Vincent Tabak and the Murder of Joanna Yeates

[John]

So, supposing the perpetrator did go prepared, and that perpetrator was VT.  He killed Jo in her flat, as he said, created all the disorder in the flat, and then had to rid the flat of his DNA and fingerprints. 

After all, there can't have been any: had there been, the prosecution would have used that evidence. Why rely on enhanced DNA when you have the full profile, and fingerprints?

We know that VT went to Asda some time that evening (we don't know exactly when either, since the timestamp is missing from the CCTV-----why?????  And, what happened to his receipt from Asda, which would have had the time on it????? There must have been a receipt. It isn't necessarily  easy to see from CCTV what someone is buying. The police would have wanted to check that he had bought beer, crisps and rock salt, rather than bleach, cleaning rags, etc).
 
  We also know that he picked Tanja up from the coach, and they were caught on CCTV together afterwards.  Did he have enough time to remove all traces of himself from Jo's flat, particularly if he also had to dispose of Jo's body, and then (presumably) shower and change his clothes.

I shouldn't think, for one moment, that VT was experienced , either in the disposing of bodies, or in the cleaning of forensics. The fact that he is a big bloke is neither here nor there. He would have needed to know what he was doing in order to leave no trace of himself at a murder scene.

Taking one point at a time.  I agree the almost absence of DNA is concerning to say the least.  In the circumstances in which Joanna was killed one would expect to find various pieces of a forensic puzzle to fit together. Ultimately however, all that was found was one DNA sample linking Tabak to the victim and then only after a special technique had been used to enhance it.  Out of interest, do we have access to the forensic report relating to this find?

In relation to the visit to Asda and to picking up his then girlfriend, is there a timeline available depicting Tabak and the victims movements on the night she was murdered?

Your last point.  With the best will in the world I don't see how anyone could 'clean' a crimescene let alone do it in a matter of minutes.

[John]

it was not the accidental killing it was made out to be?


No, I don't believe it was an accidental killing. It was a violent attack. It seems this is how the jury saw it too.

The difference is, that most people believe VT did it, and I don't.

That is your prerogative mrswah but belief cannot stand alone.  We have to judge each case on the evidence. You believe Tabak didn't kill Joanna but you have the major hurdle of his confession to overcome. I admit I am not well versed in the background to this case but when someone of sound mind pleads to manslaughter after researching it on his home computer then warning bells begin to ring.  For me the only decision in this case was whether it was manslaughter or murder.

[Eleanor]

Could someone suggest who else it could have been?

[mrswah]

Could someone suggest who else it could have been?

That would be libellous, would it not, Eleanor?

[mrswah]

Taking one point at a time.  I agree the almost absence of DNA is concerning to say the least.  In the circumstances in which Joanna was killed one would expect to find various pieces of a forensic puzzle to fit together. Ultimately however, all that was found was one DNA sample linking Tabak to the victim and then only after a special technique had been used to enhance it.  Out of interest, do we have access to the forensic report relating to this find?

In relation to the visit to Asda and to picking up his then girlfriend, is there a timeline available depicting Tabak and the victims movements on the night she was murdered?

Your last point.  With the best will in the world I don't see how anyone could 'clean' a crimescene let alone do it in a matter of minutes.

Joanna's Timeline

8.00pm    Joanna left the Ram pub, where she had been socialising with work colleagues.

8.10  pm     Captured on CCTV in Waitrose.

Between 8.10 and 8.30 pm, she texted three friends, asking if they were free to meet up that evening.

8.29pm  Captured on CCTV in Bargain Booze buying cider.

8.30pm  Telephoned her friend Rebecca.

8.37pm   Captured on CCTV buying a pizza in Tesco Express

8.45pm  Captured on CCTV passing the Hophouse pub

Shortly afterwards, she spoke to a priest, Father George Henwood, who was out walking his dog.  Although the priest testified in court, he did not know Jo, and it is possible that the person he saw was not her (IMO).


Vincent's Timeline (according to what he said in court)

Approx 7pm    Arrived home from work.

Between 7 and 7.15 pm:   Went out to take pictures of the snow.  It is possible that this is when he saw Chris Jefferies and spoke to him about mildew in his flat.  CJ might have told him that Greg had gone to Sheffield, after having had trouble starting his car.

7.25-7.37pm    On computer, looking at his bank account. 

