

WoW..... The more you investigate the more you find..... Didn't Karen Thomas Say:

He was Vague in some area's... He was over interested in other area's, Particulary around our Forensic examination...
There was things in his account that just didn't seem right.... to me.
And then his reluctance to give his DNA at the end of the process.......  Again started to Ring Alarm Bells

So at the point she realised and decided that his version of events didn't ring true... did she then:....... Do this:.....

Any unsolicited admission made during a voluntary interview is admissible against the person who made it.  You should record the admission in your notebook, sign and date it and ask the persons making the admission to sign and date though they may not be compelled.  Any further questioning should be under caution.

DID SHE CAUTION DR VINCENT TABAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 6  hours of chat must have revealed plenty in her opinion!!!!

This can include facilities to see witnesses in private (subject to a person’s right to have another person present if you are requiring information under section 20(2)(j)). You do not have to make appointments to see employees via their employer. However, you should arrange to see potential witnesses at an appropriate time.

Oh My Oh My.... An Appropriate Time????? Another person present?????

In some cases it may be more appropriate to obtain the home contact details of the potential witness and contact them there.

More APPROPRIATE to interview them at HOME!!!!!!!!!  NOT IN HOLLAND!!!!!!!!

All witnesses should be treated with courtesy and every attempt should be made to put witnesses at their ease. It is preferable to speak to witnesses in a private room so that there is a more relaxed environment. At the outset, you should explain to the witness that the primary aim of taking a statement from them is to find out what happened.

Any statement should be written and signed in ink. Witness statements should be drafted so that they are concise and to the point. They should only deal with matters within the direct knowledge of the witness. As far as is possible, you should try to record the witness’ own words.

Remember this was a simple statement about a CAR changing position!!!!!

Not questioning Dr Vincent Tabak about his movements that weekend!!!!!!!!!!

The statement forms include declarations that the witness has told the truth and space for the witness signature, so it is best to use a statement form.  If the statement is recorded in a notebook, or on plain paper, and proceedings are likely, then a typed version needs to be prepared and the witness asked to read, agree and sign it.

So is this statement available for all to see.... Is this possibly why his Holland statement could be his FIRST statement!!!!

With DC Karen Thomas's suspicions regarding the information she was obtaining from Dr Vincent Tabak and her suspicions, should she have not cautioned him????

6 hours is an awful long time to collect a simple witness statement!!!!!!

NB.  Confusingly the expression “voluntary statement” is sometimes used to refer to a statement under caution from a suspect.  In HSE we use the expression to mean a statement voluntarily given by a witness to fact who is not a suspect, to differentiate it from a compulsory statement taken using powers under section 20 HSWA.

So was it a VOLUNTARY STATEMENT!!!!!!

http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguidesc/collectingwitness/statements.htm



Which begs the question?????   "Where is Tanja Morson's witness statement about the car changing position????"

WHY... was the telephone call never played to a packed court room, to show the Jury that "he told.. lie after lie"..

This whole thing is fishy to me...

EDIT:...... OMG... Light.. Switched.. and On spring to mind!!!!

DC Karen Thomas could not "CAUTION" him........ they were in the wrong COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So what does it mean about this statement that was gathered in HOLLAND?????

Was it Legally Obtained?????????????

[[...]]

Just had a thought.... Did they use the statement that he made in Holland as part of the evidence they used to charge him with on the 22nd January 2011????

Remember he never spoke in the Police Station!!!

I do not believe they brought this particular statement to trial... As I am no Legal Expert and common sense rules..

Wouldn't this statement be inadmissible at trial because of the way in which it was obtained???

There is something fundamentally wrong about The Holland Interview... !!!
The whole Interview is so ambiguous and as such I don't believe that they followed Police Protocol...

How could they in a foreign land... I think it's making me feel Sweary.... Words that spring to mind:

(1): Stitched
(2): Up
(3): Like
(4): A
(5): Kipper

 

OMG.. I so wish I'd studied Law... These questions I have are sending me mad!!

Come on someone tell me..... Is It legal!!!!!!

[[...]]

                                              Police to Police Inquiries...


