Vincent Tabak and the Murder of Joanna Yeates

[mrswah]

The escorts were never checked out by the police. We don't know if any of those stories are true. How can we be sure the man they are describing was VT?

I would imagine that some escorts who actually hate "escorting" and who are doing it merely because they need the money, would jump at the chance to sell their stories to the tabloids. They would have been paid well---perhaps well enough to be able to give up having to work as escorts.

[Leonora]

On the evening of Sunday 2nd January 2011, according to her testimony to the Leveson inquiry by Avon & somerset Constabulary's Director of Corporate Communications, there were negotiations between Avon & Somerset Constabulary and a national tabloid newspaper to avoid the publication of potentially compromising detail relating to DNA found on Joanna’s body. The negotiations, she asserted, resulted in a compromise. An unattributed source claimed in the exclusive article in the newspaper that a single sample of DNA had been taken from Joanna’s body soon after it was found. The newspaper wrote that the revelation had been made the day after police had released the landlord, but that attempts had been made soon after it was found (i.e., before the arrest of the landlord) to match this DNA with DNA already on police records and with DNA samples taken during the investigation.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Leonora]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/300493/jo-crucial-clue-found/

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/304186/saliva-found-on-jo-body/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346275/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Best-friend-hits-secret-lover-speculation.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-rachel-nickell-174025

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1347828/Rachel-Nickell-scientists-DNA-trail-Joanna-Yeates-killer.html

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/321718/more-time-to-quiz-jos-neighbour/

[John]

In his second statement, Vincent Tabak disputed the validity of the forensic analysis that linked his DNA to the victim’s body, asserted that he had no knowledge of how such a match could have been obtained, and contended that this result had been leaked to the media by a scientist from the laboratory for financial gain.

This fact emerged at his trial. His defence counsel cross-examined, at some length, the very scientist whom his own client had accused of leaking her findings to the media for financial gain - without once asking her to refute this accusation. With a defence counsel like that, who needs a prosecutor?

I wouldn't normally labour such an obvious point, but there is ample evidence available to suggest that this scientist was corrupt, and the miscroscopic blood stains she alleged had been found in the car are thereby invalidated by her own loss of credibility. She even admitted that her findings had not been proved in court. I don't understand why some people haven't got the message yet - that the discrediting of the last items of circumstantial evidence submitted against the defendant proves that the entire trial MUST have been fixed. I don't need to speculate on the actual means used to persuade this vulnerable foreigner, who was deprived of the opportunity to visit his sick widowed mother, to "perform" in court, as they have to be, frankly, disgusting.

Out of respect for the rules, I will restrain myself from dredging up epithets suitable to describe those who continue to reiterate, "He said he did it, so it must be true".

A scientist who sells information to the media has little to do with the validity of the DNA analyses.  In any event, VT went on to admit to being there in Joanna's flat which sort of begs the question as to why did he lied in his original statements?

[[...]]

...and his confession?

I have a feeling that if he hadn't confessed the CPS would have had a rather more difficult job securing a prosecution.

I agree.... It would have been thrown out of court probably...

[[...]]

A scientist who sells information to the media has little to do with the validity of the DNA analyses.  In any event, VT went on to admit to being there in Joanna's flat which sort of begs the question as to why did he lied in his original statements?

The problem I believe John is they are not actually scientists... (IMO)

Lydnsey Lennen works as a DNA specialist... nothing to do with being a scientist...  I said many many posts ago..

My son was a micro biologist... but he didn't have a qualification to rub togther...

LGC Forensics is basically a lab that gives in house training...  No qualifications needed... But a good telephone manner will bag you the job...

[[...]]

Experts are working on the sample, thought to come from saliva left by the
killer as he struggled to dump her.

How could they possibly know that the DNA sample was deposited when who ever killed her, left the DNA sample whilst struggling to dump her....

They hadn't arrested Dr Vincent Tabak by this point.....

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/304186/saliva-found-on-jo-body/

BY MIKE SULLIVAN, CRIME EDITOR AND JOHN COLES, TOM WELLS, EMILY NASH AND ALEX PEAKE 12th January 2011, 12:00 am


Just goes to prove that he covered the bases they wanted him to cover, when he was on the witness stand....

There is No way he killed Joanna Yeates...  They can't tell you the evidence before an arrest.... 12 days before and goodness knows how many months after that he didn't say anything....


So which clever person... told the media the story of how the DNA came in contact with her?????

Up until this point it could easily have been in a struggle at the flat!!!!

[[...]]

It is understood that preliminary ­results on the ­samples – yet to go through the full process – have so far not ­provided a match with anyone on the National DNA Database.

Interesting quote.... Because Lyndsey Lennen said she didn't need to do any more work on the DNA sample..

That could mean they will be of use only AFTER an arrest.

Well what does that say!!!!!!!....

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-rachel-nickell-174025

[mrswah]

A scientist who sells information to the media has little to do with the validity of the DNA analyses.  In any event, VT went on to admit to being there in Joanna's flat which sort of begs the question as to why did he lied in his original statements?

Perhaps he lied about having been in Joanna's flat. There is no evidence that he was ever there, apart from him having said so.

[[...]]