Some time shortly after 8.50pm, he is alleged to have killed Joanna in her flat, and brought the body back to his flat, moved his car into the driveway, placed the body in a cycle bag, and then into the boot of the car.

9.25pm    Texted Tanja

10.13pm  Left home to go to Asda, with Jo's body in the boot of his car

10.30 pm   Shopping in Asda.  Texted Tanja.

12.10am   Back at home, apparently after having dumped Jo's body.

12.18am.  Texted Tanja to find out if she was on the coach.  Went out to dispose of the cycle bag, pizza and sock. Returned home.

1.38am    Left to meet Tanja from the coach. Went to buy burgers.


Re the forensics, I assume that the police and lawyers would have been given a written report, but, as far as I am aware, there isn't one in the public domain.  However, the following outlines the findings:

www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jan/17/csi-oxford-lgc-forensics

[Eleanor]

That would be libellous, would it not, Eleanor?

I don't know.  The whole thing is gutting a bit beyond me.  I no longer have any certainty about any conviction.  But on that note, you might as well give up altogether.

It was a particuliar  case, although for the life of me I cannot remember why.  What makes any one murder any more awful than another?

[[...]]

That would be libellous, would it not, Eleanor?

I believe it would be mrswah....

[mrswah]

.  What makes any one murder any more awful than another?

All murder is awful.  However, some convicted murderers are given longer tariffs than others, so , presumably, judges must think that some murders are more awful than others.

And, of course, it is worse to murder several people than one.

[Eleanor]

I mostly try to stay off Sub Forums because I just don't have the knowledge or the time or the patience.  But I do get dragged in now and again when someone reports something.  And so I feel that at least I should try.

So far this has left me with a pile of abuse, probably because The Reporter didn't get quite what they were looking for.  I can only look at a comment and then decide what I should do, which mostly doesn't require any opinion of mine on the case itself.
I am only a Moderator, which means what it says.

Your arguments sound reasonable to me, but then you are never unpleasant.  Whether or not I agree with you is neither here nor there.

These sub forums could do with a few more like you.

[[...]]

Taking one point at a time.  I agree the almost absence of DNA is concerning to say the least.  In the circumstances in which Joanna was killed one would expect to find various pieces of a forensic puzzle to fit together. Ultimately however, all that was found was one DNA sample linking Tabak to the victim and then only after a special technique had been used to enhance it.  Out of interest, do we have access to the forensic report relating to this find?

In relation to the visit to Asda and to picking up his then girlfriend, is there a timeline available depicting Tabak and the victims movements on the night she was murdered?

Your last point.  With the best will in the world I don't see how anyone could 'clean' a crimescene let alone do it in a matter of minutes.

No report I'm afraid John.. That would be perfect if that was available to see...  Especially as Lyndsey Lennen had said she  turned the DNA around in 48 hours everything as well as the suspects clothes. Surley it would have a date on the report!

Which has always begged the question?

How did she have access to Dr Vincent Tabaks clothing so early on in the investigation?

And why did the Police say it to weeks to enhance the DNA profile???

As we have mentioned the DNA, there was something I came across yesterday...

Clegg: you never answered any of the police questions except about the telephone calls. Why was
that?
I was following the advice of my solicitor who told me not to say anything at all.
Clegg: In your first statement, you lied, Why did you lie?
I was hoping that they didn’t have enough evidence and was hoping they would let me go.
Clegg: When did you realise that they had enough evidence
When I leant that they found DNA on the body.
You met Brotherton and told him why you did.
Did you want to kill Joanna:
No definitely not

Now....  which first statement is he referring too??? 

Because that sounds like he is in custody... So that cannot be his first statement..

Or is he referring to the Interview in Holland????

Nope it definatley sounds like he is in custody.... Because he goes on to say he was hoping they would let him go!!!

Ok... think i need to look at this as two possibilities to try and make sense out of it!!

So If we start with the first statement being when they Interviewed him in Holland... Then that would make the Holland interview a suspect statement and not a witness statement. The reason I say this is because he then goes onto say

   was hoping they would let me go.

And the police had always implied that this was a little trip to get a supplementary statement about a car changing position!!!

Which I never believed in the first place... especially when the police woman says:

At the end of the process

Which sounds like he was being interrogated as a suspect and not a witness, no matter how nicely she believed she had dressed it up!!


