Who has Doubts as to Dr Vincent Tabak's Guilt ?

[AerialHunter]

Why would this case be covered up?

Quite simply Nina, if the police used hindsight then they would have realised that they had a rogue killer out there. The problem they are faced with now is that their expertise in deceiving the public will be exposed, and that, in policing eyes, is the biggest no-no that exists. Wrongful convictions abound, and they have been going on for a long time. This guy kills to satisfy his own impulses, and they are many. The police can't touch him and he knows it. If he was to admit to murders others have been convicted of no-one will have any faith in policing at all.

[[...]]

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/cps_statement_on_vincent_tabak/

There was another statement as well... it was on their news.. but it has since been removed and only  recently ... The statement admits to the CPS going to her for advice in late December 2010... But Just watch any video of her outside the court after the trial... She publicly announces the exact same thing in front of the world... whilst to her left a certain DCI.. looks thoroughly bored...

[[...]]

Quite simply Nina, if the police used hindsight then they would have realised that they had a rogue killer out there. The problem they are faced with now is that their expertise in deceiving the public will be exposed, and that, in policing eyes, is the biggest no-no that exists. Wrongful convictions abound, and they have been going on for a long time. This guy kills to satisfy his own impulses, and they are many. The police can't touch him and he knows it. If he was to admit to murders others have been convicted of no-one will have any faith in policing at all.

I do believe the Police used the Media to get across the fact they were looking for a Serial Killer..... The stories alway had at the very least.. double meaning and "Nested Loops" were used in abundance...

3. Nested loops
Nested loops is a storytelling technique where you layer three or more narratives within each other.

There were stories being relayed within "The Joaana Yeates Investigation" to a "Killer"... all the while the Joanna Yeates case was going on and not only that I believe it also was apparent that it was used at trial also...

The Media Circus Surrounding this case was massive... Every detail splashed across every paper... Every movement in court "Tweeted" for all to see...

They manipulated the situation to suit themselves..(IMO).. I do think they were actually looking at three case..

(1): Joanna Yeates

(2): A Serial Killer

(3): Corporate Fraud

Think about it.... If the Police cannot touch these certain people... they can keep letting them know they are getting one step closer.. by repeatedly mentioning in "The Media" certain lines or phrases pertaining to those Individuals... And by having The Figure head at The Helm... once they arrested and convicted Dr Vincent Tabak,... Her appearance alone would be a reminder in itself...And tohether with "The Complex Crime Unit who are here to do...   exactly what it says on the Tin...They Investigate.... "Complex Crime".. Here and abroad... With "Multiple People" and "Multiple Crimes".... Of an "Extremely" Serious Nature"

Example of "Nested Loops:" But please read the whole Guardian Article to see what I mean.......

Stratford said he was unaware of anything to connect Yeates's disappearance with the murder of Melanie Hall in Bath in 1996. Hall, a 25-year-old university graduate, disappeared after a night out in Bath. Her remains were found beside the M5 motorway in October last year, but her killer has never been caught.

At this point and this point alone... They are "Looking" for a Missing person... or they should be looking for a "Missing" person... Personally I believe differently... But we'll carry on...
Why are they at this point associating.... Joanna Yeates "Missing" with the death of Melanie Hall??

Stratford said he was not aware of any contact between the teams investigating the two cases.

Openly telling everyone that the cases are NOT being Investigated by the same two teams.... So why do we themn have this ???

However, Detective Chief Inspector Gareth Bevan, who yesterday appealed for information about the Tesco pizza, is part of the Melanie Hall investigation team and has spoken publicly about that inquiry.

Gareth Bevan is involved and is apart of "The Melanie Hall Investigation team".... He really has "NO" business posing with a "Pizza"... For what purpose??

What most people would not be following, especially with DCI Gareth Bevan.. is the constant media reports about "The Melanie Hall case he is working on... And these media reports lead right up to the disappearance of Joanna Yeates ...

A list of Dates Gareth Bevan appeared in Print regards Melanie Hall

* 1st August 2010 .. they arrest a "Bath" man in relation to this case ..

