DNA - how accurate?


Catherine Packwood
.
For those who are interested in this topic, and with the forensic evidence beginning tomorrow, here's a hypothetical case (taken from Brian H Kaye's book "Science and the Detective" to explain the probability of DNA samples.
Say a crime was committed in Oxford by an unidentified white male. The number of possible criminals could be Oxford's entire white male population of about 30,000 (Bud, take note!). This implies odds of 30,000 to one in favour of the defendant's innocence.
If the probability of a random DNA match with the suspect were one in a million (this is what the prosecution are saying about Tabak, I think), then the odds of the man's innocence would be 33 to one (that is, 30,000 multiplied by one in a million).
It is the ratio of 33:1 that the jury should consider, not the ratio of one in a million, according to Brian H Kaye.
Please, no questions, I am not a mathematician! But I thought this interesting statistically. What is the saying, "There are damn lies and there are statistics."


Like this post to subscribe to the topic.

Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
.
Something is wrong with that formula.
I'm not a mathematician either, prefer to put problems into stories, but I did this in Excel:
So if only one out of a million Lego blocks at Legoland is purple, if you scoop up 30 000 random Lego blocks and take them to Oxford, the probability of a purple Lego block in Oxford then reduces to 0.03%.
It stays one in a million.
1 000 000:1 can't transform into 33:1 simply by moving them to Oxford or Pluto.

Catherine Packwood
.
I think I know what you mean. Like when you toss a coin, it's always 50/50 heads or tails?
If that's the case, Admin, best to get rid of this thread - it's going nowhere. Can I do that or will you?

Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
.
Ah, let's give it a while to see if we have any statisticians onboard, Catherine :-)

Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
.
Sorry, my maths was shaky, just re-did my spreadsheet.
The probability of a one-in-a-million purple Lego piece is 0.0001%, whether it's out of 10 pieces on the toe of the Yeti, 30 000 pieces in Oxford, 100 000 pieces on the sleigh of Santa Claus or 10 million on Pluto.

Anne Isherwood
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onJBTjynuT0
Part one of a 2 part ITV docu

Catherine Packwood
.
Right, Admin, well that is the toss the coin scenario! Right, shall we abort?

Catherine Packwood
.
No we shan't abort, saved by Anne, who has posted an interesting video on the subject! Thanks Anne!

Sarah Ryan
.
Thanks Anne, thats a really interesting video and helped me understand the controvosy around DNA much better

Noel O'Gara
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbIdo6uJA5A
this is a better one
Delete

Paul Veenboer
.
News on 14-November 2011 from LGC:
" LGC Forensics provides key evidence in Jo Yeates investigation"
http://www.lgc.co.uk/news/14_nov-2011_-_jo_yeates.aspx

2
Minous Montgomery
.
Thanks for that link Paul!
This is rather interesting IMO:
'The crucial evidence was provided by the work to refine the DNA procedures in order to enhance the DNA samples – which were inhibited, possibly by the unusually high levels of salt at the location of the body, because of a recent snow fall.
Recent snowfall or maybe rock salt as well?

2
Paul Veenboer
.
Yes Minou that caught my eye too! I was wondering if anyone would find that relevant too.

2
Eva Gietl
.
@Minous and Paul:
If the samples came from her skin, the salt from her sweat might already be enough to inhibit the PCR.

Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
.
I've learned about low copy DNA from this page. My personal jury is still out, but it's interesting.


Carol Holmes
.
I think a complete stranger to Jo would have big trouble explaining away how his dna came to be on her breast and midriff.

Facebook User
.
I think that the whole DNA thing is accepted as being admissible evidence because it IS watertight. A bit like hawk-eye in tennis . The players do not question a line call once hawk-eye has shown it to out/in. They don't protest that hawk-eye must have got it wrong. This is because they know that the technology is sound. Same with DNA. I don't understand DNA technology that much but have every confidence in the technology being sound and the results correct.

Noel O'Gara
.
Chris Gregg, the man who sued me for libel retired from the police after that, to work for LGC. He was a master of low copy number dna and how it can be utilised to achieve a suspect's cooperation.
To those who didnt read it already here I was denied a jury by the judge in the high court in London and he refused to listen to my evidence that Gregg had fabricated the low copy number dna evidence to blackmail John Humble into cooperating with him and admitting to be the Ripper hoaxer. He fined me 50 thousand pounds and I was obstructed from putting in an appeal despite having to pay a lot of money for a transcript of that kangaroo hearing, signed by him.
He called it a summary judgment.
LGC were the magicians who matched the low copy number dna of Robert Napper, a man convicted of murder and serving life in Broadmoor, with dna on the body of Rachel Nickell who was murdered on Wimbledon Common in a very high profile case that resulted in another stitch up, that was rumbled by the judge, Harry Ognall, a man who had prosecuted Sutcliffe and who had also read my book about that stitch up.
Napper had no choice only to cooperate. He knew that he had no chance despite his denials.
When I read that LGC Forensics were assisting the A and S police in the Joanna Yeates murder case, that sent me the message that a stitch up was being hatched.
They can blow up dna to any size and eventually come up with the answer required.
Clegg never once opposed them or the dna alleged evidence.
Delete

Noel O'Gara
.
I agree Dyna, the whole trial was a bit of a farce because the accused was going down for murder no matter what way it turned.
I can only conclude that Clegg advised him to plead guilty to manslaughter because foolishly or perversly, he was unwilling to challenge the police evidence of dna and microscopic blood.
Bristol is a small town and Clegg has to deal with these people for his living, so is he going to rock the boat?
I agree with your last comment but again Clegg was the master of ceremonies and Tabak was just a lamb to the slaughter in that melting pot of differing interests. He had put his trust in Clegg and thats why he said what he said hoping that Clegg's advice would prevail and he would be convicted of manslaughter and out in five years.
He was traumatised and terrified and cooperated to the last with Clegg, but Clegg knew that the dice were loaded against him.
Delete

1
Jen Halo
.
Bristol is a city Noel, and not so small. For the record:-
from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol : Bristol i/'br?st?l/ is a city, unitary authority area and ceremonial county in South West England, with an estimated population of 433,100 for the unitary authority in 2009,[3] and a surrounding Larger Urban Zone (LUZ) with an estimated 1,070,000 residents in 2007.[4] It is England's sixth and the United Kingdom's eighth most populous city,[5] one of the group of English Core Cities and the most populous city in South West England.
As I live in this so called LUZ, and my address is Bristol, I'd prefer you to get the facts straight. Sorry to be pedantic.

Marie Cyprus
.
As we know, coming from the Chief of the investigation Mr. Jones, the dna evidence was not 'enough' to convict on - so it was damn lucky that VT confessed hey!

