Vincent Tabak and the Murder of Joanna Yeates

[[...]]

Her client may have told her that it took place, but its significance wouldn't have been apparent to her thanks to the extensive smokescreen, consisting of the barrage of questions put to her client by the detectives plus the huge succession of news reports fed to the media by the police themselves and the forensics company's public relations officer. The fact that Paul Cook QC declared that his client was going to apply for bail, and then the very next day he changed his mind, is evidence of the efficacy of this smokescreen.

I agree Leonora... she wouldn't have realised that Dr Vincent Tabak was interviewed as a suspect,(IMO) she would be unlikely to check the laws in Holland in regards to the 6 hour detention of a suspect... (IMO)

The tricks that were used to gain information is beyond belief...

Shouldn't she have asked ;... what was so urgent that the police felt the need to fly out to Holland?????  and not wait for Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morsons return?????

Why weren't simple questions asked in this case?????

[Leonora]

I think one of the major problems with this case is 'The Trip to Holland'..... Everyone should ask themselves that question... WHY?????????

I have been shouting the answer to this question from the rooftops, so to speak, but you don't seem to want to believe me.

The trip to Holland was very important because the landlord's 2nd witness statement was also VERY IMPORTANT. They are like Statler and Waldorf in the Muppet shows. They belong together. The Shiphol interview arose in the wake of the doorstepping of the landlord. The contents of the statement and the interview must be substantially similar - they have to do with what and whom the landlord saw, which we are not allowed to know. I can guess, but you won't even accept that any guessing is necessary.

Getting the text of the Schiphol interview out of Avon & Somerset Constabulary would be like getting blood out of a stone, as Mrs. N. Osey discovered. But the police do not have the same exclusive rights to the landlord's 2nd witness statement as they do to the Schiphol interview. The world is full of organisations who ought to be interested in being the first to persuade the landlord to make his 2nd witness statement public. Maybe they haven't got the message yet. I fear that his price will be above rubies.

[[...]]

From The Leveson enquiry:...

On Tuesday 21 st December 2010 I provided a statement to the police who were at that
time searching the entire house and all the flats in it and taking statements from all the
residents. I was not being treated as a suspect. At the time the police said to all of us
that if we subsequently remembered anything that could be material we should get
back in touch, That evening I remembered something else that I had not mentioned to
the police that I thought could possibly be material. This was that one evening, which
might have been Friday 17 December 2010, as I was coming back from the gym at
about 9pm, I had parked my car on the road and was just walking through the gates of
the main driveway, when I became aware of what sounded like two or perhaps three
people leaving by the side gate on the other side of the house which I could not see as
there is a hedge in between and it was dark, I duly telephoned the police and relayed
this.

This part could mean if it was Joanna Yeates she left her flat ... but he doesn't say that... and would change the timeline.
If people no matter who was at the gate, that would suggest at least visitors if not Joanna Yeates..

Also slightly confused here... I thought that Tanya Morson and Dr Vincent Tabak had seen the car in the driveway??? because I thought that is when they gave it a push because it was stuck???? 
On the Lost Honour of CJ.. they depict Dr Vincent Tabak pushing the car from the drive in daylight.... So where was the car??????

So.... this is a reason that CJ should have been on the stand.... where was the car??? he says road .... and I'm sure that in Dr Vincent Tabak's early statement he said that he and tanja helped him

I had parked my car on the road and was just walking through the gates

On The Road...

"The police had phoned us at least twice while we were there. Tanja and I discussed the business of being asked to help move his car in the icy drive on Saturday December 18.

Why would he say Drive if that wasn't the case??? He gets no benefit from saying it was on the drive, he could have said the position had changed when he passed it in the road... This is why the Police got excited IMO... because by mentioning the drive, it was different to what CJ had said... It wasn't the position changing.. which they told untruths.. It was WHERE the car actually was!!!!!


That..... even though it doesn't show Tanja moving the car.. in The Lost Honour of CJ... it shows the car being moved from the drive....

So explain that one..... was it on the road Or the drive??????  So was Dr Vincent Tabak lying about the car??? I don't think he was... it was an observation he and Tanja made... And in CJ own words the car was on the road... But we had 2 examples of the car being on the drive?? go figure!!

