Vincent Tabak and the Murder of Joanna Yeates

[mrswah]

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

We never heard of any psychological tests having been done on VT while he was in custody.

BTW, John, the document re the fire and rescue appliances is on page 26 of this thread.

[[...]]

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?

I think it's an impossibility for her to lain on Longwood Lane for so long without being discovered.. I also cannot see there being enough leaf litter to hide her.. Someone would have needed quite a bit of time to cover her in leaf litter..
And SNOW.... Dr Vincent Tabak could not have covered her in snow as it didn't snow until the Saturday!!!!

So that she wasn't visible..

If there was no snow and hardly any leaf litter it only goes to prove she cannot be there on the Friday... as all the party goers would have noticed something on the lane when returning home.



I believe it was the Saturday that they truly believe she was put there which would tie in with the CCTV they use in the video when Dr Vincent Tabak is on Park Street..

That has the date of 18th December 2010.. the presenter explains that Dr Vincent tabak is driving around looking for somewhere to dump Jo... (But we know he's on park street to pickup Tanja)...

And in virtually every interview the police allude it's Saturday 18th Decemeber 2010

It's a narrow lane with narrow verges i'm sure she would be found sooner..

Also she was thawing out... She may have been moved there later.. or as people have suggested , she was elsewhere.

The Car and the CCTV I believe they saw someone going across it on Saturday 18th December 2010 who lived at Canygne Road..

Ah..... Snow has to be underneath her body if they believed that it was the Saturday or after it had snowed that she was put there..

And I believe that must be the case.... They would know what was underneath her when they removed her.. Which would give more reason for them to think it was CJ....

And if snow is underneath her body on Longwood Lane.. Dr Vincent Tabak could not have put her there, as it did not snow on Friday 17th Decemeber 2010

Another point as to the leaf litter... if it was freezing and icy as they say on the Friday... surely the leaf litter would have been clumped together.. That too would make it difficult to cover a body up easily...

When they ever say anything about him being on Longwood Lane, they make it appear he gets rid of her in a matter of minutes...

Now he apparently has spent an inordinate amount of time to put her in a bicycle bag/ cover to stop him getting anything in his car... which didn't bother him when he moved her about his flat...

And... Then just dumps her on Longwood lane... I cannot see that for a meticulous person... You are going to need a substancal amount of leaf litter in the first place to cover her with the lack of snow on the Friday night...

He would have to go up and down Longwood Lane .. collecting more leaf litter and de-clumping it for it to cover her and alot more time to hid her....

Don't believe it is possible for him to do this...

EDIT:....

She vanished eight days before Christmas after leaving the Ram pub on Park Street in Bristol, where she had been enjoying after-work drinks with work colleagues. It was cold and snow and ice lay thick on the pavements.

This is why people believe it snowed on the Friday.... It didn't... you can clearly see when she walks past waitrose that there is NO Snow!!!!!!

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-case-vincent-tabak

[Leonora]

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.

Holding an inquest is also obligatory in every case of a suspicious death. There is a conflict of interest between this obligation, and the need of the police to withhold certain facts from the public. I don't know how this conflict is reconciled in other cases. However, in this case the Chief Investigating Officer went way over the top. He gave evasive answers to most of the questions that the very eager journalists put to him at his first press conference, and told three important lies, when he could have been evasive instead.

The inquest was opened on 29th December 2010 - the very day when the angry landlord was doorstepped by journalists - and adjourned the same day. It was closed on 28th March 2011 - three days before the deadline for the CPS to present the case against Vincent Tabak. None of the media even mentioned that an inquest had been held, despite the obvious eagerness of the journalists. This proves that they must have entered into an off-the-record agreement with the police or the coroner.

VT couldn't possibly have known about the victim's injuries, nor what she was wearing, when he was arrested, for the simple reason that the evidence that the police claim that they had putting him at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed is negligible beside the huge amount of evidence that it was they who "stitched him up" to protect someone else.

[[...]]

Holding an inquest is also obligatory in every case of a suspicious death. There is a conflict of interest between this obligation, and the need of the police to withhold certain facts from the public. I don't know how this conflict is reconciled in other cases. However, in this case the Chief Investigating Officer went way over the top. He gave evasive answers to most of the questions that the very eager journalists put to him at his first press conference, and told three important lies, when he could have been evasive instead.

The inquest was opened on 29th December 2010 - the very day when the angry landlord was doorstepped by journalists - and adjourned the same day. It was closed on 28th March 2011 - three days before the deadline for the CPS to present the case against Vincent Tabak. None of the media even mentioned that an inquest had been held, despite the obvious eagerness of the journalists. This proves that they must have entered into an off-the-record agreement with the police or the coroner.

