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

[[...]]

I'm going to start with this link... And hopefully you will read not only that post... But The 6 part post on the same page to understand what I am about to write... 

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg415309#msg415309

The searches

Those pathetic searches as I see them... The searches "I" do NOT believe belong to Dr Vincent Tabak.....

The searches I am going to look at again.... The 1300 page Document that the Jury were given a copy of had all of The timelines of the 4 occupants of Flats 1 and 2 of 44 Canygne Road... These timeline included phone calls.. mobile/landline... emails... shopping... And of course.. The supposed Internet searches of Dr Vincent Tabak...  There were 566 timelines in total.. covering all these aspects...

I have to start with my favourite search... It is one of the earliest searches that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently does....

At Line 118 of the prosecution chart
Tabak accessed the Internet and performed some Google searches
On 18 Dec 2010, Tabak searched at
1.26 am- ‘BBC news’ and ‘weather forecast’
1.46 am- ‘weather forecast’
1.47 am- ‘BBC Bristol news’

For those who haven't read this topic and all the threads within it .. which are many.. I will explain...

This search looks Innocuous enough and to many it is... But to me it isn't... It is The search.. That casts doubt on all the supposed searches of Dr Vincent Tabak... And this search is just one of the reason I do not believe that the searches belong to Dr Vincent Tabak.....

Defence Counsel: You were on the Internet later. Why did you do that? Constant contact
with Tanja by phone. At I.38 am, 18 December, you were leaving again in the hatchback.
Is this to collect Tanja from the Coach?
Tabak: Yes.

As you can see... Dr Vincent Tabak was leaving to collect Tanja... Now Dr Vincent Tabak has to be on CCTV for The Defence to be able to support him leaving to collect Tanja... And the only footage I know of Dr Vincent Tabak is the image of him driving on Park Street on the 18th December 2010... which is were I believe Dr Vincent Tabak takes a wrong turn...

Now if Dr Vincent Tabak is on Park Street or seen leaving at 1:38am on Saturday 18th December 2010.. Then it doesn't take a member of mensa to deduce that he could not have possibly made two searches on his laptop at 1:46am and 1:47am on the 18th December 2010..

And really that is the CRUX... according to 'The Prosecution" everything was in order by May 2011.. So the 1300 page document must have been ready by May 2011...

They were NOT worried about what story Dr Vincent Tabak would say.... He has apparently 'ALREADY" admitted to "Manslaughter"... And the searches are really Innocuous anyway... They are more to do with how The Prosecution presents The Searches at trial... Rather than if they really belonged to Dr Vincent Tabak ...(IMO)...

I keep saying... Put any name to the list of searches that Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have done and they would fit 1000's of people... 1000's of people who had followed this case from start to finish.... It is NOT the content of the Searches that really is of IMPORTANCE to this case But the way in which "The Prosecution" used them...

And I will say "STUPIDLY"!!!!! Yes it was stupid... they thought that they had Dr Vincent Tabak banged to rights in the way that they treated him... But their own arrogance has been their downfall... (IMO)...

Because that one particular search is "INNOCUOUS" and has No real value to "The Prosecution" It is just a "BUILD UP" of what is to come... I believe they though that it would just pass people by... Or never really considered the "IMPACT" that this search could have ...

And this Search "SHOULD HAVE AN IMPACT.".. (IMO)...  Because quite simply.. Dr Vincent Tabak could not have made such searches on his laptop if he is seen leaving his house at 1:38am on Saturday 18th December 2010 and the two searches are at 1:46am and 1:47 am on 18th December 2010... Which makes it an IMPOSSIBILITY for him to do..... That is unless he borrowed DCI Phil Jones Tardis!!!

Come on people... put it into perspective... He didn't make the searches.... (IMO).. Ok... I'll ask you a question... If you look at the seaches and I'll put a link to Sally Ramages paper... start at page 38... And this is especially for people who followed this case... But anyone can try it.... Instead of Dr Vincent Tabak's name before the search... put your own name before the search .. and see how they could easily apply to you or anyone else...

There may be a couple of searches that wouldn't apply to you like 'Longwood lane"... unless you were attending a party around that area.... Or salt supplies in The Netherlands,.... which wouldn't have helped Dr Vincent Tabak either.. But imply what you want them to imply when married with "A Guilty Plea".. 