The car had moved...... so where was the lie that Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed  to be incriminating the Landlord??


CJ also states they searched all the flats at this point too....

The next day, Wednesday 22 December 2010, the same officer who had taken my
first statement came back to my fiat and took a second statement about this. The
officer asked me if one of the voices could have been a woman’s voice. I responded
that it could have been but that I could not say either way. The police have since
confirmed to me that the fact that I gave a supplementary statement raised their
suspicions in relation to me. On the basis of what ensued, I believe it is likely that the
police passed these suspicions on to the media.

Whether or not he could verify this we will never know... but we can see with the above quotes that something is amiss... It's a case of who you believe and why Dr Vincent Tabak says about the drive and so did the Documentary...

Why would the documentary show Dr Vincent Tabak moving the car if it was correct?? There's no real advantage in that scene being changed, especially as it conflicts with CJ's leveson statement!!! So.. I believe the car was on the drive, and if that was the case... the car DID in fact MOVE!!!!


When making the Documentary , they probably never thought anyone would question it's content!!!

EDIT:..... why has this NOT been questioned before?????


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-trial-vincent-275169

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http:/www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf

[Leonora]

From The Leveson enquiry:...

This part could mean if it was Joanna Yeates she left her flat ... but he doesn't say that... and would change the timeline.
If people no matter who was at the gate, that would suggest at least visitors if not Joanna Yeates..

Also slightly confused here... I thought that Tanya Morson and Dr Vincent Tabak had seen the car in the driveway??? because I thought that is when they gave it a push because it was stuck???? 
On the Lost Honour of CJ.. they depict Dr Vincent Tabak pushing the car from the drive in daylight.... So where was the car??????

So.... this is a reason that CJ should have been on the stand.... where was the car??? he says road .... and I'm sure that in Dr Vincent Tabak's early statement he said that he and tanja helped him

On The Road...

Why would he say Drive if that wasn't the case??? He gets no benefit from saying it was on the drive, he could have said the position had changed when he passed it in the road... This is why the Police got excited IMO... because by mentioning the drive, it was different to what CJ had said... It wasn't the position changing.. which they told untruths.. It was WHERE the car actually was!!!!!


That..... even though it doesn't show Tanja moving the car.. in The Lost Honour of CJ... it shows the car being moved from the drive....

So explain that one..... was it on the road Or the drive??????  So was Dr Vincent Tabak lying about the car??? I don't think he was... it was an observation he and Tanja made... And in CJ own words the car was on the road... But we had 2 examples of the car being on the drive?? go figure!!

The car had moved...... so where was the lie that Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed  to be incriminating the Landlord??


CJ also states they searched all the flats at this point too....

Whether or not he could verify this we will never know... but we can see with the above quotes that something is amiss... It's a case of who you believe and why Dr Vincent Tabak says about the drive and so did the Documentary...

Why would the documentary show Dr Vincent Tabak moving the car if it was correct?? There's no real advantage in that scene being changed, especially as it conflicts with CJ's leveson statement!!! So.. I believe the car was on the drive, and if that was the case... the car DID in fact MOVE!!!!


When making the Documentary , they probably never thought anyone would question it's content!!!


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-trial-vincent-275169

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http:/www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf

Very long posts are difficult to comment on and this one is really, really tiresome.

Why should the landlord have taken the stand? - because we know from that he told the police he saw two or three people on Joanna's front path just after 9 p.m. one evening which might have been the 17th December 2010. That is what he told Leveson - but what he told Leveson was a smokescreen. How many times do I have to emphasise this? The other reason why he should have been called was to corroborate the claim about the direction in which the car was facing. You have already long ago posted this argument. So CJ should have taken the stand not to please you, but to ensure that it was a fair trial.

But the question of the car and his Leveson testimony pale into insignificance beside his 2nd witness statement. The only reason that he didn't testify and that the world has NEVER heard his 2nd witness statement HAS TO BE because he saw definite persons on the front path AND he saw signs of activity on the Saturday and Sunday when Joanna was supposed to be dead. Technically this is inference, but it is based on very strong evidence. Why can't you see how important it is?

The Lost Honour team were not allowed to see the 2nd Witness Statement even though I wrote to them begging and pleading and putting to them the essentially irrefutable arguments I have posted here.

