Vincent Tabak and the Murder of Joanna Yeates

[[...]]

As for motive Dr Vincent Tabak has none..... And as I personally believe he is innocent, he doesn't come under scrutiny...

But there are different ways to look at an attack that was not sexually motivated..

It is more than likely someone she knew, it's more than probable that she could have quite easily have left her flat, with someone returning her keys...

Nobody really knows the clothes she wore so really it could be anything...

The possibilities are endless...

It could be a silly prankish game that went wrong, that all, simple as that, doesn't have to be anything else... there's a  picture of Jo messing with a friend who has her round the neck....

Now under no circumstances am i ever suggesting anyone.. But rather the possiblity it was a prank that went wrong, especially as we don't know why she was Ill.

She could quite simply have been play fighting and it ended up in disaster....


Alternatively it could be someone who was angry with her.. it's just as possible...

whatever you say, she needed to be comfortable to let someone in her flat... failing that she left with them...

Man or woman...

Edit:.... 43 injuries added to what they decided later makes it sound like some kind of fight for her life with an unknown.. But DCI Phil Jones originally said that there were NO Significant Injuries...

Theres also the possibility that she bruised easily.. My daughters Frenchie Dog jumps up at my leg and I have bruises galore.. I have always bruised easily...

So play fighing for instance could make sense to her wrists being grabbed and any bruises she may have received, even the cut to her nose could have happened in such a way...

[[...]]

Why were the 43 injuries kept secret for so long?

I am assuming there never was a "sobbing girl".

Does anyone think VT's arrest was planned for a particular date to stop the Crimewatch programme being aired?

No sobbing girl mrswah... And as far as the Crimewatch Program, it would coincide with the scenario they had , that it was Saturday someone went over Clifton Suspension Bridge and  Saturday was the day they always related evidence too...

That is the reason DC Karen Thomas's interview about Holland doesn't make sense... She means Dr Vincent Tabak saw the car move on the Friday... But she ends up saying the night before Jo went missing.. and with them saying it was Friday Jo went missing. because it was the only time Dr Vincent Tabak was on his own.... then logic dictates the car moved on the Thursday...


I believe that was more than likely what Crimewatch would have concentrated on... things happening on the Saturday... So once they had arrested him they couldn't screen it... the events wouldn't tally...

You would have thought that they would have screened it anyway for info from the general public... But if the content is wrong then it would show up their errors... 

[[...]]

I will tell you what one of my Biggest Bug Bare is: No TimeStamp on the ASDA CCTV!!!

WHY??????????????????????

[Leonora]

...
Nobody really knows the clothes she wore so really it could be anything...
...
it could be someone who was angry with her
...
43 injuries added to what they decided later makes it sound like some kind of fight for her life
... But DCI ... originally said that there were NO Significant Injuries
...

The police CERTAINLY knew the clothes she wore in the pub and the clothes found on her body. Removing the colour component from the CCTV clips in the RAM pub suggests strongly that the police did not want us to discover that she had changed her clothes in between. We are also looking at the police's motives for acting the way they did.

There are certain factors that any pathologist would look for when examining any young woman's body, but some of these factors were never mentioned in this trial. So neither of the two pathologists told "the WHOLE truth" in court. On the other hand, these were the most trustworthy of all the witnesses who testified, so I am sure that they told the truth when they described her injuries.

The DCI was therefore lying. It can hardly have been due to absent-mindedness, as the inquest was also kept secret somehow or other. The inquest would have revealed not just the extent of her injuries, but also the exact location where the body was found and an explanation of why four pumping appliances and a crane capable of lifting a medium-sized car out of a pond were needed before the HM pathologist could get near the body.

[One of her colleagues], a landscape architect, would tell the jury that [she] had bought him a pint that evening. He had asked her what she had planned for the weekend, and gathered that she was going to bake some cakes and bread “because [her boyfriend] was away”. She had joked and said she was going to bring them in to the office on the Monday morning.

In court, her boyfriend was asked: “What had her plans for the weekend been?” He replied that she had said she would finish her Christmas shopping and do some baking in preparation for the get-together they had planned. “I think she wanted to do that and relax.” Later he told the court how he felt on finding the flat empty: “I was quite annoyed that I had not been told what her plans were and she had not got back to me.”

