Vincent Tabak and the Murder of Joanna Yeates

[[...]]

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.

I do remember reading recently that it was when the trial had started...

 What makes you think that there were two applications regarding the porn????

And the only reporting in May I know of was to say that Dr Vincent Tabak had a 3 minute hearing to confirm his name.

If the porn material had been produced in May, I'm positive the defence would have checked his laptop also....

As we know the defence didn't get furnished with the 1300 page document until the 7th Oct 2011 and I believe this was the time that the porn was also argued....

I cannot imaging the prosecution creating themselves more work when they didn't need to???

[Leonora]

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

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

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!!!!!!

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

In my opinion, a report that detectives from Bristol had travelled to the Netherlands to interview witnesses would have made the headlines about 1st January 2011. News that the police were doing something serious to find the killer would have made a good impression on the public. But it wasn't reported in the media at the time. Why did the police neglect this opportunity to improve their image? Was it to prevent the airport police at Schiphol from getting wind of an interview in which they ought to have been involved?

One doesn't have to be a 'conspiracy theorist' to raise one's eyebrows over the incident of two detectives flying to the Netherlands to ask a question about the direction in which the landlord's car was parked. In my opinion, being an Avon & Somerset taxpayer would be sufficient qualification. In my opinion the judge at the murder trial ought to have reminded the witness that she had sworn to tell "...the WHOLE truth..." and that this included telling the court what issues had occupied the best part of 6 hours' interview and 40 pages in her notebook.

[Leonora]

What makes you think that there were two applications regarding the porn????

I reached that conclusion because I read two different statements from the judge:

[The] Judge ... dismissed the application to have the material introduced to the trial, and rejected prosecution’s claim that it showed an intent to kill. He said: “These films show actors, acting out roles. None of the women suffer GBH. None of the women are killed. These are not snuff movies. The women did not die.”

[The judge] concluded: “In my judgement, the watching, the possession of porn showing violence and the threat of violence is reprehensible conduct. But even if there was some sexual motivation, this does not go to prove the defendant had the intention to kill her or cause her serious injury.”

I also read different arguments from Counsel for the Defence, giving a distinct impression of two different discussions on different occasions. Furthermore there were inconsistencies in the way the journalists reported these applications, arousing my suspicions. But I could be wrong.

[Leonora]

I do remember reading recently that it was when the trial had started...

 What makes you think that there were two applications regarding the porn????

And the only reporting in May I know of was to say that Dr Vincent Tabak had a 3 minute hearing to confirm his name.

If the porn material had been produced in May, I'm positive the defence would have checked his laptop also....

As we know the defence didn't get furnished with the 1300 page document until the 7th Oct 2011 and I believe this was the time that the porn was also argued....

I cannot imaging the prosecution creating themselves more work when they didn't need to???

I too read that an application was made when the trial hard started - i.e., during the first week when the jury was sworn in, and (according to Sally Ramage) the 1300 page document was suddenly produced by the Prosecution. This only reinforces my assertion that more than one application was made, as 5th May would have been the obvious occasion for the Defence to challenge the evidence of bad character, if it existed. There is simply no reason to believe that the police would have failed to find what they were looking for on the confiscated computers and in the defendant's bank statements, if it was there, within a few months of his arrest. We know that reporting restrictions were imposed.

http://swns.com/news/vincent-tabak-murderer-watched-fetish-porn-before-killing-jo-yeates-21401/

There is nothing to suggest that the porn was included in the 1300 page document. The 5th May hearing is shrouded in mystery and controversy, because the date and venue were changed, and because the press and the victim's parents were notified but the public were not.

I am no fan of the Counsel for the Prosecution, but his opening speech, stretching over 1½ days, was certainly a tour de force. He was not a man to limit himself to one application when the first failed.

[[...]]

I reached that conclusion because I read two different statements from the judge:

[The] Judge ... dismissed the application to have the material introduced to the trial, and rejected prosecution’s claim that it showed an intent to kill. He said: “These films show actors, acting out roles. None of the women suffer GBH. None of the women are killed. These are not snuff movies. The women did not die.”

