Vincent Tabak and the Murder of Joanna Yeates

[jixy]

In the few instances where I express opinions, I have tried to preface them with the remark "In my opinion..." Most of my posts are longer than they really need to be, so that no one can accuse me of jumping to unsubstantiated or wild conclusions. I would LOVE to be able to post wild speculation, such as that Joanna was the victim of one of the delivery men who delivered her bed but turned out to be a fanatical supporter of a rival football team from the one she supported. However, since I have been VERY restrained on this thread, I can only conclude that you have some kind of AGENDA in posting such remarks as this one on this forum. I would really like you to explain your agenda. Is it because you cannot resist belittling a defenceless woman poster?

Firstly can I correct you on your assumptions.... I have not belittled anyone. Who is the defenceless woman you refer to?

I was polite to nine and explained my reason for replying to their post and also my reasons for not replying to others which is my right as that is MY opinion

I too have been very restrained on this thread and kept my thoughts to myself so other forum users dont get dragged in and down with any difference of opinion which we are all entitled to have but that gets forgotten

You actually jumped to conclusions about me and whether I read the threads or not which even Nine onfirmed yes I do. You chose to see my comment at catching up as an indication that I had fallen behind or perhaps not even taken part. Wrong again

So it seems to me it is you who has an agenda to insult anyone who doesnt agree with you!

I have NO agenda I just happen to believe that Tabak is guilty as the man himself says but for some reason my opinion isnt as valuable as yours

[Leonora]

Why is it that your opinions are valued but other peoples opinions are simply dismissed , the post mortem results prove she didn't eat the pizza and nothing else matters VT did as he said so himself .

I don't understand the reason for this post. Most of the posts on this thread are objective, with relatively few expressions of opinion. Everyone is welcome to express their opinions, but facts are a lot more persuasive.

The post mortem results couldn't possibly have proved that Joanna didn't eat the pizza, as she might have eaten it more than 9 hours before she died. Had traces of pizza been found, then they could have proved that she did eat the pizza, but we have not been told what the analysis actually did find.

Not being clairvoyant, VT couldn't possibly have known that he had to return to steal the pizza, rather than any of the myriad of other things worth stealing in the flat, in order to fulfill the future need of the "pizza cop" to make an unnecessary mystery out of its disappearance in a TV press conference.

It is however some small comfort that you believe VT was telling the truth, because presumably you too believe that he was innocent of the murder.

[PaultheRed]

I don't understand the reason for this post. Most of the posts on this thread are objective, with relatively few expressions of opinion. Everyone is welcome to express their opinions, but facts are a lot more persuasive.

The post mortem results couldn't possibly have proved that Joanna didn't eat the pizza, as she might have eaten it more than 9 hours before she died. Had traces of pizza been found, then they could have proved that she did eat the pizza, but we have not been told what the analysis actually did find.

Not being clairvoyant, VT couldn't possibly have known that he had to return to steal the pizza, rather than any of the myriad of other things worth stealing in the flat, in order to fulfill the future need of the "pizza cop" to make an unnecessary mystery out of its disappearance in a TV press conference.

It is however some small comfort that you believe VT was telling the truth, because presumably you too believe that he was innocent of the murder.

She may or may not have eaten the pizza it doesn't prove anything all you seem to do is make assumptions & give your opinion , all the paperwork suggests and states she didn't eat the pizza like so many of your opinions they don't come with any genuine facts they are just your own thoughts but when asked a question or to validate something you seem to get defensive and accuse people of belittling you when in fact it is you who belittle others who don't agree or see things the way you do , I believe that VT was guilty of manslaughter at best but in all truth the evidence points to him being guilty of Murder whichever it is he is responsible for the death of a young lady .

[PaultheRed]

VT made a pass at her she rejected his advances and his ego couldn't handle the rejection and he killed her regardless of anything else he is guilty in his own words of killing her

[Leonora]

After removing the impossibilities the probabilities remain....

Oh course it is feasible that they withheld the information that CJ had seen her at the gate....

But that would only change the day...  or the time possibly... And Police forces in the past have been known to want to clear a crime up quickly... As in the Stefan Kizco case.... that too is a possible reason for ignoring what he had said...

The only other reason was if it had been Greg he had seen... and I can't see that either, because after all this time, he wouldn't have to keep the charde up with regards Greg, he just would have to avoid those questions in relation to him,.....

For CJ to lie or not reveal the truth he would have to have something massive to compensate for that information....
And the way in which he had been treated prior, would suggest that there would be no reason for this....

As he was never called as a witness  at trial, why would he divulge what he told the police.... even if we wish he would... He had already suffered at the hands of the media and since that has learnt how to get them to eat out of his hand...

I cannot see him wanting the attention from suggesting after the trial has finished, that he actually saw Joanna Yeates at the garden gate...