[Leonora]

In my opinion she could not have been wearing the floral patterned blouse seen at the Ram pub when she went into the shops, as the CCTV clips from the latter expose too much of her throat.

[John]

Why were the 43 injuries kept secret for so long?

I am assuming there never was a "sobbing girl".

Does anyone think VT's arrest was planned for a particular date to stop the Crimewatch programme being aired?

It is standard police procedure to withhold certain facts from the public so that when questioning a suspect they can ask questions of him/her which they won't know the answer to if innocent.  If VT were to mention the multiple injuries while being questioned the police would know he wasn't innocent. Same goes for what she was wearing, only her killer would know what colour top or trousers she had on.  No wonder the CCTV was screened in B&W.  It isn't rocket science guys.

[John]

I am sorry to post at some length, but the question of MOTIVE has bedevilled both the reporting and the discussion of this case. Only a sociopath would kill without a motive. From the day her body was discovered, to the very end of this case, the police and the lawyers have wriggled out of any serious public analysis of what motive the killer of this particular victim, in her particular circumstances, might have had. The Chief Investigating Officer lost no opportunity to twist the facts to make it into an unmotivated sex-related attack, with the unbelievably bizarre resulting conflict with the known character of the person who was eventually convicted.

There was a wealth of facts about the actions of the victim and those around her, available both to the police themselves and to us, the general public, which could have narrowed down the killer, by analysing their most probable motive, but this has been taboo. I have never understood the motives of those who want to let the real killer go free, to spare her family from being plagued by speculation about the improbable guilt of the man actually convicted.

I would say the only motive for killing her was to shut her up.  I don't know if this was mentioned at trial but he had probably been watching and fantasising over Joanna for a while and for some reason decided to take things further that Friday night.  Didn't Joanna text some friends saying she was bored?  Maybe she invited Tabak in for a sip of cider but he misinterpreted her kindness and things got out of hand?

As for lifting her, no problem whatsoever.  In fact, after killing her VT would be on adrenaline.  Its called Hysterical strength, or superhuman strength.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysterical_strength

[mrswah]

It is standard police procedure to withhold certain facts from the public so that when questioning a suspect they can ask questions of him/her which they won't know the answer to if innocent.  If VT were to mention the multiple injuries while being questioned the police would know he wasn't innocent. Same goes for what she was wearing, only her killer would know what colour top or trousers she had on.  No wonder the CCTV was screened in B&W.  It isn't rocket science guys.

I agree that the police must withhold facts from the public for the reasons you suggest, however, the 43 injuries were kept secret until the trial in October.  By the previous May, the police had their suspect in custody, and he had pleaded guilty to manslaughter. There was no mention of injuries in his enhanced statement (as far as we know, from what he said in court).  Keeping the injuries quiet helped the prosecution counsel no end, as it portrayed VT as a violent brute, and probably turned the jury against him.

The matter of what Jo was wearing when her body was found is very important, as it gives a clue to when she died. If she was found wearing the same clothes as she had been wearing in the Ram pub, it points to her having been killed soon after arriving home (as, I believe, was the prosecution's case). If she was wearing different clothes, she either died later that night (having got changed, possibly to go out), or on the Saturday or the Sunday.

That isn't rocket science, either !!!!!

[mrswah]

I would say the only motive for killing her was to shut her up.  I don't know if this was mentioned at trial but he had probably been watching and fantasising over Joanna for a while and for some reason decided to take things further that Friday night.  Didn't Joanna text some friends saying she was bored?  Maybe she invited Tabak in for a sip of cider but he misinterpreted her kindness and things got out of hand?

As for lifting her, no problem whatsoever.  In fact, after killing her VT would be on adrenaline.  Its called Hysterical strength, or superhuman strength.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysterical_strength

OK,  but, if this was the case, why couldn't he lift the body over the wall in Longwood Lane?

I don't think VT had all that much time to fantasise over Joanna/become obsessed with her.  Jo and Greg had moved into their flat  very shortly before VT went abroad to work for six weeks.He arrived back just a few days before Jo was killed. 

Unless he had known her previously (he denied it, and in court, nobody suggested that he was lying about this), I cant see that he had much time to get a fantasy /obsession going.