Or we look at his first statement as being when they had him in custody at the police station, and as he says he kept quite about most things..  Then that doesn't make sense either...
If he kept quite.. How could he lie???

Why would he say that he was hoping they would let him go?? Must be in custody!!

So he's in custody , saying virtually nothing , yet he was supposed to have lied and even though the prosecution have stated he followed the on going case, so that he could keep abreast of every part of the investigation.. He must have know about DNA..

Clegg: When did you realise that they had enough evidence
When I leant that they found DNA on the body.

Then later he says that once they took a DNA sample in Holland he knew it would be a "sure match??? "

So which is the first statement???????

If in Holland he gave his DNA sample, he must have know that they were checking it against some other sample, whether it was found in the flat or on her body..  So why would he voluntarily give this sample?? To incriminate himself???

Clegg: When did you realise that they had enough evidence
When I leant that they found DNA on the body.

This implies that they are telling him whilst he's in custody that they found DNA on Joanna Yeates, but he was supposed to have searched about frozen DNA in January before his arrest.....

So if he knew they had DNA evidence that would match him why would he even think they would let him go????

The contradictions in the evidence that even the defence has is crazy... Nothing clean cut!!!


EDIT:.... Another statement Dr Vincent Tabak says at trial:

And you went to Holland over Christmas
Yes
Then in Holland the police took your DNA . What did you think would happen?
I was thinking I would be arrested anytime.
Clegg: Do you know what DNA is?
Yes
What did you think if they found DNA on Joanna?
A sure match.

Again if he knew when they took his DNA in Holland why would he say:

When I leant that they found DNA on the body.

So is this Holland Interview his first statement?????  He wants them to let him go!!!!

Which in my mind means that they detained him under Dutch Law and the 6 hour interview of a suspect!!!!!!


https://philpapers.org/archive/RAMTMT-4.pdf

[[...]]

                  The hundred questions.......

Thought I'd post this again as it is missing from my old posts:

(1): Why the need to use 8 Fire Brigade Appliances ?

(2): The piece of significant evidence handed into the police

(3): The forensic pictures showing how they had used broom handles to move Joanna Yeates that were missing from the trial.

(4): The Priest that talked to Joanna Yeates near her home on the 17th December 2010

(5): The sobbing girl, that had apparently given Dr Vincent Tabak’s name.

(6) CJ who had seen people at the small gate who could have answered many questions, but was not in court.

(7): Tanja Morson, Dr Vincent Tabak’s girlfriend who could have confirmed or denied any scenario put forward.

(8): The prosecutions full disclosure of the 1300 page document till the 7th Oct 2011

(9): A witness who lived behind saying that he heard someone shout “help me” on Saturday 18th December 2010 mid morning.

(10): How many days could a body lie on Longwood Lane without being discovered by, walkers, joggers etc.

(11): Any good Character witness’s for Dr Vincent Tabak.

(12): A psychiatrist report on Dr Vincent Tabak’s mental health whilst incarcerated..

(13): An explanation to the shard of console found at the crime scene. who did the console belong too?

(14): The CCTV image of Dr Vincent Tabak’s car on “Park Street”.. Some of the  media had inferred it was when he was trying to dump Joanna Yeates. But he was picking Tanja up on the 18th December 2010.

(15): What happened to his application for bail, I couldn’t understand why he was never on bail.

(16): Video putting Dr Vincent Tabak at the scene of the crime.

(17): Witness’s putting Dr Vincent Tabak at the scene of the crime.

(18): DNA evidence of Dr Vincent Tabak in Joanna Yeates flat

(19): DNA evidence of Joanna Yeates in Dr Vincent Tabak’s flat

(20): An explanation as to how Joanna Yeates earrings ended inside the bed cover.

(21): Photographs of the scene when the police first arrived on the 20th December 2010

(22): An expert who could demonstrate the difficulties in moving a dead weight.

(23):  The lack of body fluids at Dr Vincent Tabak’s flat.. She was in his flat for an hour according to the prosecution.

(24): The body fluids in Joanna Yeates flat to prove that was where she was killed.

(25): Joanna Yeates black handbag she is seen carrying.

(26): Solid DNA profile of Dr Vincent Tabak on Joanna Yeates, (Partial is inconclusive).

(27): An explanation to how Andrew Mott had to try to stop a body from thawing after she was found, having apparently been there since the 17th December 2010 and was frozen solid.