If no answer is forthcoming, get of your peach and look yourself.... 

I believe that the British Police would have needed permission from the Dutch authority even to obtain a witness statement... And therefore the following should apply:

Police-to-police enquiries


ACPO (2012) Practice Advice on European Cross-Border Investigations, section 5.3 Police-to-Police Enquiries and section 13 Information, Intelligence and Evidence Sharing

Enquiries may relate to tracing vehicles, suspects, victims or witnesses, or to checking bank account details. In all cases investigators must first contact the force ILO for advice and assistance.

Did the Officers contact the ILO for advice and ASSISTANCE?????

All police-to-police enquiries should be submitted on an INTERPOL enquiry form (NCA form 1) via the ILO to NCA international. NCA form C (risk assessment) should also be completed and forwarded to the ILO for onward transmission. Some forces, however, may have existing agreements in place via other channels.

Did they use an Interpol enquiry form??????

Overseas deployment



To travel abroad in support of a UK investigation, a police officer should first seek the authority of their chief constable or equivalent.

Well I supposed DCI Phil Jones  granted them the authority, But  he's not a "Chief Constable" Is He???

NCA international must be contacted before a police officer travels abroad for operational reasons in support of a UK investigation. A UK investigation may have links with other international crime enquiries, including organised crime. The presence of UK police officers abroad could jeopardise an ongoing European investigation and in some cases put officers at risk.

Did they contact "The National Crime Agency"??????

Providing assistance abroad
There are limited circumstances in which a UK police officer would is required to conduct enquiries abroad. In the majority of cases, the UK police will merely assist foreign police with an ongoing investigation.

UK police officers travelling abroad do so at the invitation, and with the permission, of the requesting state. Officers visiting another state have the same status as a member of the public. They have no jurisdiction while abroad. This is no different from when a foreign law enforcement officer visits the UK.

Where was their Invitation????

Limitations
Cross-border investigations can have varied resource implications for forces because:

different jurisdictions have differing needs (eg, the method of dealing with or processing requests for information)
the unique circumstances of each case requires different levels of response
there is a difference in the requirements of individual victims and their families
different forces have differing capacities and priorities to provide assistance.
As every case is different, each must be assessed on its own merits and resourced proportionately, according to its needs.

I would call this case a cross border investigation....

Eurojust

Based in The Hague in the Netherlands, Eurojust is a legal body of the European Union set up to improve the effectiveness of investigating and prosecuting serious and organised cross-border crime. EU member states are represented by a prosecutor, investigator or judge. Eurojust may act through its members or as a college.

At the time DC Karen Thomas believed he was a suspect, why wasn't she in contact with Eurojust???

http://eurojust.europa.eu/Pages/home.aspx

SIS




To meet the operational requirements set out in the Schengen agreement, every Schengen member state must establish a central authority as a single contact point for exchanging supplementary information related to SIS data.

Supplementary Information..... No No... don't do that... they may arrest you!!!


https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/european-investigations/#police-to-police-enquiries

[[...]]

Now I'm going to try and cover this subject and I am in no way taking it lightly...

This is with regards Dr Vincent Tabak and not any other case,which I am not trying to be dissmisive about, child abuser are appauling individuals and should be punished as such.


I wanted to try and understand when and where the first publications started as regards Dr Vincent Tabak and the child porn pictures.

So I trawled through the available publications online to see the first date that this was reported and the amount of images that were first described in the papers:


I have to say, that with me having the opinion that the porn did not exist at trial, I am of the same opinion with relation to the child porn too..

I fully believe the idea that Dr Vincent Tabak did not have child porn on his laptop... I believe the idea of the child porn was to keep in the mind of the public that Dr Vincent Tabak was a monster, with that in mind, no one would touch him with  a barge pole with any idea that he may be innocent in relation to the Joanna Yeates case .

Members of the public would be ridiculed if they stood up to be counted as any type of supporter for Dr Vincent Tabak, as they would be branded in the same light as he has since the trial.

Anyway... I have found various articles to refer to:

An officer involved in the investigation, who asked not to be named, told the Bristol Evening Post that he and his colleagues wanted to clear up speculation surrounding these "other matters".