[[...]]

Very long posts are difficult to comment on and this one is really, really tiresome.

I'm surprised at you Leonora... that isn't very helpful... I apologise for my tiresome posts..... at this point I bid you good day!! I'll remember in future to keep it to 49 characters or maybe not bother at all...

For a staunch supporter of Dr Vincent Tabak, I do not understand why you would wish to Alienate the few supports of The Dutchman!!!!

[Leonora]

I'm surprised at you Leonora... that isn't very helpful... I apologise for my tiresome posts..... at this point I bid you good day!! I'll remember in future to keep it to 49 characters or maybe not bother at all...

For a staunch supporter of Dr Vincent Tabak, I do not understand why you would wish to Alienate the few supports of The Dutchman!!!!

I will explain why I came to Alienate a supporter of TRUTH and a FAIR TRIAL. It is because I got out of bed the wrong side. It is not a GOOD DAY at all. So when I encountered a supporter of The Dutchman posting like one of Sir Isaac Newton's children, turning over the pebbles on the beach, while the vast ocean of TRUTH still lay undiscovered just a few yards away, I went involuntarily into wind-up mode. I failed to notice that the pebble you turned over was a gem.

[John]

I will keep saying that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent, because I believe he is...  And unless you show me properly that he isn't.. my mind is not changing...

I have quoted a very small part of your post Nine but the rest was excellent.

I'm afraid I don't have your confidence in his innocence when he himself admitted to killing Joanna.  If it helps I believe it was an accidental killing just as VT claimed after things just got out of hand.  I can't see any evidence that he set out that night to murder her so a conviction for murder imo is a MOJ.

[John]

I'm surprised at you Leonora... that isn't very helpful... I apologise for my tiresome posts..... at this point I bid you good day!! I'll remember in future to keep it to 49 characters or maybe not bother at all...

For a staunch supporter of Dr Vincent Tabak, I do not understand why you would wish to Alienate the few supports of The Dutchman!!!!

I have previously requested that post content is kept brief and to the point so that they can be replied to.  TY

[Leonora]

From The Leveson enquiry:...

This part could mean if it was Joanna Yeates she left her flat ... but he doesn't say that... and would change the timeline.
If people no matter who was at the gate, that would suggest at least visitors if not Joanna Yeates..

Also slightly confused here... I thought that Tanya Morson and Dr Vincent Tabak had seen the car in the driveway??? because I thought that is when they gave it a push because it was stuck???? 
On the Lost Honour of CJ.. they depict Dr Vincent Tabak pushing the car from the drive in daylight.... So where was the car??????

So.... this is a reason that CJ should have been on the stand.... where was the car??? he says road .... and I'm sure that in Dr Vincent Tabak's early statement he said that he and tanja helped him

On The Road...

Why would he say Drive if that wasn't the case??? He gets no benefit from saying it was on the drive, he could have said the position had changed when he passed it in the road... This is why the Police got excited IMO... because by mentioning the drive, it was different to what CJ had said... It wasn't the position changing.. which they told untruths.. It was WHERE the car actually was!!!!!


That..... even though it doesn't show Tanja moving the car.. in The Lost Honour of CJ... it shows the car being moved from the drive....

So explain that one..... was it on the road Or the drive??????  So was Dr Vincent Tabak lying about the car??? I don't think he was... it was an observation he and Tanja made... And in CJ own words the car was on the road... But we had 2 examples of the car being on the drive?? go figure!!

The car had moved...... so where was the lie that Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed  to be incriminating the Landlord??


CJ also states they searched all the flats at this point too....

Whether or not he could verify this we will never know... but we can see with the above quotes that something is amiss... It's a case of who you believe and why Dr Vincent Tabak says about the drive and so did the Documentary...

Why would the documentary show Dr Vincent Tabak moving the car if it was correct?? There's no real advantage in that scene being changed, especially as it conflicts with CJ's leveson statement!!! So.. I believe the car was on the drive, and if that was the case... the car DID in fact MOVE!!!!


When making the Documentary , they probably never thought anyone would question it's content!!!

EDIT:..... why has this NOT been questioned before?????