Sue Vendone
.
Marie
So that means the LL searches and fetish searches were not in the equation either?

Philip Hollingbery
.
Marie, according to DCI Jones speaking in the recent TV documentary, it was the discovery of microscopic traces of Joanna Yeates in the boot of the Renault that tipped the balance of evidence and enabled the police to charge VT with murder. Without that, they "may" have had to release him. As for VT's confession, I doubt if "luck" comes into it.
Sue, the LL searches and the fetish are two separate issues. The LL searches were submitted as evidence during the trial, but Dyna has suggested that VT was simply checking the route to a dinner date he and Tanja were to take part in the following night. The "fetish" issue was not brought out in the trial and (in my opinion) is a bomb under DCI Jones's credibility.
However, I would advise you two posters to stay away from the "Renault" thread for the time being, as that is where all the action in this forum is going on at the moment, and it is a very dangerous thread for anyone to be who doubts that Vincent Tabak is a "sadistic bastard" who deserves what he got ;-)

Noel O'Gara
.
Interesting Dyna that they are clearing up all the old high profile cases with that low copy number dna or dna that is highly suspect.
LGC Forensics are the magicians who are finding all this gold dust and they spin them with the billion to one lie that it must be him.
They solved the Ripper hoaxer case with the confessions of John Humble.
They solved the Lesley Molseed murder with that dna also thirty years old.
They solved the Rachel Nickell murder Wimbledon Common with it also.
They solved the Jo Yeates case with the suggestion that they had it.
Now they are using it on the Stephen Lawrence trial.
The proverbial needle in the haystack is a thing of the past, or so they would have you believe.
They dont talk very much about contamination or the possibility of blood specks flying in all directions and landing on an innocent bystander in this latter case.
Unfortunately dna is accorded far too much credibility in trials and should only be regarded together with other evidence that supports the allegations.
That billion to one lie is highly emotive.
Delete

Sue Vendone
.
Philip
What do you mean 'by dangerous', you've lost me here!

Philip Hollingbery
.
@Noel, What is the relationship between LGC Forensics and Forensic Science Service? Is it true that a lot of the latter's laboratories have been closed down recently by the Government? Do you know anything about disgruntled DNA analysts with a grudge against society?
@Sue V, A thread becomes dangerous when it is taken over a group of people who display a lynch mob mentality. The members of a lynch mob disregard the due processes of law in order to punish someone for a crime whom they think may have done it.

Eva Gietl
.
@Philip:
It's not a lynch mob mentality if people demand evidence from conspiracy theorists.
It's called "rational".




Philip Hollingbery
.
@Eva,
Calling anyone on this forum a "conspiracy theorist" is a form of trolling, because "conspiracy" is a derogatory term. Please don't. No one would call Ann Reddrop and DCI Phil Jones "conspiracy theorists" even though they did "conspire" together to agree on a theory about Vincent Tabak killing Joanne Yeates. My use of the expression "lynch mob mentality" correctly and objectively describes the way that some of the people who post on the thread I referred to express their thoughts.
@Dyna,
Thank you for those two helpful links you posted.

1
Eva Gietl
.
@Philip:
"Conspiracy" as such is not a derogatory term, it's a neutral description. But you are right, "conspiracy theorist" could be considered one.
Where's evidence that police and prosecution "conspired" to stitch up VT?

Philip Hollingbery
.
@Eva:
In my post to you above, I did not say anything about "stitching up". On the contrary, I used the police and prosecution just as an example of a legitimate process of agreement on a theory between different parties that people would NOT describe as a "conspiracy theory". People use the term "conspiracy theory" only when they want to discredit anyone who proposes or subscribes to speculation about what may have happened in cases where the facts are not fully in the public domain.

Eva Gietl
.
@Philip:
You need to get the terms straight, because apparently you confuse conspiracy with conspiracy theory.
Conspiracy:
"Types of conspiracies
Cabal, an association between religious, political, or tribal officials to further their own ends, usually by intrigue
Conspiracy (civil), an agreement between persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of their legal rights, or to gain an unfair advantage
Conspiracy (crime), an agreement between persons to break the law in the future, in some cases having committed an act to further that agreement
Conspiracy (political), the overthrow of a government"
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy
Conspiracy theory:
"A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public."
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

Noel O'Gara
.
Phiip, I only know that Chris Gregg the chief of the Homicide and Major Enquiry Team in West Yorkshire stitched up John Humble as the Ripper hoaxer with that low copy number dna. Humble was put in a trap and blackmailed into cooperating, had no trial and he should be out of jail now.
After Gregg took a libel action against me and won an award in a kangaroo court in London he retired and joined LGC Fornesics.
His wife is an anchor in Yorkshire TV.
That firm is a privatised company but nobody other than the IRA and a very rich person could afford to get experts to counter their sub microscopic evidence and thats why they are used to solve these high profile cases. The tabloids do the rest.
What chance did penniless Barry George or Ronald Castree have of contacting them from a prison cell?
The Humble stitch up destroyed any credibility I might have had in dna.
Delete

Philip Hollingbery
.
@Noel, Thanks for answering my question. I realize you need to be careful what you say. LGC Forensics are evidently not shy about their involvement in this controversial trial:
http://www.lgc.co.uk/news/14_nov-2011_-_jo_yeates.aspx
All publicity is good publicity!

Noel O'Gara
.
Their association with Gregg brought a new dimension to their expertise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWMXZZF2hj4
This firm was brought on board by A and S police in mid January when they had run out of leads and the case was so high profile, so the pressure was on and they had to get somebody. They would now delve into the unknown and come up with an answer.
Actually I remember reading that Jones said some days before the arrest that they were confident they would solve it.
Tabak was already in the cooking pot since his interview in Holland on 31st Dec.
Delete

Marie Cyprus
.
Philip, hi, I've noticed a few posts here and there, where you are correcting me on what was in that recent 'pseudo-documentary' , the Murder at Christmas... I can't really answer without viewing it again so I think it's best if I re-view it all from the beginning. I have to say that I don't recall DCI Jones saying in that docu. about the dna in the car pushing up their evidence against VT or whatever it was you mentioned earlier... I will check it again and try to reply.

Philip Hollingbery
.
@Marie, Hi again, am I glad to see you! Did I use the word "correcting"? I am sorry about that. I have certainly noted a whole lot of points in the TV programme that seemed to me very significant for different threads in the forum. I was particularly struck by CJ's excellent character reference for VT, and the importance to the police of the - in my opinion very dubious - dna in the car boot. (Presumably Ms Yeates and Ms Morson's cars would be parked in the same car park, so cross-contamination by the cat, birds etc. would be easy?)
While you've been away, the actual verbatim discussion in camera between the prosecution, the defense and the judge about the porn has emerged, and it is fascinating. It alters the whole picture. Evidently these guys actually inspected the porn themselves - they didn't just depend on the police's report. Remember that we had a long discussion on why VT didn't try to get rid of incriminating evidence on his hard disc? Well, at least as far as the porn is concerned, he probably never dreamt it would be regarded as incriminating. This was also the judge's conclusion about this porn! So the fact that he did not get rid of it probably does not imply that he was innocent after all. Isn't it complicated?