I have said this for a long time 'I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THOSE WERE THE SEARCHES OF DR VINCENT TABAK... THE PLACID DUTCHMAN!!! (IMO)...

http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf

[[...]]

Continuing from my above post....

The searches....

I did do a post along time ago saying apply the searches to CJ.... Because although I do not believe CJ... did the searches they basically fit him better....

And if they were working at building a case against CJ right up until March 2011... They must have had some material that they believed connected him to this case.... Personally I believe these searches are a work of 'FICTION"..... (IMO)...  They do look plausible... but when you look at them closely they do not "Fit" Dr Vincent Tabak...

One of the main reason apart from the post above... Is the lack of detail....Not forgetting ... "The Lack of Dutch"!!! The lack of detail that should be there for "A Cunning and manipulative Person who followed this case to keep one step ahead of The Police ....."According to Ann Reddrop.."


Well Ann ...Tell me... why doesn't Dr Vincent tabak do a search on.....

(A): CJ's Arrest??

(B): Any Newspaper report on the Interview he had in Holland??

(C): The Blue Door being removed

(D): Clifton Suspension Bridge??

(E): Asda Supermarket

(F): Traffic CCTV Camera's

(G): 4x4 car

(H): Forensic Officers at Canygne Road

(I): CJ's reported previous behaviour

(J): Greg leaving for Sheffield

(K): Peter Stanley... his neighbour

(L): Neighbours reported hearing a car engine running

(M): Joanna Yeates Parents.... (seeing as  he talked to them on the Monday morning according to mrs Yeates
       Interview)

(N): Dutch Law on Extradition... Instead of "Extradition of  Dutchman"

(O): Police release CJ on Bail

(P):  MP calls for males to be DNA tested.. (which I'll come back too)...

(Q): Yeates Family give appeal

(R): Crime Watch reconstruction

(S): "Crime Watch to be Aired"

(T): Police to test work colleges

(U): CCTV of him taking photo's

(V): Media snap photo's of neighbours

(W): Police are getting closer

(X): Police Practices

(Y): Mitigating Circumstances

(Z): Do these searches belong to me.... NO!!!

Because Ann... I do not believe that these searches are indeed Dr Vincent Tabak's ... How could they be.... The laptops were never independently tested... We had "Lyndsey Farmery .. Power Point Pointer Expert).. (IMO)... Doing what she did best and "pointed" to a screen with the searches were shown to the Jury... No explanation given on how she recovered The Searches from Dr Vincent Tabak's laptop... No proof that anything that apparently was found on his work laptops.. had not been accessed by any work colleague.... No.....

... The perfect Pointer Of Power Point... Pointing away at Points In Searches....

Maybe I should have taken that NVQ in Power Point Pointing... think it was on the shelf next to 'The Law On Manslaughter" NVQ....

[[...]]

Question..... If you take away The Searches from Dr Vincent Tabak's trial.... What have you got left????

Think about it for a moment.....

[mrswah]

Question..... If you take away The Searches from Dr Vincent Tabak's trial.... What have you got left????

Think about it for a moment.....

Unfortunately, a guilty plea----which most of the world believes in.

Enhanced DNA------which most of the world believes in.

VT is on the sex offenders' register-------and most of the world will believe in that too.

If he IS innocent, and HAS been stitched up, a very thorough job has been done.

[[...]]

Unfortunately, a guilty plea----which most of the world believes in.

Enhanced DNA------which most of the world believes in.

VT is on the sex offenders' register-------and most of the world will believe in that too.

If he IS innocent, and HAS been stitched up, a very thorough job has been done.

Firstly mrswah.... The "Sex Register" didn't come until after the trial... and as we known it wasn't straight after .... It was years after!!!

I believe he is Innocent mrswah as you know

Yes I believe he has been stitched up... And they thought that they did a very good job.... But I am here to prove that they didn't... And so far... we have more questions than most of us may have had to start with.... Look at 'The One Hundred Questions" thread.... There are over 1000 questions on it so far... and who knows where it may lead too....

[[...]]