[The judge] concluded: “In my judgement, the watching, the possession of porn showing violence and the threat of violence is reprehensible conduct. But even if there was some sexual motivation, this does not go to prove the defendant had the intention to kill her or cause her serious injury.”

I also read different arguments from Counsel for the Defence, giving a distinct impression of two different discussions on different occasions. Furthermore there were inconsistencies in the way the journalists reported these applications, arousing my suspicions. But I could be wrong.

I'm looking for info regards this Leonora:...

The material was withheld from the jury after Judge His Honour Mr Justice Richard Field deemed that they did not inspire the attack on Jo, but ruled it admissable for background purposes.

What does background purposes mean?

Nigel Lickley QC, prosecuting, tried to argue that the material gave Tabak motive for the killing.

He told the court: ”The material was found on the defendant’s laptop at home and also in relation to two hard drives – one found at home and one found at work.

This sounds like it's at the trial........

He pleaded guilty to her manslaughter at a brief hearing at the Old Bailey in May, but the Crown rejected his plea and opted to pursue the charge of murder against him.

Brief hearing sounds like the Porn wasn't mentioned then...

Tabak, who sat hunched in the dock, spoke only once.
The clerk asked him: 'Are you Vincent Tabak?'
He replied: 'Yes I am.'

Nothing said here as far as I can tell.... the information was spoken about in court, so I would say that must mean that it happened at trial... If Dr Vincent Tabak had anything to say about the porn he would have spoken then,... And reporting restrictions would have been inforced...

Mr Lickley said: ”In short these images, we submit, hold resonance with the final position of the deceased.

”There is a similarity in the two females height, hair colour and the clothing.

”Miss Yeates was wearing a short pink top and jeans. Miss Yeates was found wearing her jeans in tact but her t-shirt she was wearing had been lifted up above her bra.

Again.... news to me... A short pink top???????  So I now Have description of this top Joanna Yeates was wearing... It is short with a flower pattern and is pink.... Nothing like the top she is seen wearing in the Ram pub on the 17th Dec 2010...

He also watched domination porn videos on January 7, while searching for information on the Jo Yeates case.

Examination of his computer showed that at 7.37am he was looking at that material to do with the murder investigation.

Not Possible.....  these are the searches for the 7th January 2011

At Line 422 of the prosecution chart
 At 9.10 am (at work)
Tabak searched for press articles on the murder.
Then he Googled the words
‘DNA test’
‘Waste recycling’
‘rubbish collection’
At Line 427 of the prosecution chart
Tabak researched on Wikipedia the words
‘life imprisonment’
‘previous offenders’
‘named persons’
‘sentencing’

His earliest search is at 9:10am... if he had been searching at 7:37am that morning it would be there......

And it isn't... they are not going to miss an opportunity to show his insatiable appetite to keep abreast of every movement of this investigation, as they have stated before he spent all his time googling about the case.....



I am of the definate opinion that the porn was not mentioned until the trial.... which brings us back to the 1300 page document and the missing porn!!!!


EDIT:.... It definately wasn't in September 2011..

The greying 33-year-old wore glasses, a white shirt, blue tie and grey suit for the 30 minute hearing before Judge Martin Picton.

Different Judge...   And May 2011 was only a brief hearing... So I believe it was when the Trial started!!

I genuinely do not believe the Prosecution would reveal their hand before Trial.. They did not reveal the 1300 pages... And the sobbing girl disappeared...

Senior prosecutor, Nick Lickley QC, said although the case starts on October 4, the evidence is unlikely to be opened until October 6, with witnesses being called from Monday, October 10.

Opening evidence October 6th 2011... This could be when they brought the porn to trial... A few days before the Jury sat... Then again you have the  7th October 2011 when the Defence recieved the 1300 page document... NO Time re re-produce it....  I believe the 1300 page Document was just that... 1300 pages from start of trial to finish of trial!


Double EDIT:.....
More proof that the Pornogrphy was when the Trial started:

The attorney general is considering whether to take action over a tweet revealing Vincent Tabak's interest in hardcore pornography that was posted during his trial.

There is no way it was mentioned at any other time than at the Trial!!!! Random person, so it has to be at trial!!!