* 31st August....Man held..... same again this is the man from "Wiltshire"

* 1st September 2010... Again they arrest a "Bath" man in relation to the "Melanie Hall case "

* 26th November 2010.... It says these two men are released without charge.. Now I' not sure they had held them
   since September

* 24th December... Melanie Hall is mentioned "Featuring" Gareth Bevan in relation to Joanna Yeates..

Even within The Melanie Hall reports I can see that they are using "Nested Loops"... But I don't need to go into that...

It appears to be the "Standard Media Reporting Structure"... (IMO).. When it's in relation to what appears to be "A Serial Killer" and The Corporate Crimes I believe they are looking at.. The stories not only have contraditions within them.. I believe that they are indeed messages to the people they want to know that the "Investigations are still Active "..

But what about Joanna Yeates... ?  (IMO).. I believe they suddenly had money, extra manpower and "A Media" willing to report daily on every aspect of this poor unfortunate girl's disappearance...

And used this poor families misfortune to keep in the media that these "Cold Cases".. were ongoing and active ...(IMO).. I believe every story released about "Joanna Yeates" hinted to someone that they were still indeed watching them.. An took every opportunity to remind them...

What appears to be an Innocent report in a newspaper... has been carefully crafted as to tell their three stories within the print... Which... us as the public have read and taken no notice whatsoever of these stories, because we skim.... We read the most relevant information and when we believe that it is an "ERROR" on the "newspapers" part for what appears to be an inaccuracy we cast it from our minds ....But... It is indeed a deliberate purposeful act.. The Error isn't there for you or me... It's there for someone else to see and read.. Someone/somebody whom they obviously cannot pin anything on just yet... To keep them informed that they are not going away anytime soon...(IMO)

Back to poor Joanna Yeates and her Family... I believe that the family were also used in this media trickery... Remember that the statements they read out are "Prepared" for them by the police... So they may unknowingly be divulging information to "Somebody Out There"... (IMO)...

This is why I believe "The Review" due around the 24th January 2011... could not take place... I believe that if another "Police Force" from another area had come in to take over... they would see with their own eyes, just how much "Man Power" and resources were actually used on 'The Joanna Yeates Inquiry" and how much resources were used for Investigating other Complexed Crimes....(IMO)...

And there you have "The Dutchman"... "Placid" "Polite" and very easily to deal with... A Dutchman who had No concept of what was actually taking place in our country... And I can say that with confidence.... Because we didn't either'... (IMO).. And if it's taken this long for someone to even suggest that "Nested loops" were used and 3 investigations were taking place at the same time... How was "The Placid Dutchman" every going to work that out??... (IMO)..

I posted about Ann Redrrop and what I believe was her abuse of power... In this case... And if fundamentally she was protecting herself... and those around her by not only allowing, but actively helping to obtain a statement from 'The Dutchman in Holland with her International connections.... (IMO)... then you really need to question her motives....

How does they saying go..... When In A hole Stop Digging..... But Ann went to the "PLANT HIRE" company and got herself a JCB... and was neck deep in all of this case...which she shouldn't have been (IMO).. was so deep into this case ... she needed to follow it through to the bitter end... Hence her starring Role outside "Bristol Crown Court".... for what essentially...(without being disrespectful)... was a common or garden murder...

And one last thing that bother me about the day they found Joanna Yeates ..... Was in the couple of days leading up to her discovery... Many papers had the expression..."Bring Jo Home For Christmas".... When I have re-read these phrases I look at them in a different light now... I think the Police already knew she was dead...(IMO)... because it cannot just be a coincidence that Joanna Yeates Body turns up on Christmas Morning for all the world to see....

These "Nested Loops" I believe need careful scrutiny..... Because I am sure I can show how they were even used in "The Trial Of Dr Vincent Tabak"....




https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/24/ukcrime

http://www.sparkol.com/engage/8-classic-storytelling-techniques-for-engaging-presentations/

[[...]]

I saw this on Twitter ages ago....  And the link doesn't work now... But the subject matter will raise a few eyebrows ....

F e a r T u b e‏
@TubeFear

 Follow
 More
Vincent Tabak ~ Crime Documentary - http://feartube.com/vincent-tabak-crime-documentary/ … #SecretServiceDocumentary

4:45 PM - 13 Sep 2016
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes

[[...]]

iiii

[[...]]

What is the significance of telling us that Joanna Yeates was found "Fully Clothed"?