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-trial-vincent-275169

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http:/www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf

Why didn't I see that before? Why didn't I even see it when you spelt it out? The landlord HAD to park his car on the road, otherwise he would never have made his way up the drive and become aware of people on Joanna's front path.

It isn't easy to find a place to park on Canynge Road. Why would the landlord or anyone else living at No. 44 park their car on the street, when they have private off-road parking? We know that getting a car out of the private parking space is difficult after a heavy snow-fall, especially if you are a very unpractical person like the landlord, who wouldn't know about the techniques a driver needs to use for dealing with slippery conditions.

So the explanation has to be that the landlord decided to park his car on the road, after his tiresome experience on the morning of Saturday 18th December 2010, when he had to ask his tenant to help him by pushing. The incident in which he became aware of persons on Joanna's front path must therefore have occurred no earlier than the evening of Saturday 18th December 2010. In his Leveson statement he only states that it "miight have been Friday 17th December 2010". This makes it very important indeed. Who could have been going to and fro on Joanna's path on the Saturday or Sunday evenings? Was it Greg Reardon, Mr. & Mrs. Yeates, Vincent Tabak, his girlfriend, or who? The possibilities are endless. Only the publication of the landlord's actual 2nd witness statement to the police can answer this question.

[jixy]

I have quoted a very small part of your post Nine but the rest was excellent.

I'm afraid I don't have your confidence in his innocence when he himself admitted to killing Joanna.  If it helps I believe it was an accidental killing just as VT claimed after things just got out of hand.  I can't see any evidence that he set out that night to murder her so a conviction for murder imo is a MOJ.

  I agree!

[Leonora]

I have quoted a very small part of your post Nine but the rest was excellent.

I'm afraid I don't have your confidence in his innocence when he himself admitted to killing Joanna.  If it helps I believe it was an accidental killing just as VT claimed after things just got out of hand.  I can't see any evidence that he set out that night to murder her so a conviction for murder imo is a MOJ.

When Vincent Tabak was tried for the possession of illegal images of child abuse, he was still represented by the same chambers, instructed by the same firm of solicitors, as at his trial for murder. So the inescapable conclusion is that he was not dissatisfied with his defence team.

On the other hand, we know, from examining the murder trial, both at very close hand, and also from afar, that his lawyers provided the worst possible defence that history has ever seen, against one of the weakest cases any prosecutor has ever brought. There was in fact no evidence against him, except, as you keep on saying, that he himself admitted to killing Joanna. Yet he never sacked this defence team.

Therefore the inescapable conclusion HAS TO BE that he was offered, and took, a very large reward indeed for going along with this entire charade - including pretending to have been in her flat and conceding, as you put it, that "things got out of hand". The only possible reward has to be a secret amnesty and a new identity in a country where the name "Joanna Yeates" means nothing. Another inescapable conclusion is that her actual killer has not been subject to the due process of law.

Surely the public has a right to know?

[John]

When Vincent Tabak was tried for the possession of illegal images of child abuse, he was still represented by the same chambers, instructed by the same firm of solicitors, as at his trial for murder. So the inescapable conclusion is that he was not dissatisfied with his defence team.

On the other hand, we know, from examining the murder trial, both at very close hand, and also from afar, that his lawyers provided the worst possible defence that history has ever seen, against one of the weakest cases any prosecutor has ever brought. There was in fact no evidence against him, except, as you keep on saying, that he himself admitted to killing Joanna. Yet he never sacked this defence team.

Therefore the inescapable conclusion HAS TO BE that he was offered, and took, a very large reward indeed for going along with this entire charade - including pretending to have been in her flat and conceding, as you put it, that "things got out of hand". The only possible reward has to be a secret amnesty and a new identity in a country where the name "Joanna Yeates" means nothing. Another inescapable conclusion is that her actual killer has not been subject to the due process of law.

Surely the public has a right to know?

I think you have been watching too many movies.  That sort of thing doesn't happen in the UK where foreign nationals are concerned.  Tabak will serve his sentence or part of it and then be deported to Holland.

[[...]]

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg389908#msg389908


You see Leonora,... I write the way I do because, whether you agree or not, people skim over the information that they have read several times without really reading it.....