Eva Gietl
.
@Philip:
Can you please link to the verbatim discussion of the porn? Somehow I missed that.
Thank you!

Philip Hollingbery
.
Small World News Service, 28 Oct:
http://swns.com/vincent-tabak-murderer-watched-fetish-porn-before-killing-jo-yeates-281554.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Philip Hollingbery
.
The one person whose DNA had to be found on Ms Yeates's body is Greg Reardon's. Yet the forensic testimony made no mention of Greg's DNA in Court. The DNA forensic from the body was stated to point to Tabak. Why was this? There are only two possible explanations. Either Greg had not kissed her goodbye nor even touched his girlfriend for a long time. Or the low copy number DNA test of the body was a complete fake.

Debra Ann Clements
.
'Investigators found three 'partial' DNA samples on Joanna's body' Martin Brunt Sky News.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nijFaYmSnlI
( 0:55 seconds )


Sue Jeffries
.
Why would they mention Gregs dna? It goes without saying that a bf's dna would be on his gf for God sake. He was innocent so it didnt even need mentioning. Now tabaks dna, explain how that would get on a complete strangers boobs please????

Philip Hollingbery
.
Not mentioning Greg's DNA casts doubts on the legitimacy of the forensic. Nobody needs to explain how the nasty little molecules got on to what you so disrespectfully call her "boobs". Chemically speaking Tabak and Ms Yeates were not strangers at all. They shared the same address, car park, dustbins, and cat territory. The alleged DNA evidence just proved what was already known. It does not prove that Tabak drove her body to Longwood Lane and it does not prove that he killed her. It does not even suggest these things.
Tabak had no conceivable reason to kill his neighbour and the police presented no evidence that he did so. So the real question remaining is whether it was Greg who killed her or someone else unknown. I don't claim to be able to answer that.

Vicki Roust
.
@Philip Please get a grip!

Sue Jeffries
.
The real question remaining Philip is why you keep insisting tabak is innocent in the absense of real evidence.

Philip Hollingbery
.
@Vicki R
"Philip Please get a grip!"
My grip was never firmer.
@Sue J
"The real question remaining Philip is why you keep insisting tabak is innocent in the absense of real evidence."
Precisely. There was never any evidence of any kind that Tabak killed his neighbour, and he never had any reason to do so.

Sue Jeffries
.
I would say dna on a strangers breast is very firm evidence actually Philip

Vicki Roust
.
@Philip The real question for me is why did you see it fit to write on the "Just Giving" page using Bridgets name..donating a small amount and writing a horrible comment for Jos family and relatives to see? You did this all on Christmas Day aswell. You should be ashamed of yourself...so yes get a good grip of yourself!

Sue Jeffries
.
Philip was online on xmas day. I recall him commenting. Absolutely deplorable behaviour.

Philip Hollingbery
.
@Sue J
"I would say dna on a strangers breast is very firm evidence actually Philip"
Perhaps that is how DCI Jones talked the impressionable Anne Reddrop into a murder charge, but it is no evidence at all. There were about 7 molecules of that DNA that could have floated on to her bra after the cat jumped into her laundry basket. All the DNA proves is that there was a link between Tabak and Ms Yeates. If they lived 10 miles apart, it would be the basis for further inquiries. But as they shared the same address, the same car park, the same dustbins and the same cat territory, it added nothing new to anyone's knowledge. It was certainly not evidence for murder nor even the dumping of the body.

Sue Jeffries
.
Philip dna does not accidentally get onto a dead womans breast area. Tabak had no alibi that night, he admitted killing Jo and there was sufficient evidence top convict him. He is where he belongs.

Philip Hollingbery
.
@Sue J
"Philip dna does not accidentally get onto a dead womans breast area."
I didn't say it did. I imagine that the bra was placed deliberately in the laundry basket. I imagine that the cat intended to enter the laundry basket."
"Tabak had no alibi that night, he admitted killing Jo"
The admission was made under extreme duress. We know that for a fact. We also know that his defence solicitor did not act in his interest.
There was no evidence to convict Tabak. There was no evidence to show that he killed Jo Yeates.
"He is where he belongs"
Courtesy precludes my identifying the kind of place where you belong.

Sue Jeffries
.
Can I have a source for this claim he was under extreme duress? Not a link from noels sites which are his opinions, but perhaps a source from his family worried about him being under duress?
Lol thats the irony of you Philip. You sit there on that moral pedestral judging and insulting non offending good people while defending a monster. That just about sums up what sort of person you are.

Philip Hollingbery
.
@Sue J,
"Can I have a source for this claim he was under extreme duress?"
It will be my pleasure, but you have heard it before. When Tabak was deported to Long Lartin, he denied killing Jo Yeates, he had no motive for doing so, and the police had submitted no evidence that he had killed her. After the 3rd visit by the Salavation Army volunteer chaplain Brotherton the police had no further evidence to support the allegation that he had killed Jo Yeates, yet he suddenly comes out with the truly awesome admission that he killed her - and his solicitor apparently did not counsel silence. That tells you that Brotherton told him something extremely frightening that scared the shit out of him. You don't confess to a killing you know you haven't done without extreme coercion.
"You sit there on that moral pedestral judging and insulting non offending good people while defending a monster."
A newspaper like the Daily Mail is read by people who don't do much else than sit on moral pedestals judging others who may or may not be able to answer back. You have never read a single post by me in defence of a monster, and I have been very lenient with those who might not be as good as they should be -such as Joanna Yeates, for example, who lived in sin and didn't even trouble to call herself "Mrs Reardon". Why should she? Well, I am sure if it had been she who were charged with murder, then that particular accusation would be on every hypocritical person's lips - just as all the Brits who all watch porn themselves are unanimous about the depravity of a particular porn viewer who cannot answer back because he is stuck in a foul prison cell away from the girl he loves.

Sue Jeffries
.
Liveing in sin? Indeed so was tabak! He was unmarried and living with someone, of course in Philips little sexist bubble that is ok because tabak is a man and men can do whatever they please, even strangle a woman. You need not fear for Philip will be here defending you.
You belong in a cave Philip. Hopefully one near a a few bears.