Did you think about it????/

Well they have nothing as far as I can see.... A Big Fat NOTHING

You have nothing to suggest that:

(A) Dr Vincent Tabak was following this case

(B): You have nothing to Imply he was Checking Long Wood Lane before Joanna Yeates was Found

(C): You have Nothing to IMPLY that Dr Vincent Tabak was looking at 'Body Decomposition"... Body Decomposition
       for  "A FROZEN BODY THAT IS NOT GOING TO DECOMPOSE".....

(D): You Have nothing to Imply he was trying to stay One step ahead of the Police investigation

(E): You have Nothing to Imply that Dr Vincent Tabak need Salt for something

(F): You Have nothing to IMPLY that Dr Vincent Tabak was checking out about rubbish

(G): You have nothing to IMPLY that Dr Vincent Tabak was checking on Forensics

(I): You have nothing to IMPLY that Dr Vincent Tabak was checking out Law on Manslaughter

(J): You Have Nothing to IMPLY That Dr Vincent Tabak was checking 'Extradition"

(K): You have nothing to Imply that Dr Vincent Tabak has an obsession with 'Murder Cases"..

(L): You Hvae Nothing to Imply Dr Vincent Tabak was checking for "Trace Evidence"

(M): You have nothing to Imply Dr Vincent Tabak was checking for "Murder In English Law"

(N): You Have nothing to Imply that Dr Vincent Tabak was checking for ‘what takes place from hour to hour after
       death’

(O):  You have nothing to Imply that Dr Vincent Tabak was checking for what happens to human body after death

(P): You have nothing to Imply that Dr Vincent Tabak "Checked the weather on A DAY AND TIME he wasn't even at
       HOME!!!

(Q):  You would have nothing to Imply that Dr Vincent Tabak was checking for ‘Murder of Melanie Hall’

(R): You would have Nothing to Imply that Dr Vincent Tabak was checking for ‘Avon and Somerset police home
       page’

(S): You would have nothing to Imply that Dr Vincent Tabak was checking for ‘Missing persons’.

(T): You would have nothing to Imply that Dr Vincent Tabak was checking for previous offenders’

(U): You would have nothing to Imply that Dr Vincent Tabak was checking for ‘Crown Prosecution Service’

(W): You would have nothing to Imply that Dr Vincent Tabak was checking for ‘manslaughter in English law murder
        in English law’

(X): You would have nothing to Imply that Dr Vincent Tabak was checking for ‘% of grey cars in UK’

(Y): you would have nothing to Imply that Dr Vincent Tabak was checking for  ‘Renault Megan cars in UK’

(Z): You would have nothing to Imply that DR VINCENT TABAK was checking for "ANYTHING"!!!!!

You see... without the searches The Prosecution really have "NOTHING"...

And again... Without "The Manslaughter Plea"....There is NO CASE!!! (IMO)...

So I will ask you Again Ann Reddrop.... "What Type of "Manslaughter Plea" did Dr Vincent Tabak enter Into???

(1): "Voluntary Manslaughter" Where you need to show Intent... where you may have difficulty in explaining to the Jury "Oblique Intent" or Direct Intent.... Unless they took my advice and did that NVQ on "Manslaughter Law" before they  were sworn in....

Or

(2): "Involuntary Manslaughter" with diminished Responsibilities requiring Two Medical Professionals I believe to give Dr Vincent Tabak a "Medical Evaluation"

So Ann... which one is it.... (1) Or (2) ????

Or was it Pot Luck Manslaughter Where the Defendant is left wide open without a Cat in Hell's chance of getting out of "A Murder" charge you will put against the Defendant in October 2011 backed up by these "Fictional searches" (IMO)..!!!

Go on Ann... It's a simple question... I really need to understand....

So really for "The Prosecution"... These Searches are 'Paramount"... They are "Paramount" to convicting Dr Vincent Tabak on "A Murder Charge"... The only option "The Jury were given....

Let's face it... What on Earth would "Judge Field" have done if ...."The Jury" found Dr Vincent Tabak... "Not Guilty Of Murder".... Now that's something else I need to post about.....

[[...]]

After my above post and last sentence I thought:....

OMG... What would have happened if "The Jury" had found Dr Vincent Tabak.. "Not Guilty of Murder"

It is more than an OMG moment....  But is it a Eureka Moment ???

It could be ... quite honestly it could be ..... 