[John]

I agree that the police must withhold facts from the public for the reasons you suggest, however, the 43 injuries were kept secret until the trial in October.  By the previous May, the police had their suspect in custody, and he had pleaded guilty to manslaughter. There was no mention of injuries in his enhanced statement (as far as we know, from what he said in court).  Keeping the injuries quiet helped the prosecution counsel no end, as it portrayed VT as a violent brute, and probably turned the jury against him.

The matter of what Jo was wearing when her body was found is very important, as it gives a clue to when she died. If she was found wearing the same clothes as she had been wearing in the Ram pub, it points to her having been killed soon after arriving home (as, I believe, was the prosecution's case). If she was wearing different clothes, she either died later that night (having got changed, possibly to go out), or on the Saturday or the Sunday.

That isn't rocket science, either !!!!!

Most people change out of their day clothes when they retire for the evening. Could she have been wearing her night slumberwear?

[John]

OK,  but, if this was the case, why couldn't he lift the body over the wall in Longwood Lane?

I don't think VT had all that much time to fantasise over Joanna/become obsessed with her.  Jo and Greg had moved into their flat  very shortly before VT went abroad to work for six weeks.He arrived back just a few days before Jo was killed. 

Unless he had known her previously (he denied it, and in court, nobody suggested that he was lying about this), I cant see that he had much time to get a fantasy /obsession going.

I was amazed when Joanna's body was discovered that it was found in such a public place with no effort being made to hide it. Is it possible that her body was initially hidden somewhere but later moved to where she was found.  Would this tie in with the bridge CCTV?

[John]

OK,  but, if this was the case, why couldn't he lift the body over the wall in Longwood Lane?

I don't think VT had all that much time to fantasise over Joanna/become obsessed with her.  Jo and Greg had moved into their flat  very shortly before VT went abroad to work for six weeks.He arrived back just a few days before Jo was killed. 

Unless he had known her previously (he denied it, and in court, nobody suggested that he was lying about this), I cant see that he had much time to get a fantasy /obsession going.

That's interesting and thanx for that info.  What was the result of any psychological tests done on VT?

[[...]]

Most people change out of their day clothes when they retire for the evening. Could she have been wearing her night slumberwear?

I don't think so john... The court artist portrays her wearing Blue Jeans and we know on Friday the 17th December 2010 that she was wearing Grey/Black Jeans.

I do believe she changed her clothes.. she could have easily have left the house with someone..

And a change of clothing equals a different Timeline!!!

[[...]]

It is standard police procedure to withhold certain facts from the public so that when questioning a suspect they can ask questions of him/her which they won't know the answer to if innocent.  If VT were to mention the multiple injuries while being questioned the police would know he wasn't innocent. Same goes for what she was wearing, only her killer would know what colour top or trousers she had on.  No wonder the CCTV was screened in B&W.  It isn't rocket science guys.

It's not that the CCTV was screened in Black and White, that is an issue... It the original description that is lacking of what she was wearing the last time she was seen.. Originally it was a missing persons enquiry!

So not to have a full description of the clothes she was last seen wearing is odd...

The only reason not to give a description is if her clothes she had on friday night, were at home.. so therefore they didn't know what she was actually wearing ...

[mrswah]

I was amazed when Joanna's body was discovered that it was found in such a public place with no effort being made to hide it. Is it possible that her body was initially hidden somewhere but later moved to where she was found.  Would this tie in with the bridge CCTV?

A number of people who know Longwood Lane (I don't), and who have written on forums, have said that they cannot believe Jo's body was there for a whole week, snow or no snow.  Apparently, Longwood Lane is very popular with dog walkers, and these people feel sure that somebody or somebody's dog would have discovered it before the 25th, had it been there all the time.

Personally, I believe Jo's body was actually found in a much more inaccessible place, as a number of fire and rescue appliances were called to recover it. I know it was frozen to the ground, but  it still seems  that a good many personnel and a lot of equipment was used (I have put details of this on the thread: result of a FOI request---will find the correct page for you).

As far as the bridge CCTV is concerned, I believe that neither a car nor a driver was ever identified from it, as the images were not clear enough:

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-police-in-cctv-103261