Philip Hollingbery
.
@Sue J,
"in Philips little sexist bubble that is ok because tabak is a man and men can do whatever they please, even strangle a woman. You need not fear for Philip will be here defending you."
Please be careful what you post. That is not a threat from me - just a reminder about how you are likely to appear to others visiting this forum.


Noel O'Gara
.
Sue J, you keep promoting the lie that Tabak's dna was found on Jo's breast.
I really cant see how you are so arrogantly set in your views when you have so many things so wrong. There are some Birmingham police who still maintain that they got the real bombers that day. You belong to that mindset.
They will never admit they were wrong because that would be an admission that they committed the crime of stitching up innocent people. They would be arrested themselves.
I really think you are more than just a housewife with an open mind. You continually promote lies such as that Tabak's dna was on Jo's breast. You deny that his rights were abused and you really just want to see somebody convicted at all costs and you unashamedly support Greg the number one suspect.
There were suggestions of that dna in the media immediately after his arrest but they were not true. You need to correct your promotion of the lie.
The police admitted that it was not conclusive. That means it was not Tabak's dna to put it in clear English for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yprbt0SJEdY
Delete

Sue Jeffries
.
Noel I will correct my posts when they are wrong. You have a nerve telling me to correct things I get wrong when you make a career out of printing lies on the internet, both here and on your other ridiculous sites.

Sue Jeffries
.
'Privately, detectives believe Tabak can recall what happened in Yeates's flat perfectly. They think he calculated that there was no point in denying that he had killed her but gambled that the detectives would not be able to prove he meant to do so.'
Taken from the guardian and I wholly agree with their statement and think its despicable you will defend someone who has caused such misery to an innocent family. The worrying thing is that if we had had Philip, Noel, sue v and Lynda on the jury Tabak may well have got his wish.

Diane Shepherd
.
two excellent posts Sue.....
Thankfully minds such as theirs are not the majority......

Sue Jeffries
.
Yes and thank God too Diane!

Noel O'Gara
.
'privately the detectives believe' Thats great Sue V. and you believe their belief.
The fact that there is no evidence to prove it doesnt matter to you or them because they had embarked on a stitch up of Tabak and it was full steam ahead for them, and they played to the gallery who lapped it up.
The fact that they arrested him with the lie that they found his dna on her breast doesnt bother you either.
You do actually serve to show reasonable people what unreasonable and irrational persons will resort to in distortion and pure lies.
Delete

Sue Jeffries
.
Oh please Noel, take a look at your own faults before trying to lecture me on mine.

Diane Shepherd
.
hahaha noel - you type reams of complete crap...... his dna was found on Jo's body and in his car boot......You lie , twist and manipulate but it doesn't matter in the scheme of things because you are in the eyes of the law and all sane people, a criminal who is bitter and twisted. It's out there on the www for anyone to see.

Noel O'Gara
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yprbt0SJEdY
it was not conclusive ladies. period. To you cheerleaders of the bent cops brigade, it was rock solid proof.
Delete

Diane Shepherd
.
even louder laughing at how noel shows a youtube clip not in full on his account... you are scrapping the barrel noel..... its all out there showing that it was tabaks dna on Jo's body and in his car....
Its quite funny how a convicted criminal calls police officers bent....

Philip Hollingbery
.
"LGC Forensics, the UK's largest independent provider of forensic services, successfully used a range of advanced forensic techniques, including LGC’s proprietary DNA enhancement method, DNASenCE, to link Vincent Tabak to the 2010 murder of Joanna Yeates… Working closely with Avon & Somerset Police, LGC Forensics was instrumental in obtaining a DNA profile from evidence found at the crime scene and in linking this with a range of supporting forensic evidence, including from Tabak’s car." - From LGC's own website.
Note the phrase: "to link Vincent Tabak to the 2010 murder of Joanna Yeates". Nobody needed DNA evidence to reveal this link, as everyone knew beforehand that the murdered victim had lived next-door to Tabak, and had shared the same car-park, dustbins and cat territory. The DNA did nothing whatsoever to prove that he actually killed her - but say the magic hocus-pocus spell "D-N-A" to anyone, and you get the automatic reaction "So it must be him!"


Updated . by the author.

Sue Jeffries
.
philip is this was a stitch up why didnt the cops nick tabak first then??

Philip Hollingbery
.
@Sue J,
- Because he was in Holland at the time, so it was quicker to start with Christopher Jeffries. They were just working through the neighbours one by one until they found one whom they could frame. They would probably have preferred to start with Tabak as he lived on the ground floor.

Sue Jeffries
.
That makes no sense Philip because an officer visited tabak in holland and took his dna so they went over there anyway so quite easily could have arrested tabak and been done with it.

Philip Hollingbery
.
@Sue J,
There was no point in their arresting Tabak as long as they were still busy with Jeffries. Framing up innocent people is not an exact science, but it is shocking to realize that the secret police in Syria and other countries are rank amateurs compared to the police who so successfully framed up Vincent Tabak.


Sue Jeffries
.
There is no proof they have framed him Philip. We have been over this before. He admitted he killed her. His family have made no effort to deny this or suggest he is innocent.Neithet has his lawyer, and neither has Tabak.
It's time for you to stop going on about it. It's beyond tedious now. There is as much chance of Tabak being released as there is of you one day respecting women. I'e None!

Philip Hollingbery
.
LGC Forensics do not use the term "low copy number DNA" in their promotion of their contribution to this case on their website:
http://www.lgc.co.uk/news/14_nov-2011_-_jo_yeates.aspx
This is presumably because the expression "low copy number DNA" has fallen into disrepute. Instead, LGC Forensics refer to "DNA enhancement". The important point about the DNA in this case is that the samples of material available for analysis were so tiny that they got destroyed in the analysis process itself. This made it impossible for the defence to have an independent analysis performed by a different laboratory. This in turn precludes the submission of such analysis as evidence in a criminal case. The analysis might still serve to point to a previously unkonwn link, but in this case the link between the victim and the suspect was already known - they lived at the same address!

Dyna Victoria
.
The group analysed a number of items taken from Joanna’s flat and submitted by Police for analysis as well as further evidence from the area where Joanna’s body was found. The scientists used a combination of analytical tools including exacting DNA enhancement work and fibre analysis, and consideration was also given for recovery of hair, ecology and biological samples.
For all of that it surprises me that there wasnt more DNA evidence found other than that presented by the Prosecution...

Philip Hollingbery
.
@Dyna,
They probably found a lot of perfectly reliable evidence of Greg's and Joanna's DNA, but did not bother to present it in court, as it would not have added anything. On the other hand, the defence counsel DID do the right thing by calling Nat Cary to give evidence about the body that did not entirely agree with the prosecution's evidence. If Vincent Tabak had not "confessed", THEN there would have had to be a "proper" trial, and all that DNA enhancement work would have been rejected as evidence, because there would have been no material left over from the tiny samples for an independent analysis on behalf of the defence. So the confession was terribly, terribly important, not just for securing the verdict, but also for providing LGC Forensics with another phoney success for them to boast about.