VT couldn't possibly have known about the victim's injuries, nor what she was wearing, when he was arrested, for the simple reason that the evidence that the police claim that they had putting him at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed is negligible beside the huge amount of evidence that it was they who "stitched him up" to protect someone else.

Leonora.. I didn't even know an Inquest had taken place... has anybody got a copy of this inquests finding???

Anyone have info regards the Inquest?????

[[...]]

Dutchman Tabak yesterday appeared for a bail hearing at Bristol Crown Court where he learnt he would be remanded in custody until July 25.

Can anyone explain this????  I presume he was supposed to have his plea hearing in Bristol on this date!



 http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/jo-s-landlord-bail-suspect/story-11282037-detail/story.html#5h8rhd3F7CYHkJVh.99

Ms Reddrop explained the Crown's objections to bail being granted, and added: "In fairness to the defendant he is a man of good character in this country and also, as far as I am aware, in Holland."

So why?????

Which begs another question..... if she knows he is of good character.... why did They demonise him???

I'm positive within the 4 days of him being detained they would have looked at his computer and internet history...
Even scanning over it, they would have seen if he was an avid Porn watcher... So when did the Porn come to bare???

She doesn't need to even say he is of good character..... Oopsie... think she slipped up there!!!!!!

[Leonora]

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?

The belief in Vincent Tabak's guilt that you share with the jury is based overwhelmingly on his own testimony, which the judge, the lady from the CPS, you, and we, all agree was a pack of lies. In my opinion you are hoist by your own petard!

Are you seriously suggesting that he believed she would go round and tell his girlfriend - whom Joanna did not know - that VT had just tried to steal a kiss from her? No one behaves like that, and it is disrespectful to suggest she would have done so. Nor would she have reacted to a pass by screaming - she would have deflty made it clear that kissing wasn't on her agenda, and any man with VT's background and upbringing would have blushed and apologised.

VT was cross-examined first by his own defence counsel and then counsel for the prosecution - both of them men of the world, with great experience of getting the truth out of a witness. Both knew the importance of assessing "probable behaviour" in a criminal case. Yet they both failed conspicuously to put questions built on the obvious absurdities about his scenario.

It was VT who texted his girlfriend that he was "bored", though no witness testified to the authenticity of this text. The texts Joanna is said to have exchanged with three male friends are also hearsay, though she never used the word "bored".

[[...]]

VT was cross-examined first by his own defence counsel and then counsel for the prosecution - both of them men of the world, with great experience of getting the truth out of a witness. Both knew the importance of assessing "probable behaviour" in a criminal case. Yet they both failed conspicuously to put questions built on the obvious absurdities about his scenario.

It was VT who texted his girlfriend that he was "bored", though no witness testified to the authenticity of this text. The texts Joanna is said to have exchanged with three male friends are also hearsay, though she never used the word "bored".

Now pardon me if i'm unsure of proceeding.... But why is he cross examined by his Defence council first??????

I thought the Prosecution laid their case in front of the Jury first and the defence then came in to rebut any claims made by the prosecution.....

Hang on a minute.. does that mean he has a right to a retrial, if proper procedure hasn't been followed?????

Can someone write a timeline of the court proceedings please....

I know how the Sally Ramage paper reads....And it does read as if the Defence spoke to Dr Vincent Tabak first!!

[[...]]

Whilst trying to find info for the above post I came across this......

On the floors there was underlay but no carpets, a poignant reminder that Jo and boyfriend Greg Reardon, 28, had moved into the Bristol flat just seven weeks earlier.

I believe that is untrue.....

When it was rented it clearly shows it has carpets...

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-27696067.html

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/215525/Inside-Jo-Yeates-horror-flat

[Leonora]

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).
...

Well I visited Longwood Lane 1½ years ago, and I can tell you that it is extremely well provided with a variety of places where a body could be deposited without any need to try to heave it over a wall. What is special about the spot where we were told she was dumped is that it is directly above a tunnel leading from one part of the quarry to the other. It also marks a change of gradient, beyond which the lane slopes gradually.

Was I nervous? You bet I was. Every time I heard a 4x4 approaching, I stepped aside as far as I could, for fear of being the victim of a hit & run. I felt sure that my clothes, the  serious-looking camera I was carrying, and my rucksack (with built-in folding stool) signalled "conspiracy theorist" to all those respectable county people who believe everything they read in the newspapers.

[[...]]

                              I can see clearly now.......

Quote
Ms Reddrop explained the Crown's objections to bail being granted, and added: "In fairness to the defendant he is a man of good character in this country and also, as far as I am aware, in Holland."