"Fully Clothed" is used all the time... and I really do not understand why they need to enforce this image.. Normally when a body has been found.. They don't mention fully clothed ... so why in this case ??

I found an explanation here of what fully clothed can also mean...

Now here’s a concept to conjure with: to go about in public fully clothed as far as your outer clothing is concerned, but without any underpants.

And i remember the report saying that Greg found some knickers on the table in the hallway...

Is this what they have been trying to tell us all along?

Mr Birch handed Roxy's lead to his wife before turning back to inspect the body. In his statement, Mr Birch remembered the top of Miss Yeates's white knickers and part of her bare back being exposed through the snow.

Mr Birch see's more and more of Joanna Yeates as he goes along... thought all he originally saw was a bit of jeans pocket peeking out....

He added: “Although the body was almost covered in snow there was a small section with not covered. I could see what appeared to be a rear jeans pocket.
“Although also riding up above this the top edge of what appeared to be white coloured knickers and that made me think it was a female.”

The court drawing shows her Jeans very high up... as if they are jeggings... not Jeans as we know them... How would Daniel Birch see so much... especially as she was supposed to be covered in snow??

Daniel Birch.. did not appear in court... With all that information he should have...

The thing about Daniel Birch saying he saw Joanna Yeates white Knickers .. I find not likely to be honest...Most young woman tend to wear very small low slung knickers.... And With her Jeans being wasit high as depicted in the court drawing... Her knickers would have had to be extremely big to have been visible...

Anyone can say anything in a statement... doesn't make it correct...

“Although also riding up above this the top edge of what appeared to be white coloured knickers and that made me think it was a female.”

The only way this is even likely is if someone had actually pulled her knickers up so they could be seen... I don't see this as possible... knickers don't tend to ride up like that...  He doesn't actally say that
He saw her knickers.. it could have been anything... seeing as she was covered in snow and he wasn't inspecting her body....


So I believe the "White" knickers description... which was not confirmed ... was mentioned purely to cover the fact that they had been saying all along That Joanna Yeates was "Fully Clothed"... which for all intense and purposes meant that she did not have any knickers on...(IMO)


I still believe she was over the wall... And I think it's a possibility that when they kept saying she was "Fully Clothed".. they meant she wore "No" Knickers...(IMO)...




https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/14/joanna-yeates-body-dog-walker

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/couple-opened-xmas-presents-then-found-joanna-dead-by-path-6453464.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/language/uptodate/2010/11/101109_kyeutdf_go_commando_page.shtml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8826662/Joanna-Yeates-trial-snow-covered-body-found-by-dog-walker.html

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/21/article-2051786-0E7973F600000578-245_634x437.jpg

[Leonora]

What is the significance of telling us that Joanna Yeates was found "Fully Clothed"?

"Fully Clothed" is used all the time... and I really do not understand why they need to enforce this image.. Normally when a body has been found.. They don't mention fully clothed ... so why in this case ??

I found an explanation here of what fully clothed can also mean...

And i remember the report saying that Greg found some knickers on the table in the hallway...

Is this what they have been trying to tell us all along?

Mr Birch see's more and more of Joanna Yeates as he goes along... thought all he originally saw was a bit of jeans pocket peeking out....

The court drawing shows her Jeans very high up... as if they are jeggings... not Jeans as we know them... How would Daniel Birch see so much... especially as she was supposed to be covered in snow??

Daniel Birch.. did not appear in court... With all that information he should have...

The thing about Daniel Birch saying he saw Joanna Yeates white Knickers .. I find not likely to be honest...Most young woman tend to wear very small low slung knickers.... And With her Jeans being wasit high as depicted in the court drawing... Her knickers would have had to be extremely big to have been visible...

Anyone can say anything in a statement... doesn't make it correct...

The only way this is even likely is if someone had actually pulled her knickers up so they could be seen... I don't see this as possible... knickers don't tend to ride up like that...  He doesn't actally say that
He saw her knickers.. it could have been anything... seeing as she was covered in snow and he wasn't inspecting her body....


So I believe the "White" knickers description... which was not confirmed ... was mentioned purely to cover the fact that they had been saying all along That Joanna Yeates was "Fully Clothed"... which for all intense and purposes meant that she did not have any knickers on...(IMO)

I still believe she was over the wall... And I think it's a possibility that when they kept saying she was "Fully Clothed".. they meant she wore "No" Knickers...(IMO)...