During the four-week trial orders were in place to stop the media reporting Tabak's interest in pornography depicting women being strangled during sex.

It was feared that if the jury knew of Tabak's interest in such material it would be unfairly prejudiced against him and make a fair trial impossible.

Orders where in place during the 4 week trial......

Again...Again... and Again.... I will say.... How did the Prosecution remove the Porn from the searches of Dr Vincent Tabak within a 1300 page document which should be far greater in size....

Having  to reproduce some 19500 pages... get them proof read sorted out so every Juror, the judge the prosecution and the defence each had a copy... free from the porn searches?????
Re- Number the Timelines and of course, colour code them so the prosecutions copy had colours fro Emails, texts and searches that Dr Vincent Tabak made....

I have said and still believe.........there was no Porn!!!
 







http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/vincent-tabak-bristol-crown-court-pre-trial/story-13366667-detail/story.html#D5os45HPsHGTa4ER.99

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039495/Joanna-Yeates-parents-David-Teresa-face-Vincent-Tabak-court-1st-time.html#ixzz4YJENVvYW

http://news.sky.com/story/yeates-murder-jury-selected-10485256

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

http://swns.com/news/vincent-tabak-murderer-watched-fetish-porn-before-killing-jo-yeates-21401/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/31/attorney-general-tweet-tabak-porn

[[...]]

Leonora....

Even if you do try to split the pornography between two different dates:... It will not change the fact that the prosecutions 1300 page document never had any porn searches in it at any time...

They would have had to reproduce this document!!!  Cannot change that fact.

I cannot see how this is even possible.


Just another thought Leonora...  If the Porn is split between dates and it is brought to trial in October 2011 ..

How did the IT Expert remove the porn searches from the film she had shown the `Jury.. without redacting it or deleting it... She too would have to sort her timelines out to correlate with the Prosecutions Timelines....



The more I think about it the more I know it doesn't make any sense for it to be split between two dates.... If the judge thought originally that it would be prejudcial to use as evidence in May 2011 then there would be no need it being mentioned in court in Oct 2011.. This would have been dealt with then....

And Oct 2011 is where the guy tweeted about it.... Because that information would have only come to pass after the trial had finished... And not during...  So.. I believe that the Porn revelations have to be in October 2011

[Leonora]

Leonora....

 sorry for some reason it posted twice...

This is getting really, really complicated, but it is also very interesting. Before I try to deal with your reactions, please bear with me while I reiterate: the application and rejection of the 'tame' evidence of "bad character" PROVES not only that the alleged images of child abuse can never have been linked to the defendant or his computer, but also that the evidence that was rejected was also a fabrication. This is terribly important.

I share your exasperation at the lack of urgency about tracing the identities of the children who allegedly were abused. I cannot for the life of me understand why other members of the public, especially in Bristol, didn't react to this.

Compared to the falsification of the child abuse charge, everything else in this connection is a distraction, but nevertheless it deserves a proper discussion.

Nothing that has been made public links the so-called IT-expert who testified at the murder trial either to the adult porn videos or to the images of child abuse. On the contrary, several accounts of the trial contain evidence that she wasn't an IT-expert at all, since they report that she spoke only to identify the identity of the web pages shown to the jury. You or I could have done the same thing. This means that all the defendant's Google searches taken from the 1300 page document, which you have so painstakingly dissected, were hearsay!

The person who testified in court did not actually tell the jury that she had analysed the defendant's computers and hard disks herself. She may have done this work, or it may have been done by one or more others whose names have never been made public. Or not done at all.

[Leonora]

Leonora....

Even if you do try to split the pornography between two different dates:... It will not change the fact that the prosecutions 1300 page document never had any porn searches in it at any time...

They would have had to reproduce this document!!!  Cannot change that fact.

I cannot see how this is even possible.

No, I agree that the 1300 never had any porn searches in it. We are meant to believe that it was the same person who produced this document and the list of porn searches, but that is only inference. The press's only source for the porn searches was Counsel for the Prosecution, and he never stated who (if anyone) had analysed them. So there was never any need to change the 1300 page document - which the judge should have rejected, since the lateness of its submission violated so seriously the CPS's rules.