Dyna Victoria
.
I have to agree that the last paragraph of your link re LGC.co seemed to be boastful..

Philip Hollingbery
.
@Sue G,
It looks as if I may not have to put much more effort into campaigning for justice for wrongly convicted people like Vincent Tabak:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/01/no-justice-for-cardiff-3
It looks as if some people in the UK are eventually beginning to see the police and the CPS in their true colours.
However, the material I have collected on my blog (with a good deal of help from certain people posting on this forum who know very well who they are!)
http://www.vincent-tabak-is-innocent.blogspot.com/
forms the basis for a lecture that I can give to people in Denmark who are so enthusiastic about everything English. They love all those wonderful English detectives such as Lewis, Barnaby No. 1, Barnaby No. 2, and the rest - so they are in for a shock when I tell them all about DCI Jones and his 80 cowboys.
Another thing about Denmark is that people here do not just talk hot air about equality of the sexes - they DO something about it. They are not frightened of sending a woman to prison for murder if it turns out to be a woman who did it - they don't go round trying to find an innocent man to stitch up to protect "the weaker sex". Unlike Englishwomen, there is nothing weak and feeble about the Danish women. One of them was convicted of murder only last month.

Sue Graham
.
Philip, l see you were born in the UK, how long did you live there before moving to Denmark?

Philip Hollingbery
.
@Sue G,
It's a change to read some valid points from you! It's not really any of your business, but on the other hand nor is it any secret that I settled in Denmark when I was the same age as Vincent Tabak is now.
One of the international sports that Danish women excel in is hand-ball. The national team is composed of big, strong, agile ladies - a pleasure for the eye, what is more - with big strong hands. I know that Vincent Tabak did not kill Joanna Yeates, and you are one of those who are sure her boyfriend did not do it. I think he probably did, but the most likely of the remaining suspects besides Greg has to be a woman who was jealous of her effervescence and beauty. Why should another man be jealous of her? I seem to be the only poster on this forum who thinks her killer might just possibly have been a woman.
As I have explained on my blog, Vincent Tabak's (phoney) confession on 22 September makes it impossible for anyone close to him except his old mother publicly to stand by his innocence. They would become pariahs. The absence of supporters is one of the things that makes this case particularly uncanny. There has never been a similar case that did not attract some people who believed in the convicted person's innocence - until this one - with all its phoney features.



Vicki Roust
.
You are wasting your time and energy Mike and Sue!

Philip Hollingbery
.
I can see that you have all forgotten the basic and indisputable FACTS of the case. She was not raped! That means that the boyfriend was the obvious suspect. He behaved like it, too - only for some reason the police did not notice.
The prosecution's case at the trial showed beyond all doubt or dispute that the police when they arrested him had no grounds whatsoever for suspecting Vincent Tabak of strangling Joanna Yeates without raping her - any more than they had had for the landlord a few weeks previously. There was no evidence of either motive or madness - except on the part of the police and the CPS.
From then on the case developed like a Keystone Cops comedy, with everyone playing a crazy role - including some of the posters here and LGC Forensics, to name a few - with the tragic difference that one of the persons involved could not go home and laugh about it afterwards.

Noel O'Gara
.
how do you think he was eliminated then Mike?
Delete

Lynda J Lewis
.
We don't know that Mike - we haven't seen proof.

Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
.
As far as I know the public has been given no information about how the boyfriend was eliminated as a suspect.
Don't just make up stuff to support your opinion, guys.

Sue Jeffries
.
Why are you encouraging the idea the bf could still be a suspect admin? The fact is only the police and Jos family need be satisfied with that information, really speaking it is none of the publics business.

Philip Hollingbery
.
When approached by journalists, Greg's half-brother Francis frowned deeply and told them he did not wish to say anything to them, other than that he had given his statement to the police. There are posters on this forum who will certainly dismiss this as a perfectly natural behaviour in the face of the sensation-hungry media, but who would also have cried, "There you are - self-incriminating! - they know he is guilty" if he had been a member of the Tabak family who behaved in this way.
SOMEBODY strangled her, and it certainly was not Vincent Tabak.

Sue Jeffries
.
SOMEBODY strangled her, and it certainly was not Vincent Tabak.
It WAS Tabak and that is why he is in prison; why his family are not shouting hjis innocence from every rooftop; why he confessed; why his dna was found on her; why he was google searching her case; and why he is in prison for 20 years.
He wont ever get out until he has done his time. My advice is this, there are plenty of more deserving cases to be pursuing. No doubt there are some poor sods langusihing in jail fro crimes they didnt commit. But that is not Tabak.
Go and pursue a more worthy cause and stop libelling innocent people. You wouldnt dare utter this nonsense to the Yeates families faces so stop being such a coward hiding behind your computer.

Philip Hollingbery
.
@Sue J,
Why do you think the Yeates family would prefer an innocent man to suffer for their daughter's death? Why do you think they are indifferent to the likelihood that her killer is still at large? Why do you presume to represent them?

Sue Jeffries
.
Philip
You clearly have no idea how the Yeates family feel about tabak, but their statement in which they said they wished him all evils and deprivations, is rather telling to me. I dont think they would say that if they believed him to be innocent.
Why do you presume to represent them?
I could put the same question to you about Tabak, Philip? Why do you presume to represent him?


Dyna Victoria
.
SOMEBODY strangled her, and it certainly was not Vincent Tabak.
Philip..your own words..
and thats it..just your words..
You cant make a statement like that without some evidence to back it up..if you were a jury member you would have to justify that statement..

Philip Hollingbery
.
@Dyna,
"You cant make a statement like that without some evidence to back it"
You are one of the several posters who has very helpfully contributed the evidence that I have used on my blog:
http://www.vincent-tabak-is-innocent.blogspot.com/
Since Christmas day - when the last pieces of the jigsaw puzzle fell into place - I have been able to make just that statement, because all the evidence is there.
@Sue J,
At the time when the Yeates family made their statement via a police spokesman, I still assumed that the court had got it right about his guilt - though I was very puzzled by the theatricality and phoneyness of the reporting. Things have moved on since then. Will you PLEASE, for as long as it takes to post, put yourself in the situation of someone who doubts Vincent Tabak's guilt, and tell me why you presume to believe that the Yeates family would prefer an innocent man to be imprisoned? I have asked this question SO MANY TIMES.