He said: "Tabak had 30 images depicting child pornography on his laptop computer at home. They were all category four images."

  BYMIRROR.CO.UK
17:14, 1 NOV 2011

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murderer-vincent-tabak-276472

I have two problems with this statement, the information has been leaked after the leveson enquiry had warned the media about using selacious material when it hadn't been prove before a court. And 2... The amount of images is 30??? why 30.... didn't that number change????

An officer involved in the investigation, who asked not to be named, told the Bristol Evening Post that he and his colleagues wanted to clear up speculation surrounding these "other matters".He said: "Tabak had 30 images depicting child pornography on his laptop computer at home. They were all category four images."

By Josie Ensor11:37AM GMT 01 Nov 2011 of the telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8862100/Joanna-Yeatess-killer-Vincent-Tabak-had-child-pornography-on-his-computer.html

Both publications have used the Bristol post as there source..??

But as the Evening Post exclusively revealed after Tabak's trial in October, Avon and Somerset police found vile images on his laptop of children being sexually abused.

In all there were 30 indecent images, all of level four out of five in terms of extremity.

By The Bristol Post  |  Posted: February 11, 2012

 http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/detectives-speak-joanna-yeates-8217-s-killer/story-15197992-detail/story.html#E70M47WI79xBeBBp.99

It also emerged yesterday that Tabak will be questioned by detectives over 30 alleged indecent images of children found on his laptop.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2100095/Dutch-killer-Jo-Yeates-set-cost-British-taxpayer-hundreds-thousands-pounds-legal-aid-bill.html

So we all agree that there are 30 images at this point.

It has been wrongly reported that the police investigation on this matter only started two weeks ago.

"We have been working closely with the Crown Prosecution Service on this area of the case ever since Vincent Tabak was convicted of murder in October 2011 and we will continue with this joint approach to ensure a decision is reached as soon as possible."

The Bristol Post  |  Posted: November 18, 2013


 http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/decision-child-porn-charges-jo-yeates-killer/story-20095856-detail/story.html#ghCiAqTefbbrcUdM.99



So two years later and they haven't made their minds up on whether or not to prosecute Dr Vincent Tabak with catergory 4 images, which according to the mirror...

During the trial, the prosecution alluded to "other matters" surrounding Tabak, un-related to the murder charge.

It turned out those "other matters" were the indecent images, revealed in the Post, depicting penetrative sexual activity involving a child or children.

When did the prosecution mention other matters??????

Now this is extremeley serious!!!! what is making the Um and Ah as to whether they should prosecute?????

Why are they not rushing to:

(A): Protect these children
(B): And prosecute him ASAP?????

There must be some kind of protective measures that are taken for the children that are involved in this matter...

We have been working closely with the Crown Prosecution Service on this area of the case ever since Vincent Tabak was convicted of murder in October 2011

Pardon me???? Area of the case???? Now i do not believe that the child porn was ever brought infront of the judge at the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak and the way that sounds is they had the material earlier....

If this is the case... why wasn't it brought before the judge at trial..... even if it would be seen as inadmissible, they could have brought the information to the judge for him to make a decision on the matter...

t quoted a CPS spokeswoman as saying the decision had taken a "long time", adding: "The inquiry had been put on a backburner, not because it wasn’t important but it was rated a low priority with the defendant already being in prison."

Back Burner????? what... what are they talking about.. not important enough to protect these children, I cannot believe what they are saying absoultly crazy... They should be rushing to protect the poor children first and foremost and making the person pay for their crimes... But for some perculiar reason they want to put it on the Back Burner!!!

Makes no sense whatsoever.....

The officer said that, due to Tabak's conviction for murder and life sentence, he did not think the Crown Prosecution Service would take action.

Again to me it suggest that these images are not quite what we have been lead to believe... with them hesitating to take action.

Another thing I noticed happened whilst they waited to take Dr Vincent Tabak to court was the reporting in the newspapers of other child offenders and how they linked Dr Vincent Tabak's name to these articles.