I don't suppose anybody has ever bothered to compare the timeline in the 1300 page document with the timings of searches that Counsel for the Prosecution alleged were made by the defendant. There could well be serious clashes, but I certainly haven't bothered to look for them.

[Leonora]

I'm looking for info regards this Leonora:...

What does background purposes mean?

This sounds like it's at the trial........

Brief hearing sounds like the Porn wasn't mentioned then...
Nothing said here as far as I can tell.... the information was spoken about in court, so I would say that must mean that it happened at trial... If Dr Vincent Tabak had anything to say about the porn he would have spoken then,... And reporting restrictions would have been inforced...

Only the judge can know what he meant by "background purposes". He gave the news media permission to report Counsel for the Prosecution's account of the so-called bad character evidence, as well as the objections successfully lodged by Counsel for the Defence against this "evidence" being put to the jury, and his own justification for rejecting the applications.

None of the passages you quote contains anything that precludes parts of the discussion between the three lawyers from having taken place at the "brief" hearing at the Old Bailey on 5th May. If Counsel for the Prosecution submitted only thumbnail images from the porn videos, and a brief description, then the first discussion would have been "brief". The defendant himself took no part in these discussions, and I seriously doubt if the person who pleaded guilty via video link really was the defendant. The real defendant may not have learnt about his plea until he saw it on TV later that day.

Just because it was spoken in court doesn't mean it was spoken at the trial. The Old Bailey, where the plea hearing was held, is also a court. Everything said at the plea hearing was also "spoken in court".

I too wondered especially about whether the short pink top described here really was the blouse the victim wore in the pub and the garment found on her body. There was one credible witness who had been present in the pub and who could have been cross-examined about the colour and pattern of her blouse, but this opportunity was not taken. If the top she wore in the pub that winter evening really was short, it might well have caused a few heads to turn! In view of all else that is wrong with this case, something tells me that the two tops were different.

[[...]]

No, I agree that the 1300 never had any porn searches in it. We are meant to believe that it was the same person who produced this document and the list of porn searches, but that is only inference. The press's only source for the porn searches was Counsel for the Prosecution, and he never stated who (if anyone) had analysed them. So there was never any need to change the 1300 page document - which the judge should have rejected, since the lateness of its submission violated so seriously the CPS's rules.

I don't suppose anybody has ever bothered to compare the timeline in the 1300 page document with the timings of searches that Counsel for the Prosecution alleged were made by the defendant. There could well be serious clashes, but I certainly haven't bothered to look for them.

I would love to take a look at that 1300 page document....

we know from whats available, that the timelines of the prosecution are incorrect as the two searches I have shown he was not at home for them....

That infromation alone should discount the searches full stop...

[Leonora]

There is no way it was mentioned at any other time than at the Trial!!!! Random person, so it has to be at trial!!!

I don't believe that the alleged blogger who was alleged to have tweeted about the porn really existed. I don't know what the purpose of this story would have been. The main thing is that the tweeter could have learnt about the porn at the plea hearing in May or at the trial in October, but the tweets were not transmitted, or were not detected by the authorities, until the trial. The ushers at the trial were very strict about non-journalists not tweeting or even taking handwritten notes. The person could also have tweeted outside the courthouse from memory. Even if he really existed, this doesn't disprove my contention that the "bad character" evidence was first discussed at the May hearing.

[mrswah]

I too wondered especially about whether the short pink top described here really was the blouse the victim wore in the pub and the garment found on her body. There was one credible witness who had been present in the pub and who could have been cross-examined about the colour and pattern of her blouse, but this opportunity was not taken. If the top she wore in the pub that winter evening really was short, it might well have caused a few heads to turn! In view of all else that is wrong with this case, something tells me that the two tops were different.

And I have wondered also whether Jo was found wearing the same clothes as she had been wearing in the pub. Any of her workmates who were in the pub with her could have enlightened the court on that matter.

In the same way, it should not have been difficult to establish the following:

Whether or not VT owned a cycle bag, and whether one (or a suitcase) was missing after 17th/18th December. (Tanja would have known)

Whether VT had ever been caught looking at porn while at work, or whether he had been seen googling non work related information.