Sue Jeffries
.
Philip
With no evidence tabak is innocent and no evidence to suggest the parents of Jo believe him to be, I will not sit here talking engaging your conspiracies. Now, if you can come back here with proper evidence other than your own opinion that tabak is innocent, fair enough, then I will, but I am not playing along with yourself and Noels little online games.

Philip Hollingbery
.
@Sue J,
No. You are the one of us who is party to conspiracies. You are the one with your own opinions. I refer only to the facts:
• Joanna Yeates was not sexually assaulted. Fact.
• The police had no grounds for suspecting Vincent Tabak when they arrested him - the grounds they subsequently gave were obvious pretexts. Fact.
• No motive has ever been produced for his killing her. Fact.
• The police had no grounds for suspecting the landlord when they arrested him - the grounds they subsequently gave were obvious pretexts. Fact.
On the basis of these facts ALONE there is no reason to believe Vincent Tabak guilty. EVERYTHING that happened afterwards - and there was a great deal - was demonstrably contrived, theatrical, phoney.
WILL YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHY YOU THINK HER FAMILY WOULD PREFER AN INNOCENT MAN TO BE PUNISHED FOR DEATH?

Sue Jeffries
.
WILL YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHY YOU THINK HER FAMILY WOULD PREFER AN INNOCENT MAN TO BE PUNISHED FOR DEATH?
Her family do not believe tabak to be innocent Philip. FACT!
Tabak confessed. Fact
Tabak admitted to incriminating CJ. Fact
Her family said about tabak that they wish all evils and deprivations on him. Again, FACT!

Dyna Victoria
.
@Philip..I have not read your blog...
can visitors to your blog post their comments..
and does it have a visitor counter so that you can tell how many people have visited your blog...

Philip Hollingbery
.
@Sue J,
Will you please answer my question? Neither you nor I know what her family believe NOW. There was no reason why Vincent Tabak should have confessed because of the FACTS that I gave you - and therefore the confession MUST have been obtained by illegal means. We know very well that he did NOT incriminate CJ, so that is nonsense. What I want you to state is why YOU YOURSELF SUE JEFFRIES BELIEVE THAT THE FAMILY WOULD PREFER AN INNOCENT MAN TO SUFFER FOR THEIR DAUGHTER'S DEATH. It is a very simple question. Please answer it.

Sue Jeffries
.
What I want you to state is why YOU YOURSELF SUE JEFFRIES BELIEVE THAT THE FAMILY WOULD PREFER AN INNOCENT MAN TO SUFFER FOR THEIR DAUGHTER'S DEATH. It is a very simple question. Please answer it.
They want a guilty man in prison to do justice for their only daughter. They have got their wish for the culprit is now behind bars
Now a question for you. Please provide proof of some kind that the yeates family have ever said they believe tabak to be innocent? I want links to credible sources, not you shouting using caps lock and spouting YOUR opinions

Sue Jeffries
.
We know very well that he did NOT incriminate CJ, so that is nonsense.
Philip Tabak admitted he did in court and he apologised for it. FGs will you get your facts straight just for once

Philip Hollingbery
.
@Dyna,
I am sorry that I did not respond you your inquiry 52 minutes ago. On my blog there is a prominent link to this forum. If any visitor wishes to post comments then this forum is the proper place to post them - not least because it is administered properly. After reading your inquiry I found out that there is indeed a visitor counter - and that it has been counting my own visits.

Dyna Victoria
.
look forward to new posters then!



Noel O'Gara
.
Sue J you talk about Philip and me bending the facts.
You have not been able to acknowledge matters that you were promoting as fact for ages.
Firstly you said many times that Tabak was viewing strangulation video on his pc the morning he killed Jo.
The BBC report confirmed what Lickley said in court that he looked at that strangulation stuff AFTER the murder when he was aware that she had been murdered. You cant bring yourself to admit you were wrong.
How and why did Tabak in your opinion stage that scene of an struggle?
How do you say he had a fair trial when there wasnt any application for bail?
He could have been kept in a safe house for the time being but at least he would have the means of getting advice and help to defend the charges.
How about the tv documentary that said the initial dna was inconclusive and useless to hold him?
You should look at that.
Also you keep insisting that he tried to set up CJ. When he agreed with what they were saying in court you were looking at a broken man who would have agreed to almost anything.
The fact is he phoned the police after CJ was arrested therefore no way could you say he tried to set him up for the cops.
That is a record of delusional thinking Sue J and you dare to tell Philip that he is nuts.
You ask for proof that Tabak is innocent.
I can tell you that the prosecution did not provide proof that he was guilty. That confession screwed him and you know very well that it was conned out of a broken man with the aid of a conniving liar masquerading as a chaplain.
Delete

Sue Jeffries
.
ou ask for proof that Tabak is innocent.
I can tell you that the prosecution did not provide proof that he was guilty. That confession screwed him and you know very well that it was conned out of a broken man with the aid of a conniving liar masquerading as a chaplain.
The judge and jury obviously felt there WAS sufficient proof Noel.You have as much chance of securing tabaks release as you do Steve wright
Noel there are only two delusional people on this board and I neednt name them for anyone with eyes is able to see quite clearly who they are.

Sue Vendone
.
The judge and jury obviously felt there WAS sufficient proof Noel.You have as much chance of securing tabaks release as you do Steve wright
Sue J with the confession they really did not have much choice did they?

Noel O'Gara
.
exactly Sue V, the jury had no choice only to convict because of that confession.
how could they find him not guilty? They would need to be as delusional as Sue J to say he didnt do it.
I cant put any blame on the jurors because they were fed on lies and that confession was confirmed to them by a bewildered man in the dock who was taking the advice of Clegg that it was his only hope of ever seeing the outside again.
There was not a shred of corroborating evidence to support it.
Tabak's legal team will go down in history as a pack of rogues or the most incompetant team of lawyers ever.
It would be better to believe that they were the latter but the scale of their incompetence is so great that the former is the case beyond any doubt. They were criminally negligent in the extreme and at every stage of the game. They must have been conspiring with the prosecution to stitch up their client Vincent Tabak.
After the verdict came in Greg shook the hands of the cops who performed the stitch up and they were all delighted.
The family had been brainwashed by the police liaison team with the dna and blood will o the wisp lies and they denounced Tabak.
You reflect the actions of those twisters Sue J with your lies and interpretations of lies to suit your purpose.
Now Sue J put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Delete

Sue Jeffries
.
Actually he confessed to manslaughter only Sue v so yes they had a perfect opportunity to accept his confession to accidental killing only.

Sue Vendone
.
Yep, but they had two choices, manslaughter or murder. They did not have Not Guilty, Manslaughter or Murder. There was no evidence for the defence to play on Not Guilty so it was firmly in the minds of the Jury that he did it. In this scenario I too would have voted for Murder, because I believe that whoever did it murdered her.