And Vincent Tabak, too, watched child porn. He strangled architect Joanna Yeates in Bristol. Thirty images of children being sexually abused were found on Dutch-born Tabak’s computer.

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2522846/High-profile-cases-child-killers-hooked-extreme-porn-just-tip-iceberg.html#ixzz4YHFAmp9l   12 December 2013  (still 30 images.)

Like Bridger, paedophiles such as Soham murderer Ian Huntley and Tia Sharp’s killer Stuart Hazell  were all unknown to police before they carried out their crimes, as were extreme pornography fanatics Vincent Tabak and Graham Coutts – who brutally murdered Joanna Yeates and special needs teacher Jane Longhurst respectively.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/april-jones-detective-warns-police-4036572

These articles are before Dr Vincent Tabak was brought to court in relation to the child porn... I believe these type of stories firmly impress in the public's mind that he was a vile man who looked at child porn images, even before the trial took place .

Which in itself is prejudicial..... 

So we come to the actual trial of Dr Vincent Tabak and the child porn charges...

But a judge rejected his claims of being unable to get a fair trial and three hours later Tabak pleaded guilty to four charges of possessing 145 indecent photographs of children.

Bristol Crown Court heard how the most sickening images involved pre-pubescent girls.

Six were at the most serious level A and nine at level B and were found on his Dell laptop as detectives investigated the murder of 25 year-old landscape architect Jo in Bristol.

 http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/jo-yeates-killer-vincent-tabak-admits-possessing/story-26106453-detail/story.html#3bBdAhpO3F0FLxbY.99

How did we manage to jump from 30 images to 145 images???????? We have managed to find an extra 115 images that were not available some years earlier.... HOW?????

Mr Bartlett said the majority of images - 129 - were at the lowest level and involved two teenage girls.

So lets do the maths....

145 - 129 = 16   we have 16 images to put into Catergories

16 - 6 = 10       6 Category (A): Images

10 - 9 =  1        9 Category (B): Images

So what was the solitary image that wasn't Categorised????

How is it that Nothing ADDS UP ever.. In anything in relation to Dr Vincent Tabak is apart of????

Its not whether the images are terrible... It's whether they were ever on Dr Vincent Tabak's computer, because I do not understand how we start with 30 and end up at 145 ???


Hang on a minute... this is news to me....

Four years ago the adjoining court room at Bristol had heard how the introverted loner was obsessed with sex and probably killed Jo - who lived in the groundfloor flat next door to him - when she spurned his advances.

How did the Jury hear that Dr Vincent Tabak was Obsessed with SEX!!!!!!!


 http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/jo-yeates-killer-vincent-tabak-admits-possessing/story-26106453-detail/story.html#3bBdAhpO3F0FLxbY.99

During the trial, the prosecution alluded to "other matters" surrounding Tabak, un-related to the murder charge.

It turned out those "other matters" were the indecent images, revealed in the Post, depicting penetrative sexual activity involving a child or children.

If there were other matters that could prejudice the trial why was there no objections made... By the prosecution alluding that Dr vincent Tabak may have something unsavioury hidden it only will add to what I believe is a jury's impression of him, and who is to say where or not they took that statement to the Jury room!!!!



It make me feel that having something else to charge Dr Vincent Tabak with allowed them to have access to him, which ordinarily when a trial has finished that should be the end of the matter. Access whenever they wished to speak to him in relation to these charges... And with images being kept on file, they can still get access to him to question him about these images...(IMO).

Which I find weird... there have been many people who have tried to get contact to Dr Vincent Tabak, only to have their request declined.


As far as I can see... This is an unfair tactic.... and may be the reason we do not hear Dr Vincent Tabak shouting from the Rooftops proclaiming his Innocence... Or his family making any statements.. But that is just my opinion...