She scuppered herself....  After admitting that Dr Vincent Tabak was of Good Character, early in the court proceedings when they were trying to stop him getting bail...

When it came to trial they needed something to stop  Good Character being introduced... So they came up with some rubbish about porn which apparently was for the law on bad character...

And they knew it would be thrown out... hence any Good Character statements Relating to Dr Vincent Tabak would not be heard by the jury......

what the hell went on in this trial??????

[Leonora]

Leonora.. I didn't even know an Inquest had taken place... has anybody got a copy of this inquests finding???

Anyone have info regards the Inquest?????

Some time ago, a fellow sceptic (whose name is known to me) undertook to put a Freedom of Information request to Avon & Somerset Coroner's Court, located at that hive of bustling activity, Flax Bourton. In return, my contact urged me to apply for her death certificate. The Court would tell him only that, yes, an inquest was indeed opened, and adjourned, on 29th December 2010, and held on 28th March 2011. On being asked who attended, and whether this included the victim's parents, the Court would only concede that a representative of Avon & Somerset Constabulary had been present.

The Government Record Office must have been on the ball, because they had no difficulty in responding to my application for a certificate of a death on 17th December 2010 in Bristol, even though the certificate stated that the Assistant Deputy Coroner had found that she had died on 25th December 2010 in Longwood Lane, Failand.

After the trial, her parents gave the impression that they learnt of her injuries only during the trial. In my opinion this is unlikely. After Vincent Tabak was remanded in custody, his lawyers ordered an independent post-mortem by an accredited pathologist. I find it hard to believe that his lawyers didn't notify him of this pathologist's findings, including the 43 injuries.

[[...]]

I agree Leonora, her parents would have attended the inquest, they would not have stayed away from it.. maybe that being the reason on the Friday, when the mortuary photographs were shown to the jury. they had seen such evidence at the inquest and didn't want to witness it again. so stayed away on the Friday of the court proceeding.

[[...]]

Some time ago, a fellow sceptic (whose name is known to me) undertook to put a Freedom of Information request to Avon & Somerset Coroner's Court, located at that hive of bustling activity, Flax Bourton. In return, my contact urged me to apply for her death certificate. The Court would tell him only that, yes, an inquest was indeed opened, and adjourned, on 29th December 2010, and held on 28th March 2011. On being asked who attended, and whether this included the victim's parents, the Court would only concede that a representative of Avon & Somerset Constabulary had been present.

Found an issue Leonora....

If police charge someone with causing the death, the inquest will not be resumed and the next of kin will be informed of the arrangements made to register the death. This is to avoid two different courts examining the same evidence. 

So why was an inquest held before the Trial had taken place???????????

There are more acts of impropriety in this case than anything!!!!!

If proceedure hasn't been followed to the letter of the law... does this mean that Dr Vincent Tabak should get a re-trial????

https://bereavementadvice.org/topics/death-certificate-and-coroners-inquest/coroners-inquests

[Leonora]

                              I can see clearly now.......


She scuppered herself....  After admitting that Dr Vincent Tabak was of Good Character, early in the court proceedings when they were trying to stop him getting bail...

When it came to trial they needed something to stop  Good Character being introduced... So they came up with some rubbish about porn which apparently was for the law on bad character...

And they knew it would be thrown out... hence any Good Character statements Relating to Dr Vincent Tabak would not be heard by the jury......

what the hell went on in this trial??????

This CPS lady was not the self-scuppering kind! In my opinion, on the other hand, she is to be feared, especially by all foreign engineers and architects who have been head-hunted to work for UK companies. When she stated that the accused was of "good character", both in the UK and in his country of origin, all she meant is that he had no criminal record - not even a parking ticket. This didn't mean that he had no history of stalking attractive girls, making unsolicited passes at them, leaving his car in the director's parking space, or obtaining his PhD by "deceit and manipulation" (her own words, spoken after the trial).

In my opinion he was guilty of none of these things, as anyone who reads his PhD thesis will soon be obliged to endorse:

http://alexandria.tue.nl/extra2/200910371.pdf

Why did his Defence Counsel not encourage the jury to read the Preface as evidence of his good character? This is the only source I can find for why the CPS lady opposed bail:

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/173666/Joanna-Yeates-suspect-has-a-clean-rap-sheet

“The grounds for applying for a remand in custody are failing to surrender and interfering with the course of justice.’’

[mrswah]

[

http://alexandria.tue.nl/extra2/200910371.pdf




[/quote]

VT names  a lot of people in this preface, and many of them would have known him well. 

I wonder how many of them think he is guilty, and why nobody seems to have spoken up for him?