Sue Jeffries
.
They had a choice to accept his plea and they chose not to when presented with the evidence

Noel O'Gara
.
there is no doubt Sue V that Jo was murdered with intent to kill her and then hide her body.
That is the crime that was committed.
So the trial was a charade. Clegg knew that there was little or no chance of his client convincing a jury that he didnt mean to kill her. Had it been a gun or a knife attack there might be some chance but to strangle a person takes intent and time.
The verdict was inevitable and just put the jury in a quandary. Here was a man admitting to the murder and claiming that he didnt mean to kill her.
They had no real choice only to find him guilty of murder and the prosecution knew it from the start.
But they also knew that they had no evidence more that that confession and thats why they used all that child porn and computer porn about strangulation etc to demonise Tabak and blacken him in the eyes of everybody.
It was a classic stitch up and it is all on record to expose the criminals who performed it.
Delete

Philip Hollingbery
.
I used to feel sorry for that jury, just as Noel still does. But not any more. One of the reasons for having a jury of 12 citizens is to see through the deceitful and manipulative charade that a barrister may put on in court. There was plenty of that charade in the trial of Vincent Tabak. I wasn't in court myself, so I can't afford to have gut feelings, but can judge only by the evidence and the facts. But only a stupid juror would believe that a shy academic whose sister and girlfriend "fussed" over him, and who'd never had a girlfriend until he subscribed to a dating site, wouldn't be much too shy brazenly to go up to a flirty stranger and try to kiss her. Only a stupid juror wouldn't have smelt a rat and have a gut feeling that they were being taken for a ride. There were eight stupid people on that jury, and the (admittedly low-copy-number) evidence from the discussion on this forum points clearly to the sex of six of them. Although they could not find Vincent Tabak innocent, the judge gave them a clear opportunity to doubt that he was guilty of murder.

Dyna Victoria
.
@Mike
If I remember rightly, were you not in court once during the trial..

Noel O'Gara
.
All those lies that Tabak told in court were just the account of what the police had presented to him of what they thought happened.
He stuck to his agreement with Clegg to cooperate because he was so terrorised after the brainwashing that he had been through. Its obvious to anybody who studies his statements in court that he had been fed with mind altering drugs that had actually made him believe that he had killed Jo.
However he was unable to supply credible answers to many questions and could only say'I dont remember'
If he had committed the crime he would remember every last detail and give a credible account of what happened.
There was no doubt that he was fully cooperative in court but you were seeing a broken man whose memories had been distorted by terror tactics and probably drugs.
Sue G you are putting on an image here that is probably very false. Perhaps you should put your broomstick back on. Tabak was a shy academic who phoned up chat sex lines. Is that criminal?
Delete


Sue Jeffries
.
I don't have a broomstick Noel lol and if l had, l know exactly where l'd shove it!
Lol
Noel I want some proof of this alleged drugging? Got any?
Nope, didnt think so.
How bloody tedious

Leanne Thompson
.
His legal team were appalling. I'd bet that they haven't even advised him properly of his options now he's been convicted. They didn't do their professional best for him in court. I doubt he even chose them himself.

Dyna Victoria
.
@Leanne
VT was fairly new to bristol..how would he know which solicitor to ask for..imo albion chambers saw an opportunity to take part in a very high profile case..and jumped in...
Its not beyond the realms of possibility that they offered CJ their services to him also..

Frank White
.
What makes you say all this Leanne? William Clegg must be a good barrister, he managed to get Barry George off. He is one of the best. There is no evidence he didnt try his damndest with Tabak, except that he didnt manage to get tabak off with murder. These things happen to even the best legal teams.

Philip Hollingbery
.
@Leanne,
Even if he didn't choose them, I wonder at his defence team's failure to protect him against the massive huha in the press after the trial about the porn and the prostitutes and the illegal child porn. Quite apart from the circus that is this forum, I really wonder why sensible reader of The Guardian took it all so calmly and without getting puzzled. Why didn't Clegg demand that the child porn be properly investigated and the children be identified so that they could be protected?

Debra Ann Clements
.
I agree Leanne. He was alone in that court room, his own defence (if you can call it that) was singing from the same hymn sheet as the prosecution.
It is a total travesty of justice.

Frank White
.
Philip says: Why didn't Clegg demand that the child porn be properly investigated and the children be identified so that they could be protected?
This sort of investigation takes time. It is an ongoing process and no doubt Vincent may well be charged with it, or, if it is decided it wont add anything to his sentence anyway he may not be. None of this means it was never found on his laptop
Philip says: Quite apart from the circus that is this forum,
The ringleader of the 'circus' Philip, appears to be you to be honest.

Leanne Thompson
.
It's mostly people who are analytical thinkers who would question things and you're right Philip, Guardian readers would probably question it as would readers of papers like the independent/Telegraph, but those papers make up a small proportion of newspapers sold. The Sun has the highest readership in the UK. People who read the tabloids usually scan through the articles rather than fully read them. These papers along with the Mail have a huge influence on the public.

Frank White
.
It's mostly people who are analytical thinkers who would question things
A polite word for conspiracy theorists.

Leanne Thompson
.
No. People who think about things and alalyse them are not consipiracy theorists, they just realise there's more to life than most of the inaccurate trash that's printed in the papers. Newspapers and media corporations are interested in just one thing - capitalising on stories they print. It's in their interests sensationalise everything. Why do you thinkthe Dail Mail has he green arrow/red arrow facility on the comments? It's so they can guage their readers political and other opinions and sensationalise their articles accordingly.

Philip Hollingbery
.
@Jack S,
"This sort of investigation takes time... None of this means it was never found on his laptop"
Are you trying to say that you think that these images were found on the laptop around 1st November 2011? How can you be sure that they were overlooked when his computers were first analyzed by the police after his arrest? Where is your evidence (as people are always demanding of me)? Are you trying to say that you think the IT expert was so preoccupied with the legal commercial porn videos that she didn't notice the illegal child porn images for nine months? No I am sure you are not trying to say that. I am sure you don't really give a shit about those kids - because I am sure you know very well they don't exist.

Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
.
I don't like the game "Jack Sparks" is playing by deactivating and reactivating this profile. Anonymous profiles are welcome here, but not game-players. Bye.

Philip Hollingbery
.
Whoever the real killer of Joanna Yeates was, he would have had the opportunity to smear samples of her blood from his clothes inside the boots of other cars parked at 44 Canynge Road, especially those he found unlocked, to incriminate their owners. The fact that Vincent Tabak, whom the police depicted as so cool and calculating, did not do this suggests that he was not the real killer.