This is important. The Home Office pathologist Dr Russell Delaney told the court, "Her knickers had not been disturbed". Does this mean that someone from the team at Longwood Lane dressed her body before she was seen by Dr Delaney and photographed for the court? Or has Dr Delaney avoided perjuring himself while at the same time reinforcing the jury's belief put into their heads by Mr Birch that she was wearing knickers when she was found?

Shades of Peter Brotherton's assertion at the same trial: "It was not a religious confession".

[mrswah]

This is important. The Home Office pathologist Dr Russell Delaney told the court, "Her knickers had not been disturbed". Does this mean that someone from the team at Longwood Lane dressed her body before she was seen by Dr Delaney and photographed for the court? Or has Dr Delaney avoided perjuring himself while at the same time reinforcing the jury's belief put into their heads by Mr Birch that she was wearing knickers when she was found?

Shades of Peter Brotherton's assertion at the same trial: "It was not a religious confession".

I am obviously being a bit thick here, but why would the police want the jury and public to think that Jo was wearing knickers when she may not have been? 

I wonder whether the police ever examined the knickers found in the hallway-----were these clean knickers, or not? Now, that would matter, wouldn't it?? 

[[...]]

Because it would lend to her change of clothing.. Greg was not questioned about her under garments and if they were the as what she had wore that day.. maybe the underwear in the hallway were significant..

[Leonora]

Because it would lend to her change of clothing.. Greg was not questioned about her under garments and if they were the as what she had wore that day.. maybe the underwear in the hallway were significant..

When anyone changes their clothes, they normally either keep the same underwear on, or put clean underwear on. If Joanna were wearing no knickers under her jeans, then this suggests several possible scenarios that the police didn't want us to speculate about.

(1) She may have been deliberately re-clothed after her death, to mislead the police or frame someone else.

(2) She may have dressed in great haste in order to flee. This could explain the briefs found by Greg in the hallway.

(3) She may deliberately have omitted to wear knickers under her jeans.

None of these would have been consistent with Vincent Tabak's enhanced statement, whose scenario neither the jury nor any of us believes.

[mrswah]

When anyone changes their clothes, they normally either keep the same underwear on, or put clean underwear on. If Joanna were wearing no knickers under her jeans, then this suggests several possible scenarios that the police didn't want us to speculate about.

(1) She may have been deliberately re-clothed after her death, to mislead the police or frame someone else.

(2) She may have dressed in great haste in order to flee. This could explain the briefs found by Greg in the hallway.

(3) She may deliberately have omitted to wear knickers under her jeans.


Both the first two scenarios are plausible: the third?  Well, some young ladies do choose not to wear knickers, so I'm told, but probably not on such a cold day!

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Greg couldn't remember what underwear she was wearing, to be honest . However, the knickers found in the hallway would be very significant if they were the ones she had been wearing that day.

Who first talked of knickers in the hallway?  Greg?  Jo's parents?  Or the police?

None of these would have been consistent with Vincent Tabak's enhanced statement, whose scenario neither the jury nor any of us believes.

[[...]]

The all Important statement of CJ's that we never have seen or heard much about.... Again "The Leveson Inquiry, just keeps on giving....

Mr Colin Port
Well, we did not give Mr Jefferies' identity to anyone. He did say that he saw three people on two occasions that I recall. In his evidence to this Inquiry, he said that -- and I think I quote accurately -- he told no more than three people about his sightings. That's incorrect, and I completely understand why Mr Jefferies can't recollect that, but I've counted eight people, including some people who were paid by the media for information, and I've also seen evidence that he told people that they should also tell members of the Neighbourhood Watch. So his recollection is flawed, unfortunately.

So here "Colin Port" clearly admits to CJ seeing: 3 People..... It doesn't confirm where ...
 But CJ.. saw 3 people.... Also what where the "2 Occasions" that CJ repeated that he had seen 3 People"???

Who are the 8 people that Colin Port is refering too????


The second witness statement is also a short statement ..... Does CJ identify any of the "3 People "???

I've also seen evidence that he told people that they should also tell members of the Neighbourhood Watch. So his recollection is flawed, unfortunately.