On the evening of Sunday 2nd January 2011, according to her testimony to the Leveson inquiry by Avon & somerset Constabulary's Director of Corporate Communications, there were negotiations between Avon & Somerset Constabulary and a national tabloid newspaper to avoid the publication of potentially compromising detail relating to DNA found on Joanna’s body. The negotiations, she asserted, resulted in a compromise. An unattributed source claimed in the exclusive article in the newspaper that a single sample of DNA had been taken from Joanna’s body soon after it was found. The newspaper wrote that the revelation had been made the day after police had released the landlord, but that attempts had been made soon after it was found (i.e., before the arrest of the landlord) to match this DNA with DNA already on police records and with DNA samples taken during the investigation.

From the PDF attached to Leonora's above post ,which is in a quote...

Example 2: On 4 January 2011 we were contacted by the crime
editor of the Sun who had heard that three items of clothing - a
sock, a shoe and something else - were missing when Joanna’s body
was found. This was information that the SIO did not want in the
public domain as it may have been a matter which he wanted to put
to any possible offender. However it was clear that the Sun would
run the story on a ’scoop’ basis regardfess of our view. As a result
the decision was taken to hold a press conference the following day
when the Sun story broke.

Whilst looking at the pdf in relation to the DNA Sample... as in singular... I came across this:...

Sock we know about....
Shoe???????

"Something Else"??????

Now the shoe was mentioned in a very early police conference when DCI Phil Jones insisted that Joanna Yeates was fully clothed..

The "Something Else is really the problem"....... because if it had been her coat she would have divulged that....

More Interestingly is the timing.... The Leveson enquiry was before the trial... So what was the "SOMETHING ELSE " that was missing???????????

This is before the trial... what are they hiding??????

I was wondering if it could be her bag???  I have seen other pictures of Joanna Yeates wearing a black bag with long strap...

The Police Conference when the shoe is mentioned is 28th December 2010

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg369628#msg369628

Greg Reardon, when he returned from a weekend in Sheffield with family and found her gone but her coat, keys, purse and bankcards still at the flat they shared.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/28/joanna-yeates-may-have-known-killer

Wednesday 29 December 2010 00.04 GMT  Date of article....

So it definatley was ~NOT her coat !!!!!!!!!

[[...]]

The best part about my above post, is that:....

 She Doesn't......... DENY IT !!!!!!

So they probalby let them run with the "Missing Sock story"... To keep the other info quiet!!!!!!

On 4 January 2011 we were contacted by the crime
editor of the Sun who had heard that three items of clothing - a
sock, a shoe and something else - were missing when Joanna’s body
was found. This was information that the SIO did not want in the
public domain

No it never came to the public Domain!!!!!      "3 Items of Clothing"!!!!!!!!!!!!


I will add that.... There apparently is a seperate Document attached to this statement that Amanda Hirst makes at the Leveson Inquiry.. Called:...

  "The murder of Joanna Yeates - the inside story 

[mrswah]

I wonder how the crime editor of the Sun got that information???

Jo had been wearing boots that day, and they were found in her flat, along with her coat.  If she WERE wearing shoes (or one shoe) when she was found, this would suggest she had gone out again. 

On the other hand, it's all rumour, IMO.  Some of what has been printed by the newspapers is just inaccurate, for example, the date on which Vincent and Tanja travelled to Holland, the claim that they had split up, etc.

[[...]]

I wonder how the crime editor of the Sun got that information???

Jo had been wearing boots that day, and they were found in her flat, along with her coat.  If she WERE wearing shoes (or one shoe) when she was found, this would suggest she had gone out again. 

On the other hand, it's all rumour, IMO.  Some of what has been printed by the newspapers is just inaccurate, for example, the date on which Vincent and Tanja travelled to Holland, the claim that they had split up, etc.

Yes mrswah....  but we do not know what she wore when she was found... we have already discovered that she had a flower patterned top on plus blue jeans... who's to say she wasn't wearing shoes???

And what is the third item.... Amanda doesn't deny... she basically says they run with the missing sock story...

Also 22nd December  her coat was missing.... Think I've put a link on the thread somewhere about that!

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/police-reveal-known-movements-missing-bristol-woman/story-11235664-detail/story.html

So...the "Something else"... that was going to be divulged has to be something else.... Amanda does say 3 items of clothing and never mentions the Coat!

[Leonora]

More Interestingly is the timing.... The Leveson enquiry was before the trial... So what was the "SOMETHING ELSE " that was missing???????????

This is before the trial... what are they hiding??????

Fortunately for us, the good Lord held his inquiry the year AFTER VT's murder trial, namely 2012. If he had wanted to elicit the truth, he would have invited you and me to sit in on his cross-examination of the trio from Avon & Somerset Constabulary. But he didn't, and the director of Corporate Communications went back to her home in Eastern-Super-Mare content in the knowledge that she had helped to ensure that no heads would roll that day. I wonder when you are going to talk about the elephant in the room?

[PaultheRed]

Perhaps he lied about having been in Joanna's flat. There is no evidence that he was ever there, apart from him having said so..... If he lied about being in the flat what else as he lied about or did he lie to cover up the fact he murdered her outside the flat remember this was a calculating, manipulative and clever man who was fluent in at least 2 languages, was headhunted for a job but lied to his girlfriend so if he could lie to her he could lie to anyone