The implications of that piece of information alone would cause massive repercussions and I don't think CJ would want to be seen as the person who caused them......


Edit.... Leonora... Have you ever written to CJ????

Yes, I have written to the landlord, twice altogether - but he never replied. That was long ago, long before I realised the great importance of his 2nd witness statement. I am disappointed that you are still so sceptical about this.

This police force was anxious NOT to clear this crime up - neither quickly nor at all. So it is nothing like the Stefan Kiszko case. We don't know whom he saw, nor when. It could have been Joanna's boyfriend when he was supposed to be in Sheffield, but I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt. The landlord's statement was precipitated by some discrepancy between something that was said in the first TV appeal, and what the landlord himself had seen or heard. "The Lost Honour..." actually endorses this. I would prefer not to speculate, but it is most probable that he saw evidence of activity inside and outside the flat, on the Saturday or Sunday, after the time when the family and the police stated that Joanna herself had gone off the radar.

The police's lack of a response to his statement must have puzzled him and then worried him, since it was the opposite of what he would have expected from a serious investigation. He claims that the police leaked a garbled version of his 2nd statement to a news medium. This is why he was so angry. This suited the police very well, as the public could understand why they would suspect such a bad-tempered old man. Therefore even the doorstepping was planned!

When they heard he was arrested, VT and his girlfriend were up in arms with outrage, because they knew what he had seen and heard, and it was far from "VERY VERY VERY VAGUE" as the landlord told reporters on TV. So of course they thought he was a liar, and hastened to contact the police to tell them what their landlord really had seen. They too were being set up! This is what really preoccupied the detectives who flew to Schiphol at the taxpayer's expense. They wanted 40 pages of evidence that Vincent and his girlfriend attempted to incriminate the landlord.

Of course he couldn't be called into court to testify, as his evidence would have blown the charge against Vincent Tabak. That was not his choice anyway. But for him to go on seeking the limelight and campaigning against the press - who are not the real villains in his case anyway - is not particularly to his credit, when he has the power to expose the injustice done to one of his own placid tenants.

[Leonora]

VT made a pass at her she rejected his advances and his ego couldn't handle the rejection and he killed her regardless of anything else he is guilty in his own words of killing her

Now it is me who is laughing. This is just like an episode of "Fawlty Towers" or "The Goon Show". A placid, highly intelligent man spends half his life working hard to gain a high education for which he is head-hunted to the UK. One evening he is bored, so he pops next-door on a whim and strangles his neighbour. And then goes to great unnecessary trouble to transport the body far away, instead of leaving it where it is.

Most people have some difficulty in handling rejection - but only by a partner with whom they already have already been in a romantic relationship.

I don't understand why you believe this "tosh", but since you evidently DO believe the nonsense that he made a pass at her after a few minutes' conversation, then, out of respect for the rest of us, you should explain say why you DON'T believe the parts of his testimony that you choose not to believe, such as his lack of intent to kill.

[[...]]

Yes, I have written to the landlord, twice altogether - but he never replied. That was long ago, long before I realised the great importance of his 2nd witness statement. I am disappointed that you are still so sceptical about this.

This police force was anxious NOT to clear this crime up - neither quickly nor at all. So it is nothing like the Stefan Kiszko case. We don't know whom he saw, nor when. It could have been Joanna's boyfriend when he was supposed to be in Sheffield, but I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt. The landlord's statement was precipitated by some discrepancy between something that was said in the first TV appeal, and what the landlord himself had seen or heard. "The Lost Honour..." actually endorses this. I would prefer not to speculate, but it is most probable that he saw evidence of activity inside and outside the flat, on the Saturday or Sunday, after the time when the family and the police stated that Joanna herself had gone off the radar.

The police's lack of a response to his statement must have puzzled him and then worried him, since it was the opposite of what he would have expected from a serious investigation. He claims that the police leaked a garbled version of his 2nd statement to a news medium. This is why he was so angry. This suited the police very well, as the public could understand why they would suspect such a bad-tempered old man. Therefore even the doorstepping was planned!

When they heard he was arrested, VT and his girlfriend were up in arms with outrage, because they knew what he had seen and heard, and it was far from "VERY VERY VERY VAGUE" as the landlord told reporters on TV. So of course they thought he was a liar, and hastened to contact the police to tell them what their landlord really had seen. They too were being set up! This is what really preoccupied the detectives who flew to Schiphol at the taxpayer's expense. They wanted 40 pages of evidence that Vincent and his girlfriend attempted to incriminate the landlord.

Of course he couldn't be called into court to testify, as his evidence would have blown the charge against Vincent Tabak. That was not his choice anyway. But for him to go on seeking the limelight and campaigning against the press - who are not the real villains in his case anyway - is not particularly to his credit, when he has the power to expose the injustice done to one of his own placid tenants.