I believe this to be in CJ's second witness statement... for "Colin Port " to have seen "evidence " of this information...(IMO)... Unless it is a statement from another witness he is refering too??

What is this evidence "Colin Port" is refering too????

So Colin Port... Is happy to state that CJ's evidence is "FLAWED"... because he says his recollection is inaccurate due to "The Evidence" he has seen...

For Colin Port to be 100% sure that CJ's account is "FLAWED"... That information has to be in CJ's  2nd witness statement...

Otherwise... if it was in anybody elses statement... he should have been questioning how they "Knew" that there were 3 people .... And confirmed with CJ... if he did indeed tell them this information !!! Or was it the person who made a statement one of the 3 people  who CJ saw ???.... "The possibilities" are endless.... (IMO).....


http://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-27-march-2012/mr-colin-port

[[...]]

I wasn't sure where to put this ... And as I have been talking about the Leveson..Inquiry... I thought I would put it here :

26/10/2011

Joint CPS and MPS submission to the Leveson Inquiry

The Leveson Inquiry has today made public a joint submission it received from the Crown Prosecution Service and Metropolitan Police Service. Please see the Inquiry website for the submission.

A CPS spokesperson said:

“A joint submission from the Crown Prosecution Service and Metropolitan Police Service was submitted to the Leveson Inquiry this morning (Wednesday 26 October). This clearly sets out how we intend to assist the Inquiry to balance its aspiration that Part 1 should be thorough, without inadvertently making it difficult for a criminal trial to take place. The CPS, MPS and the Inquiry are all working together to achieve this common goal and the CPS will do all it can to assist the Inquiry as it progresses.”

I'm trying to locate "The CPS's" response to The Leveson Inquiry"... but haven't as yet... be extremely interesting to read as it was submitted on The 26th October 2011.... before the end of Dr Vincent Tabak's trial ...!!!

EDIT......  Found the report... doesn't say a great deal...

 http://hackinginquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/MPS-and-CPS-Leveson-Submission.pdf


http://blog.cps.gov.uk/2011/10/

[mrswah]

Some of the neighbours did come forward to say that CJ had told them about seeing and hearing people on his front path. Apparently, he then told those neighbours not to repeat what he had said!

Whether or not VT and TM were included in those neighbours, we do not know.

[[...]]

I remeber ages ago almost laughing at a Mrs Nosey whom had asked Avon and Somerset Police for The witness statements of Dr Vincent Tabak .....

Factors favouring non disclosure

As this information was obtained as part of an investigation for the
purpose of ascertaining whether he should be charged with an offence and
whether he was guilty of that charge, section 30 is engaged.  Should Mr
Tabak ever appeal his conviction, release of his statement may prejudice
any appeal. This exemption is valid for (currently) 29 years which
restarts every time the case is annotated or reopened.

But I'm confused... tryng to find out about exemptions .. I thought it was "Historical"

Historical investigation records

A historical record is one over 30 years old (from the last addition to the record) and it cannot be exempt under FOIA section 30(1). The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 is reducing this time period to 20 years using a phased approach. Over 10 years from the end of 2013, the time limit is 29 years reducing one year every year, until it reaches 20 years at the end of 2022.

Well here's what they say about section 30...

Section 30 is a qualified and class based exemption which means that there
is no requirement to identify and evidence the harm that would be caused
by disclosure, however there is a requirement to consider the public
interest.

So basically how could any "Harm" be caused if It was disclosed... The only harm I can see is The harm to The Police themselves... And of course the Yeates Family...

This exemption is valid for (currently) 29 years which
restarts every time the case is annotated or reopened.

WOW I say to that !!!!! That reminds me of Dr David Kelly and his files being sealed for Years....

Basically... The truth lies within those statements they won't disclose ....(IMO)

Please note:

1.     Requests and responses may be published on Avon and Somerset
Constabulary’s website (within 24 hours), some of which may contain a link
to additional information, which may provide you with further
clarification.

The reason I ended up back at Mrs Nosey request was I had gone to Avon and somerset request Page about Joanna Yeates and it wasn't there ....

https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/search/

https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/about-us/freedom-of-information/previous-foi-requests/joanna-yeates/


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/30

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/vincent_tabak_statements