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2522846/High-profile-cases-child-killers-hooked-extreme-porn-just-tip-iceberg.html

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/april-jones-detective-warns-police-4036572

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/decision-child-porn-charges-jo-yeates-killer/story-20095856-detail/story.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2100095/Dutch-killer-Jo-Yeates-set-cost-British-taxpayer-hundreds-thousands-pounds-legal-aid-bill.html

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/detectives-speak-joanna-yeates-8217-s-killer/story-15197992-detail/story.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8862100/Joanna-Yeatess-killer-Vincent-Tabak-had-child-pornography-on-his-computer.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murderer-vincent-tabak-276472

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/jo-yeates-killer-vincent-tabak-admits-possessing/story-26106453-detail/story.html


Just making sure I have the links I gain the information from:.....

[John]

Looking at the Holland interview the other day I had questions as to whether it was legal??
If as this document and quotes that  I have used... "States" that the interview had to be held in a Police Station..

Then how did the UK Police get permission to interview him???

They shouldn't have!!!!


Which means that if they needed  permission to interview him from the Dutch Authorities, then they had to have gone over to Holland with the sole intention of interviewing him as a suspect!!!!

Gone all the way to Holland in such a hurry!!! for what reason??
There was No evidence whatsoever that Dr Vincent Tabak at that time could be concidered a suspect, let alone the police going ready for a 6 hour interview without an offer of legal representation at this time!!!

They must have known why they were interviewing him in this way...

Did he get his RIGHTS read to him???????



I know that is why the police woman calls it  a "Process"....  because she can't admit that it is a statement as a suspect (IMO)..

She means "PROCESS" as in interviewing him as a suspect, as there would have been NO need to collect a sample of his DNA, so early in the investigation...

They hadn't collected DNA from any of Joanna Yeates close circle of friends by that point, so why would they need Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA???

He wasn't a suspect... he or Tanja had just rung to give  a supplementary statement... So why did they go to Holland all prepared?????

It begs another question.... If they conducted a suspect statement in Holland at the Airport/Hotel  then has it been obtained illegally as he was not in a police station at the time???

As we know 6 hours is the allotted time Dutch law allows to detain someone for questioning before you either get an extension, detain or release!!!!



Is this the part of the dutch law that was used to question him??? To confirm his name???


Seriously... how does this stand up legally????

Could this interview that was actually as it reads an interview of a suspect, then would this violate any law codes??

Would this piece of evidence go towards Dr Vincent Tabak having a re- trial???? 


This question takes me back to my other posts.... Which was Dr Vincent Tabak's first statement????

If it was the Holland one... then as far as I can see, it was obtained illegally????

Or if it was the one in custody... How could he lie when he hadn't said anything!!!!!!

Can anyone clarify if the statement obtained in Holland was legal????


This is what the Police woman actually said in the video link i post earlier on in this thread:


See what I mean....
Process can mean only one thing!!!!!



This would give more credence as to why mrs N. Osey wasn't allowed to see any of Dr Vincent Tabak's statements...And not because of data protection in case of a re-trial!!!! But because it probably would have shown the Holland interview was just that... An interview of a suspect!!!!



https://www.rechtspraak.nl/SiteCollectionDocuments/If-you-are-suspected-of-a-criminal-offence.pdf

He was interviewed in Holland as a witness regardless of what the police were thinking.  He would only become as suspect after being arrested and cautioned.  I assume he voluntarily attended the interview?

[Leonora]

Now I'm going to try and cover this subject and I am in no way taking it lightly...

This is with regards Dr Vincent Tabak and not any other case,which I am not trying to be dissmisive about, child abuser are appauling individuals and should be punished as such.

...
I have to say, that with me having the opinion that the porn did not exist at trial, I am of the same opinion with relation to the child porn too..

I agree with your opinion.

The Prosecutor made at least two separate applications each to try to tell the jury at the murder trial about the defendant's use of prostitutes and his viewing of adult porn videos as evidence of his "bad character". The judge firmly rejected all these applications, essentially because these activities didn't fulfill CPS requirements for bad character evidence. Isn't it obvious, though, that an application, had it been made, to tell the jury that the defendant possessed illegal images of child abuse on his computer would have succeeded? I can think of no other explanation for this omission on the part of the Prosecutor, than that he had no evidence at all linking the defendant to the child abuse images, the adult videos or the escort girls.

[[...]]