(28): Finger nail scrapings that might have revealed who attacked her.

(29): Any medical records as to why Joanna Yeates had taken time from work days before the 17th Dec. (could have explained why it didn’t take long to strangle her).

(30):A demonstration of how easy or hard it would be to lift a body inside a bicycle bag/ cover.

(31): A demonstration of how difficult it would then be to lift a dead weight into the boot of a car.

(32): The Defence team missing that it was impossible for Dr Vincent Tabak to do two of the searches the prosecution said he did.( I will explain this one later)..

(34): How the defence did not pick up on the fact that the prosecution ask the jury  to add a word to their document.. changing the definition of a search.

(35): The Drive times it would have taken Dr Vincent Tabak to complete various journeys.

(36): A proper explanation as to why it was a sexually motivated assault when no signs of a sexual assault existed.

(37): A demonstration at Joanna Yeates flat of how her body was moved from room to room and between flats, no timing of this event took place, and if it was even possible to lift a body up as there were no drag marks.

(38): The CCTV from Clifton Suspension Bridge the police had used to speak to one witness/suspect, I believe early in their investigations.

(39): Bank records of Dr Vincent Tabak’s apparent purchase of callgirls.

(40): The american prostitute who claimed that Dr Vincent Tabak had tried to use chloroform in a sex game. The proof of purchase.

(41): Any female person whom Dr Vincent Tabak has made a pass at in the past.

(42): The Morson Family and their relationship with Dr Vincent Tabak.

(43): The finger prints missing from the TV Dr Vincent Tabak said he turned off.

(44): Any Finger prints of Dr Vincent Tabak anywhere in the flat.

(45): Mr Reardon verifying whether Bernard the cat was inside the house when he left for sheffield.

(46): How The couple from Flat one travelled to work every morning, did they walk or drive?

(47): Pictures of what was inside the forensic tent if Joanna Yeates wasn’t.

(48): Anything that puts Joanna Yeates in Dr Vincent Tabak’s flat

(49):  A Witness that saw Dr Vincent Tabak go into Joanna Yeates Flat.

(50):  CCTV footage of Dr Vincent Tabak going across Clifton suspension Bridge

(51): CCTV footage of him travelling on the A38 between Bedminster and Longwood Lane

(52): A GPS signal putting Dr Vincent Tabak on Longwood Lane.

(53): Finger prints on the oven Dr Vincent Tabak  turned off.

(54): The Porn searches I believe should have been redacted in the film the IT expert had shown to the court.

(55): The searches that should make sense but don’t.

(56): The fact that he was in his own flat till 9:29pm on Friday 17th December 2010 by his own defences admission.

(57): Where were the translations of any of  the Dutch language, from texts or internet searches Dr Vincent Tabak would have made.

(58): His actual laptop in court.

(59): The phone call from Holland played in court when he was supposed to be implicating CJ.

(60): The videoed interviews of Dr Vincent Tabak whilst he was in custody

(61): The Tatteringer Reims Champagne cork at the crime scene.

(62): Good Character statements.

(63): The searches he couldn’t do because he wasn’t at home.

(64): A Full DNA profile

(65): The Timestamped Video from the Asda in Bedminster.. (time blurred out)

(66): The 1300 page document I believe should have originally been bigger if it contained the porn searches within.

(67): The Medical reports on Dr Vincent Tabak

(68): The Kitchen window.. measured to see If Joanna Yeates could see out clearly and Dr Vincent Tabak being able to see in as they were basement flats of irregular height.

(69): How the forensic expert turned everything around in 48 hours including the suspects clothing.

(70): The other DNA profile they didn’t test

(71): The crime scene photo’s that differ, when it’s a time capsule.

(72): The Clock with a different time.

(73): The shoes on the shoe stand change position.

(74): All the kitchen items being moved from the flat.

(75): The Coat stand that Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have touched clearly seen in the crime scene photo’s when I would have thought it would be in evidence.

(76): A Cat tray for a cat that goes outside.

(77): Mr Reardon being allowed to take all his possessions from a crime scene.

(78):The Pizza and note sent to the pub.

(79): The sock a member of the public handed in.

(80): why so much information has disappeared from the internet.

(81): Joanna Yeates being found in a flower print T-shirt that was described in one newspaper when she was in a plain T-shirt in the Ram pub.

(82): Court drawings showing her wearing blue Jeans, when she was last seen wearing grey/black jeans on the tesco video.