Leonora... it's not that I am sceptical... It's that I cut through some things that I am well aware are not accurate...

But by arguing on a forum about them may not be the most successful way forward...

CJ stated that he didn't know how the media had got hold of the info..... Everyone forgot he told Peter Stanley and he made reference to it in the papers....

[[...]]

I would really like you to explain your agenda. Is it because you cannot resist belittling a defenceless woman poster?

In the Interests of fair play, I must point out that at No point today do I feel that Jixy has belittled me...  But thank you for your concern Leonora.

I would like to take this opportunity to state as I'm sure you are all well aware... I truley believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent....

But.... unless someone gives me Strong Hard Evidence to the contrary including... Timestamps on CCTV's and the 1300 page document at the very least.. I will not be changing my mind anytime soon...

[jixy]

thank you

[[...]]

  Jixy   
Fair is Fair....... And that is what I like Most of All.....

[mrswah]

i wonder whether there would be anything particularly enlightening to come out of CJ's second witness statement, to be honest.

He might well have seen Joanna, and he might well have said so to his neighbours. On the other hand, perhaps it was true that  he was not sure if it was her or not. If he knew she had gone missing, and he knew she was the person he had seen, surely he would have said so in his first witness statement.

He probably wouldn't have known who the other two people were. IMO, if he did see Joanna, then the other people were known to her, but probably not to CJ.  After all, he hadn't even known Joanna for more than a couple of months, so he wouldn't have known her acquaintances.

If one of the people had been VT, I'm sure he would have said so, and the police /prosecution counsel would have used it as evidence that he had been with Jo.  VT had been his tenant for over a year, and , being an exceptionally tall man, he would have been easy for CJ to spot.

I cannot believe either of the people were Greg or Tanja-------it is known that both were elsewhere (assuming, of course, that it was the Friday night that CJ saw the people).

However, the police should certainly have investigated this sighting, as it is perfectly possible that Jo was killed away from her flat.

[Leonora]

Leonora... it's not that I am sceptical... It's that I cut through some things that I am well aware are not accurate...

But by arguing on a forum about them may not be the most successful way forward...

CJ stated that he didn't know how the media had got hold of the info..... Everyone forgot he told Peter Stanley and he made reference to it in the papers....

I didn't realise we were arguing, but I agree that my post about the landlord was not very satisfactory. He has been busy explaining away his position as the victim of the press. However, the press acted as they did because of unattributed smears about his character - from a source that they trusted sufficiently to risk the libel actions that he subsequently won. This can only mean that it was the police who were that source, and that the press as well as the landlord were "victims" of the police's covert actions. So the landlord's claim to the moral high ground is questionable.

Here is the landlord's timeline:

(1) On his computer screen, the landlord watches the TV appeal by Joanna's parents and the police, and becomes aware of a discrepancy.

(2) He calls the police and signs a 2nd witness statement recounting how he saw two or three persons on Joanna's front path.

(3) He discusses what he has seen with Peter Stanley and several other neighbours, including VT and his girlfriend. VT and his girlfriend depart for Cambridge and have no further contact with their landlord.

(4) Instead of appealing for these persons to come forward, or eliminating them, as the landlord had expected, the police appeal for a pizza.

(5) Joanna is found dead.

(6) The police hold a press conference announcing that she was murdered. A late-night bulletin on Sky News or some other media reports that her landlord is believed to have told police that he might have seen her.

(7) The landlord is doorstepped by 30 journalists, whom he dismisses angrily, alleging that what he had told the police was "very very very very vague". VT and his girlfriend watch this incident on their shared laptop in astonishment.

(8) The landlord is arrested. VT and his girlfriend decide they must ring the police to tell them that the landlord had told them much more than he claimed on TV. Oh, and by the way, his car was facing the other way round.

[mrswah]

www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/cops-hunting-a-white-van-man-1694868


www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/304214


I have to assume  this was thoroughly investigated at the time !!

[PaultheRed]

If one of the people had been VT, I'm sure he would have said so,why would he have said so as that would incriminate him further , The landlord is arrested. VT and his girlfriend decide they must ring the police to tell them that the landlord had told them much more than he claimed on TV. Oh, and by the way, his car was facing the other way round.Did they VT & his girlfriend go to the police to deflect the limelight away from VT which clearly failed , So many facts are not known and open to interpretations , opinions & conjecture making some of the discussions pointless , there are a lot of questions without answers but they seem trivial such as what happened to the pizza , whixh way a car was facing or way things were in a different place like the hands on the clock , the shoes on the shoe rack etc none of those point to who did or didn't murder her but the biggest thing has to be VT's admission that he killed her either by murder or accidently nobody but him can know the truth .

[mrswah]

If one of the people had been VT, I'm sure he would have said so,why would he have said so as that would incriminate him further

I meant the landlord would have said so, not VT----sorry if I wasnt clear.