We do not know "What type' of Manslaughter Plea".. Dr Vincent Tabak entered into... which come under as far as I know...

"Voluntary Manslaughter

Or

Involuntary Manslaughter.....

So... which Manslaughter Plea did Dr Vincent Tabak enter into????   He really needed to enter into one of the two Manslaughter Pleas....

And that is the exact point.... 

If the jury had found Dr Vincent Tabak "Not Guilty" of "Murder" where would that have left "The Judge"????

Where In Law would that have left this trial ???.. No-one has questioned the possibility... That Dr Vincent Tabak may have been found "NOT GUILTY OF MURDER"....

But I am questioning it "NOW"!!!!

So we will go with the Jury came back with "A NOT GUILTY VERDICT".... Now what... what does Judge Field do Now???

The Type of Manslaughter Plea was not entered.... As far as I can tell... "No Medical Professional gave any statements to The Defence on Dr Vincent Tabak's Psychological fitness.... Even though we were told he was on 'Suicide Watch..

You have to conclude that this is true... or else this trial would have lasted a great deal longer than 4 weeks...
 or 40 days... Bringing into play the need to apply for "VHCC"..

Bringing with it... More people checking this case.... And once VHCC was applied for it continues... You can't just stop it!!! So many more people checking the evidence and Case in General....

You would have needed so many more witness's at trial.... You would have needed "statements from Dr Vincent Tabak's Family and Friends ..You would have needed a statement or an appearance from Tanja Morson Dr Vincent Tabak's girlfriend to confirm or deny any Mental Issues she was aware of that Dr Vincent Tabak exhibited.....

You would need Buro Happold Bosses Employee's to appear in person.. To confirm or deny Dr Vincent Tabak mental state they had noticed....

There are so many aspects that would have been needed if the JURY found Dr Vincent Tabak "NOT GUILTY"...

So where does that leave this Case ??? with even "MORE Questions.... And every day I surprise myself that I keep finding out NEW THINGS about this Case NEW THINGS That I would never have thought possible... And NEW THINGS I believe everyone should NOW Start to Question.....


How could The Prosecution.. Defence.. and I'll even throw the Judge into the POT... be so confident that 'The Jury " would find Dr Vincent Tabak Guilty Of Murder... That as far as I can work out they had no Contingency Plan (IMO)... For an alternate outcome.... And I say this with confidence.... Because the Jury should have had the "Option" to find Dr Vincent Tabak Guilt of "MANSLAUGHTER"....  But how could they when firstly it was not Offered...

And Secondly... There was "NO" Evidence Presented to show that "Manslaughter" was either 'Voluntary or Involuntary... Leaving me with only one possible conclusion....



Edit.... I bet if someone contacted The Tabak Family They never were Interviewed Or gave any statements to "The Defence" which would have supported  A Involuntary Manslaughter Plea.... In fact I would be surprised if The Defence even spoke to The Tabak Family.... (IMO)


And what about talking to Tanja Morson???

[[...]]

This needs to be "Appealed".. A Re-Trial to take place..... And Dr Vincent Tabak freed with immediate effect whilst this complete Travesty of a Case is Reviewed... And ALL THE EVIDENCE is thoroughly TESTED....  (IMO)....

[nina]

Nine you have been getting nearer and nearer to pointing the finger a Chris Jefferies, please don't.  A kind man that was always ready to help with advice and the like and one I knew, Chris I am sure had nothing to do with the murder of Joanna Yeates.

I'm going to ask you if you could PLEASE make your posts shorter, I see part 1 and my heart sinks. I just can't read all of these. They seem to be mostly repetition of what you posted about one thousand pages or so ago.

None of us have seen this 1300 page document with all of VT's timelines on it, though I must admit I would love to read a copy myself.

Sally R ..... I don't think that I believe in all she has written. As I said she had VT at the bottom of Constitution Hill with his bike and snow and ice around. There is no way anyone could walk up that hill let alone ride up it in those conditions. Besides that is well out of his way home.

Maybe the fact that it is opposite the Hope & Anchor where Greg and Joanna had their lunch together added a bit more `spice' to her 'blog'?

[nina]

This needs to be "Appealed".. A Re-Trial to take place..... And Dr Vincent Tabak freed with immediate effect whilst this complete Travesty of a Case is Reviewed... And ALL THE EVIDENCE is thoroughly TESTED....  (IMO)....