He was interviewed in Holland as a witness regardless of what the police were thinking.  He would only become as suspect after being arrested and cautioned.  I assume he voluntarily attended the interview?

Hi John...

Whether or not it was voluntary, what cooperation did the Dutch authorities give to allow an interview with one of their Nationals??

He wasn't a British subject!! It would have different implications and different lines of procedure to follow
Was this an Official visit??? Where all the correct procedures followed with regards this Witness Statement????

Were the Dutch Embassy Informed of their intention????

If so there should be a nice clean paper trail available. With all the relevant forms attached to this inquiry.

We found out later that he had been interviewed in Holland and to be honest how many people are going to look into whether proper protocols where in place????

Once vilified in the papers, who will check????




I believe the information I provided does say if they have reason to believe he is anything other than a witness he should be cautioned... so why not???

I've got to say, why wasn't any Dutch police at this interview???

This is a supplementary statement about a car changing position.... Why On Earth.. Would the Dutch Authorities even give permission for this minor detail???

The British police could have asked him on his return to the UK!!!!!

And I'm just as surprised that the Dutch authorities didn't tell them the same!!!!!!

How did this conversation go??????


Ring Ring.... Ring Ring..... "Could we please pop over and have a chat with one of your Dutch Nationals, he saw his neighbours car move and we'd like to get it in writing.."

What information would they have to impart for the Dutch Authorities to give permission to the British Police in regards to this small piece of information!!

Again... doesn't make a great deal of sense to me.....

[Leonora]

He was interviewed in Holland as a witness regardless of what the police were thinking.  He would only become as suspect after being arrested and cautioned.  I assume he voluntarily attended the interview?

He attended the interview voluntarily. The Detective Constable who testified in court about her interview with the defendant at Schiphol told the jury that her suspicions became aroused during the interview. She further recounted how the defendant became agitated and how his sister and girlfriend fussed over him. She stated her opinion that the sister was a "mother hen type". In my opinion she showed disrespect for someone who through no possible fault of her own was losing a family member. In my opinion the judge should have asked the witness whether she had cautioned the defendant after beginnng to suspect him, as I believe is required both by the Police & Criminal Evidence act, and by judgements in the European Court of Human Rights.

In my opinion, the judge ought to have asked the witness to tell the court what procedures were followed to avoid violating Netherlands sovereignty.

[[...]]

He attended the interview voluntarily. The Detective Constable who testified in court about her interview with the defendant at Schiphol told the jury that her suspicions became aroused during the interview. She further recounted how the defendant became agitated and how his sister and girlfriend fussed over him. She stated her opinion that the sister was a "mother hen type". In my opinion she showed disrespect for someone who through no possible fault of her own was losing a family member. In my opinion the judge should have asked the witness whether she had cautioned the defendant after beginnng to suspect him, as I believe is required both by the Police & Criminal Evidence act, and by judgements in the European Court of Human Rights.

In my opinion, the judge ought to have asked the witness to tell the court what procedures were followed to avoid violating Netherlands sovereignty.

So why did she not follow procedure as lain out here?? And caution him!!

Any unsolicited admission made during a voluntary interview is admissible against the person who made it.  You should record the admission in your notebook, sign and date it and ask the persons making the admission to sign and date though they may not be compelled.  Any further questioning should be under caution.

Or if she didn't have the authority in a foreign land... at least stop the interview???

[[...]]

I agree with your opinion.

The Prosecutor made at least two separate applications each to try to tell the jury at the murder trial about the defendant's use of prostitutes and his viewing of adult porn videos as evidence of his "bad character".

Do you know the dates of these applications?????

[Leonora]

Do you know the dates of these applications?????

No, the dates were not reported. I assume that is because the media were forbidden to report the dates on which the applications were made. Naturally, most people assume that they were all made during the trial. However, I see no reason why the first of them should not have been made during the Plea and Case Management hearing at the Old Bailey, five months before the trial opened. This is because the Prosecution had been directed by the first judge on the case to present all the case papers by a date in April.

This may be one reason why the hearing was held at the Old Bailey. The consequence of this would be that the journalists would have had good time to telephone the escort girl for their stories.