(83): The defences own distain of their client. (unkind words)

(84): Dr Vincent Tabak being moved between 3 prisons in 48 hours.

(85): Not seeing anyone he knew for 23 days plus. Cj had explained 3 days was difficult being isolated.(23 days must have been unbearable). (IMO)

(86): Not having his own glasses, so he could actually see.

(87): The salvation army MEMBER who acted as a chaplain.

(88): His family making an appearance on the witness stand.

(89): The lack of snow on the ground on the 17th December 2010 as Joanna Yeates walks past waitrose. I have read on many forum’s that it didn’t snow until the 18th December 2010.

(90): How much of the grass verge on Longwood Lane was defrosted by the grit that had been put on the road,with the weather being so bad that weekend.

(91): Why his plea trial was at The Old Bailey via video link and not at Bristol like the rest of  Dr Vincent Tabak’s court appearances.

(92): The detention in Holland which was a 6 hour interview, which they dealt with him as a suspect.

(93): CJ being on bail until march, because they thought that he and Dr Vincent Tabak had colluded.

(94):  How much vegetation was on Longwood Lane in that small area to sufficiently hid a body and how long this would take, so not to draw attention to the shape on the small verge.

(95): How statistically strangers do not normally move bodies from crime scenes, they normally walk them to the location.

(96): Why turning left out of his front door would have been the most logical route to the main street.

(97): Was he ever asked which route he took to collect his car from Canygne Road to park it outside his flat?

(98): Why he would take the pizza?/ doesn’t make any sense to me personally.

(99): Why in early police conferences, they stated that there was no significant injuries and that Joanna Yeates was fully clothed.

(100): The intercom that was in Joanna Yeates flat, where some images show it broken outside the flat, but video’s show it with the panel in tack.

The MOTIVE???

[[...]]

Looking at the Holland interview the other day I had questions as to whether it was legal??

Pre-trial arrest: schedule
Detained for questioning By: the police
Period: 6 hours (excluding the hours
between midnight and 9 am.)
Location: police station
Possible extension*
: By: the police
Period: 6 hours (excluding the hours
between midnight and 9 am.)
Location: police station

Custody order: By: (Assistant) Officer of Justice
Period: no more than six days (2 x 3 days)
Location: police station
Detention By: examining judge
Period: no more than fourteen days
Location: detention centre or police station
Remand By: the court
Period: no more than 90 days
Location: detention centre or prison
(following arraignment)

* Where the nature of the alleged offence does not permit detention in custody, the
interview is solely for the purpose of confirming the suspect’s identity.
The total time spent in custody and on remand prior to conviction is also known
as ‘pre-trial arrest’. If sentenced to a period of imprisonment, the time spent in
custody prior to sentencing will usually be counted towards the period you
actually serve.

If as this document and quotes that  I have used... "States" that the interview had to be held in a Police Station..

Then how did the UK Police get permission to interview him???

They shouldn't have!!!!


Which means that if they needed  permission to interview him from the Dutch Authorities, then they had to have gone over to Holland with the sole intention of interviewing him as a suspect!!!!

Gone all the way to Holland in such a hurry!!! for what reason??
There was No evidence whatsoever that Dr Vincent Tabak at that time could be concidered a suspect, let alone the police going ready for a 6 hour interview without an offer of legal representation at this time!!!

They must have known why they were interviewing him in this way...

Did he get his RIGHTS read to him???????



I know that is why the police woman calls it  a "Process"....  because she can't admit that it is a statement as a suspect (IMO)..

She means "PROCESS" as in interviewing him as a suspect, as there would have been NO need to collect a sample of his DNA, so early in the investigation...

They hadn't collected DNA from any of Joanna Yeates close circle of friends by that point, so why would they need Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA???

He wasn't a suspect... he or Tanja had just rung to give  a supplementary statement... So why did they go to Holland all prepared?????

It begs another question.... If they conducted a suspect statement in Holland at the Airport/Hotel  then has it been obtained illegally as he was not in a police station at the time???

As we know 6 hours is the allotted time Dutch law allows to detain someone for questioning before you either get an extension, detain or release!!!!

Where the nature of the alleged offence does not permit detention in custody, the
interview is solely for the purpose of confirming the suspect’s identity.

Is this the part of the dutch law that was used to question him??? To confirm his name???


Seriously... how does this stand up legally????