Well why don't you get in touch with the powers that be plus VT and get the ball rolling.

To be honest there is not much point in just saying this sort of thing on a forum, the people that matter wouldn't be wasting their spare time on a forum (IMO).

[[...]]

Nine you have been getting nearer and nearer to pointing the finger a Chris Jefferies, please don't.  A kind man that was always ready to help with advice and the like and one I knew, Chris I am sure had nothing to do with the murder of Joanna Yeates.

I'm going to ask you if you could PLEASE make your posts shorter, I see part 1 and my heart sinks. I just can't read all of these. They seem to be mostly repetition of what you posted about one thousand pages or so ago.

None of us have seen this 1300 page document with all of VT's timelines on it, though I must admit I would love to read a copy myself.

Sally R ..... I don't think that I believe in all she has written. As I said she had VT at the bottom of Constitution Hill with his bike and snow and ice around. There is no way anyone could walk up that hill let alone ride up it in those conditions. Besides that is well out of his way home.

Maybe the fact that it is opposite the Hope & Anchor where Greg and Joanna had their lunch together added a bit more `spice' to her 'blog'?

Nina... You misunderstand.... I have Never and would Never Point The finger at CJ.... I have used CJ as an example... And if you have followed my postings from the begining you would be aware that I in fact... Apologise To CJ for Using him as an example....

I really think that The searches Are a work of Fiction... Meaning (IMO)... The Police could and probably would ... Have used them in "The Prosecution" of CJ.. If CJ hadn't had people who knew that the Polices case was absolute Tosh... (IMO)...

So "NO" Nina.... I have NEVER or DO I EVER... mean that these searches have anything to do with CJ whatsoever....

I mean.. that these searches need to be Investigated... Tested... They need to be Examined by a qualified professional to determine whether or not the searches belonged to Anyone.... (IMO)...

[[...]]

Well why don't you get in touch with the powers that be plus VT and get the ball rolling.

To be honest there is not much point in just saying this sort of thing on a forum, the people that matter wouldn't be wasting their spare time on a forum (IMO).

well.. Nina.... As we already know.... No-one can locate Dr Vincent Tabak to even get This ball rolling

And maybe niavely... I hope that there are people that Matter looking at the typings of a Concerned Citizen... Which if they are... would not be wasting any of their time as I believe that I have cast...

Not only "Reasonable Doubt"... But "MASSIVE DOUBT"... On the safety of the conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak... The Placid Dutchman!!!!

[[...]]

Nine you have been getting nearer and nearer to pointing the finger a Chris Jefferies, please don't.  A kind man that was always ready to help with advice and the like and one I knew, Chris I am sure had nothing to do with the murder of Joanna Yeates.

I'm going to ask you if you could PLEASE make your posts shorter, I see part 1 and my heart sinks. I just can't read all of these. They seem to be mostly repetition of what you posted about one thousand pages or so ago.

None of us have seen this 1300 page document with all of VT's timelines on it, though I must admit I would love to read a copy myself.

Sally R ..... I don't think that I believe in all she has written. As I said she had VT at the bottom of Constitution Hill with his bike and snow and ice around. There is no way anyone could walk up that hill let alone ride up it in those conditions. Besides that is well out of his way home.

Maybe the fact that it is opposite the Hope & Anchor where Greg and Joanna had their lunch together added a bit more `spice' to her 'blog'?

Point me to the blog please Nina ....  Oh yes as well... I believe I need to post long posts... Because I need to support my arguments with 'Links" and Quotes from Individuals or Official Sources to prove where I have come up with my conclusions...

So In a way "sorry for the length of posts... But Not Sorry... Because if people who read these posts can see that I have researched and can back up what I am saying... Then I'm afraid i need to write "LONG POSTS"....

Sorry

[nina]

Have you had a read of the CPS (got it right this time!) Retrials of Serious Offences? That tells a lot of what is needed for this to happen. I gotta admit I haven't read it all.

[nina]

Well it wasn't exactly a blog, hence the `blog'? but I obviously didn't make myself clear. It was from a link you put up which I have saved as a pdf file. Sorry it wasn't actually a blog but I just didn't know what to call it.