My tedious post actually supports what you have said about the second witness statement... because if CJ is not telling an untruth as regards that his car was on the road after the gym... Then that in itself suggests it could be another day other than Friday!!!!!

If the car has changed positions after the GYM and it was on the road, would Tanja and Dr Vincent Tabak know?? There attention was drawn to the car on the Saturday daytime.. Because it must have been in the carpark on Friday night on their return....


So Saturday MUST be the day that CJ.. went to the GYM!!!

 Has anyone confirmed his GYM attendance, because that would give you the day that his car was on the road... therefore, whoever he heard at the gate must have come from Joanna Yeates flat...

Which raises the question I have said many times... Why would it be a problem as to who is at the gate?????

Firstly... it SHOULD be someone from Joanna Yeates flat,.... he didn't even suggest that it was Dr Vincent Tabak!!!! Which brings me back to the fact...

 I do not believe Dr Vincent Tabak used the small gate to exit the building!!!

So whatever people he did hear was not Dr Vincent Tabak.... because they would have jumped on it.. And as they always believed that Joanna Yeates was taken over Clifton Suspension Bridge, maybe that car went over in the evening....

Do we know CJ's movements for Saturday... NO!!! (I'm not suggesting anything about CJ)... Maybe plain and simple is that CJ"S second witness statement relates to the Saturday and NOT the Friday!!!!!

It is not until we have Dr Vincent Tabak in view does Friday become the day of interest!!! Up until that point everything they said and did was to do with the Saturday!!!

If we think about the Holland statement, they say that Dr Vincent Tabak said the car had changed position the night before....

Yes it did... thats why they noticed it in the carpark when asked to help move it.... and we believe CJ's Leveson statement to be true.. then the night he heard people at the gate has to be Saturday..... That's why he is vague in his response at the Leveson about the evening.... HE SHOULD KNOW!!!!!!!!


If it was Saturday... and Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson supposedly used the little gate all the time, why could it not have been them??????

Did anyone check what time they left for their evenings entertainment???? Or were they already OUT!!

I will say again......I cannot see why Tanja Morson and Dr Vincent Tabak would use the little gate and go past Joanna Yeates and Greg Reardons private space when they had their own private entrance!!
 

Anyone could have been at the Gate on the Saturday... whether Joanna Yeates died the Friday or NOT!!!!

EDIT:............. It has to be Saturday that CJ parked his car on the ROAD.... because he had problems moving it in the daytime on the early part of Saturday(Icy Drive)... So therefore that would be the reason he LEFT IT ON THE ROAD!!!... instead of taking it into the drive!!!!

[Leonora]

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7613.msg389908#msg389908


You see Leonora,... I write the way I do because, whether you agree or not, people skim over the information that they have read several times without really reading it.....

My tedious post actually supports what you have said about the second witness statement... because if CJ is not telling an untruth as regards that his car was on the road after the gym... Then that in itself suggests it could be another day other than Friday!!!!!

...

Please accept my grovelling apologies for responding so rudely to your brilliant revelation. Your posts are never tedious, but I am guilty as charged, a skimmer.

That the landlord revealed to Leveson, but not to the jury, that he sometimes parked his car on the road, is yet another black mark against VT's defence lawyers. By not calling the landlord into the witness box to confirm or refute the defendant's claim that he had helped push the car on the Saturday, the defence team gave VT yet another ground for claiming a mis-trial, which he nevertheless unaccountably didn't do.

VT, the landlord and Greg Reardon all admitted to having parked their cars on the road. This suggests that the private parking at No. 44 is inadequate for the needs of all the residents. In that case, VT and his girlfriend may sometimes have parked their shared car further along Canynge Road, at a point where Joanna's gate was nearer than the gate to the driveway. This could be an explanation of why they might have chosen to pass Joanna's window.

[[...]]

There is enough parking per flat.... they have a dedicated parking space.. maybe that is why they do car sharing, and do not need to park on the road!!

If there is more than one car per house hold then i presume that the extra car would be parked on the road... who is going to be happy to give up their dedicated parking space to another tenant when you are already paying for this privilege in your rent!!!

“The property also benefits from a dedicated off streetcar parking space."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/news/8365548/Joanna-Yeates-murder-landlord-Chris-Jefferies-puts-Bristol-flat-on-the-market.html