Could this interview that was actually as it reads an interview of a suspect, then would this violate any law codes??

Would this piece of evidence go towards Dr Vincent Tabak having a re- trial???? 


This question takes me back to my other posts.... Which was Dr Vincent Tabak's first statement????

If it was the Holland one... then as far as I can see, it was obtained illegally????

Or if it was the one in custody... How could he lie when he hadn't said anything!!!!!!

Can anyone clarify if the statement obtained in Holland was legal????


This is what the Police woman actually said in the video link i post earlier on in this thread:

He was Vague in some area's... He was over interested in other area's, Particulary around our Forensic examination...
There was things in his account that just didn't seem right.... to me.
And then his reluctance to give his DNA at the end of the process.......  Again started to Ring Alarm Bells

See what I mean....

At the end of the process

Process can mean only one thing!!!!!



This would give more credence as to why mrs N. Osey wasn't allowed to see any of Dr Vincent Tabak's statements...And not because of data protection in case of a re-trial!!!! But because it probably would have shown the Holland interview was just that... An interview of a suspect!!!!



https://www.rechtspraak.nl/SiteCollectionDocuments/If-you-are-suspected-of-a-criminal-offence.pdf

[[...]]

 I've started having a look at that video again, It's a while since I had seen it...

Dc Karen thomas says:

He could remember that Chris Jefferies car had been parked on the drive way at Canygne Road, in a particular position. The evening before Jo went missing. And the next morning the car was facing in the opposite direction.

Aha... You see, the problem with this is what day are they referring too???

DC Karen Thomas again slips up in my opinion... because they originally believed that Joanna Yeates went missing on the Saturday 18th Decemeber 2010....

His statement could not warrant them going to Holland if they always believed she went missing on Friday 17th December 2010..

Because Dr Vincent Tabak  must have been referring to.. Thursday 16th December 2010....And the next morning would be Friday 17th December 2010... and that would be irrelevant!!!!!

So again I will keep asking..... why did they need to go over to Holland to interview him????? His information was irrelevant!!!!!


Joanna Yeates - Crimewatch the full story - Part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRDtLjPfdw0



EDIT:.... We Now find that DCI Phil Jones says in the video Killers: Vincent Tabak... that.. at 23.33

Vincent Tabak and his girlfriend made a telephone call..

To me it sounds like Tanja rang and passed the telephone over to Dr Vincent Tabak.

But He goes on to say further:... at 23.53 mins of the video

He rang up with information stating that on the evening of the 17th December the person in custody  who had a car parked at the rear of that premises in the communal parking area 44 Canygne Road. Their car had moved

So for what ever reason they always believed that her disappearance was the 18th December 2010 and not the 17th December 2010

That was significant... for me as a senior investigator and he knew the relevance of that

Now this information would only be relevant if it was the 18th December they believed that Joanna Yeates was killed.

 What other information did they know that suggested it was the 18th December?????

[[...]]

Again using this video.....

When Police checked Jefferies DNA against the sample found on Jo's body, there was no match.He was freed without charge

Again... it could not takes weeks to enhance the DNA profile as the police said it did...

So having Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA on the 31st Decemebr 2010 they would have surely have checked it immediately..

Why wait till the 20th January 2011 to arrest him?????


Another issue I have is at: 6 mins 3 sec the programme say:

That night he bungled her body into his boot and went looking for a place to discard it.

Then they show the CCTV footage of him on PARK STREET... when we know that this is when he went to pick Tanja up from her party!!!!





Joanna Yeates - Crimewatch the full story - Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRDtLjPfdw0

[[...]]

mrswah... I remember quite awhile ago that you mentioned that Dr Vincent Tabak was going to some type of party on Longwood Lane and this was the reason that he had researched Longwood Lane so early on..

Do we know where the dinner party was held that Tanja and he attended?? Because I'm slightly confused when DCI Phil Jones states on the Killers Video at 17:19 he says:

And there was one instance at one dinner party some of the funeral guest there were concerned about walking home and he walked them home.

Where did these guests live ??? 

It does suggest in my opinion that this event could have being held near Longwood Lane as the guest needed walking home, especially if they had attended a wake... they would have been far more nervous if this FUNERAL party was held near to where Joanna Yeates had been discovered.

And who has ever heard of a funeral dinner party??????????  I'm positive he says Funeral guests... how odd!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nJqbxSVNOA