Whether any women who knew VT found him   "creepy" or weird, or whether he had ever "tried it on" with any of them.

Whether or not he had changed his clothes before picking up Tanja in the early hours of 18th December (had he disposed of a body, he would have needed to).  Had he used the washing machine?

But then, of course, he had admitted killing Jo,  so there was, apparently no need to check on any of these  matters!!

[John]

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

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

From my own experience I have found that protocols and procedures involving international cooperations between police and prosecuting authorities can be fraught with many problems, the language barrier being one of them.  I have also discovered that one country's interpretation of the rules might not coincide with how other country's view them.  Judge's are all too willing to turn a blind eye to these goings on as I have also recently discovered. Document's are often illegally changed and passed on the basis of good faith to foreign States. The whole thing can be one big stitch up at times!

I'm afraid that when it comes to police enquiries abroad, innocent until proven guilty comes a very poor second.

[Leonora]

From my own experience I have found that protocols and procedures involving international cooperations between police and prosecuting authorities can be fraught with many problems, the language barrier being one of them.  I have also discovered that one country's interpretation of the rules might not coincide with how other country's view them.  Judge's are all too willing to turn a blind eye to these goings on as I have also recently discovered. Document's are often illegally changed and passed on the basis of good faith to foreign States. The whole thing can be one big stitch up at times!

I'm afraid that when it comes to police enquiries abroad, innocent until proven guilty comes a very poor second.

I agree.

In 1994, the police officer who would become Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset at the period covered by this murder case was appointed as the Investigations Co-ordinator to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. In this capacity, according to his CV, he led a large multi-disciplinary/multi-lingual/multi-cultural team operating in differing geographical locations throughout the former Yugoslavia and the Netherlands. In my opinion he was just the right man to smooth the path of the two detectives who flew to Schiphol on new year's eve.

The judge certainly seems to have turned a blind eye to certain aspects of the testimony of the Detective Constable in the witness box. However, in my opinion Counsel for the Defence also compromised himself, by not cross-examining her to satisfy himself that her failure to caution his client at the Schiphol interview had not violated his human rights, and that the entire interview had not violated Netherlands sovereignty.

[Leonora]

And I have wondered also whether Jo was found wearing the same clothes as she had been wearing in the pub. Any of her workmates who were in the pub with her could have enlightened the court on that matter.

In the same way, it should not have been difficult to establish the following:

Whether or not VT owned a cycle bag, and whether one (or a suitcase) was missing after 17th/18th December. (Tanja would have known)

Whether VT had ever been caught looking at porn while at work, or whether he had been seen googling non work related information.

Whether any women who knew VT found him   "creepy" or weird, or whether he had ever "tried it on" with any of them.

Whether or not he had changed his clothes before picking up Tanja in the early hours of 18th December (had he disposed of a body, he would have needed to).  Had he used the washing machine?

But then, of course, he had admitted killing Jo,  so there was, apparently no need to check on any of these  matters!!

All the indoor CCTV clips that were made public are in colour - EXCEPT those taken inside the Bristol Ram pub. Now why would a pub that we know attracted boisterous football supporters wearing distinctive colours install black & white CCTV? The alternative explanation is that someone redacted the colour out of the video clips so as to prevent anyone from noticing that the victim had changed her blouse somewhere between the pub and Longwood Lane.

The very first appeals by the police for her safe return contained only the vaguest description of what she would have been wearing, with no mention of the colour of her blouse, nor of the bright green that can be seen in the CCTV clips showing her going into the various shops. In his opening speech, Counsel for the Defence mentioned that one of the things she took off when she got back to her flat was her "green fleece". However, no witness ever told the court whether she really did have a green fleece on, or whether it was the lining of her cream coat that was green. Was he seeking to confuse the jury?

There was no need to call the defendant's girlfriend to testify about the cycle bag, as Counsel for the Defence cross-examined the DNA witness in depth about the plausibility of his own client's claim to have transported the body in a cycle bag or cover. The defendant himself told the jury that is what he had used, and they had no reason not to believe him.

I agree that he would have changed his clothes and showered before picking up his girlfriend, if he really had killed his neighbour with his bare hands so that she bled, and disposed of her body.