Dyna Victoria
.
@Philip
CJs car was parked on the road..
VTs car was parked by his front door on the drive..
CJs other car was parked on the drive..
Hardeman ,resident, is in his 80s not known if he has a car..
3 other residents are middle aged women.
Jos car went to sheffield..
It would be hard to incriminate any one of these residents by planting Jos blood in any one of said vehicles..



Charlotte Eveson
.
VTs was parked on the road at the time of the killing
Phillip , most people keep their cars locked these days even in nice areas like Clifton
Especially if leaving it on the road a distance from your flat like VT did that night

Philip Hollingbery
.
Vincent left his car with the engine running, to warm it up. So it would have been unlocked. Dead easy for Greg to pop round after Vincent had gone indoors, open the boot, smear some blood, shut the boot again...
There were no doubt other neighbours. How far away from No. 44 would you have to live to be free of suspicion, since it was apparently geography rather than personal relationships that drove the police's suspicions?

Charlotte Eveson
.
Phillip
But he only moved his car and left the engine running because he was the killer and was moving a body , other than that it was on the road

Philip Hollingbery
.
Why take all the risk of moving the body instead of just leaving it in the flat? Moving the body points much more strongly to the other occupant of the flat as the perpetrator than it does to someone who did not live there. Meredith Kercher's killer did not bother to move her body.
If the police really have checked Greg's mobile phone and CCTV records, how can they be sure that he had not swapped mobile phones and cars with an accomplice who drove to Sheffield on his behalf? It seems a bit like overkill to me, but a police force that can invent the incredible scenario used to account for Vincent as the perpetrator would obviously believe anything.

Dyna Victoria
.
Vt says he was passing Jos kitchen window on his way to asda..
car on the road..
CJ said that he parked up on the road at 9pm and thought he saw 3 people at jos door..
screams said to have been at 9pm
neither CJ or Hardeman heard any screams
CJ said he saw/spoke to VT at 9pm when VTs megan was on the drive "warming up"..
Jo known to have been in tescos at 8.34
6 mins walk to home
Vt said he and Jo chatted for approx 10mins..
it just doesnt fit..does it?

Charlotte Eveson
.
Phillip
He could have moved the body for a number of reasons
The most likely being to distance the body from the flat , increase the time the body would be found both causing confusion for the investigation
also so that he did not have a dead body sitting waiting to be found right next door

Charlotte Eveson
.
Dyna
Firstly Jeffries info was not used in court and that is only what was in the press so we have no idea of its accuracy
secondly we have no idea if Tabak was telling truth in relation to timings
Thirdly giving Tabak the benefit of the doubt, say Jo got back at 20.40hrs , within a couple mins VT knocking on door so 20.42 , ten minutes , 20.52 , why could he not be moving his car at 21.00hrs?

Sue Vendone
.
Ye sure Charlotte and in the same amount of time he forensically cleaned the flat.

Charlotte Eveson
.
Sue
He did not need to forensically clean the flat , he was in there for a very short time and their was no blood loss from Jo till she was moved

Charlotte Eveson
.
Even if he did go back and tidy up he could have done it later , does not mean he could not have been warming his car at around 9pm
also as i said , Jeffries info was not used in court so we have no idea of accuracy or timings

Dyna Victoria
.
Miss Yeates’ neighbour Harry Walker described to the court how he heard a woman screaming around 8.30pm. He said: “It sounded like a scream coming from behind the property, over to the left “It must have been fairly loud. It was loud enough so I heard it over the television and it came through the windows and curtains as well.”
Others attending a party at a flat opposite Miss Yeates, in Canynge Road, Clifton, also said they heard the sound of a commotion and “more than one voice”. Zoe Lehman and her husband Florian were attending a party hosted by their friends Peter and Rosie Brown at No 53 Canynge Road – diagonally opposite Miss Yeates flat at No 44.
Mrs Lehman described to the jury how she walked into Canynge Road and saw a security light illuminating No 44. “As I got to the gate I heard quite a loud scream,” she said. “I thought it came from behind me. It was coming from across the road at the house by the playing field.” She added, she thought the screams were female and described one as “stifled or muffled” before hearing a thud. Her husband, who is known to friends as Flo, said he also heard the screams coming from the direction of No 44 and the adjacent Clifton College playing fields. Mr Lehman said: “It was definitely a female voice. I thought it might be playing kids .......
imo the timing of the screams is hard to establish and they might not have come from Jo..

Charlotte Eveson
.
Dyna i agree
The timings are difficult to establish in relation to the screams and the only one in my opinion that has any significance is the couple across the rd
They heard a scream , followed by the sound of something falling over and then a muffled scream
Now that sounds very much like Tabak describes and the thud could have been the coat rack falling over. Although it was across the rd if Jos door was open that could have been heard.

Philip Hollingbery

The stitch-up merchants strike again:
"Scores of convictions for serious crimes may have to be reviewed after a serious blunder by a leading private forensics firm led to a suspected rapist being acquitted, the Guardian has learned. The company, LGC Forensics, has admitted that a sample at one of its laboratories became so contaminated it could not be offered in evidence. The rape case, investigated by Greater Manchester police, collapsed this week with the defendant, Adam Scott, 20, who denied the allegation, being acquitted after prosecutors decided they could no longer rely on the forensic evidence."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/mar/08/forensics-blunder-convictions
Let us hope there is enough light in Vincent Tabak's damp and gloomy dungeon for him to read this story in the newspaper that first brought him and Tanja Morson together and then outdid the gutter press in blackening his personality after he was convicted. Regular visitors to this forum will know that Vincent pointed to LGC Forensics as the real corrupt villains when he was first arrested, and that this honest appraisal was thrown back in his face during his show trial as an example of his deceitful manipulativeness.

Noel O'Gara

the ex cop, Chris Gregg who was the boss of the major homicide and cold case department in West yorkshire who sued me for libel in London left the force just after that case and joined LGC forensics.
He had just succeeded in stitching up John Humble as the Ripper hoaxer with fabricated dna even though it was recorded that they had burned all the Ripper case evidence years earlier.
I knew it was a stitch up because of the contents of the Ripper's letters which proved they came from the killer alone.
Delete

Philip Hollingbery

"Secret agents specialising in the "dark arts" might have tried to cover up the death of an MI6 spy whose naked body was found in a sports bag... During the hearing, forensic scientists apologised to Mr Williams' family after it emerged that a DNA error had dashed a 'key' line of inquiry into his death... we learned today that a partial bit of DNA was found within a week of Mr Williams' death by investigators... It was removed from Mr Williams' hand and taken for forensic examination by a company called LGC. According to the evidence given this morning, two codes were mixed up by one of the forensic scientists - the details were wrongly tapped into a computer - and the effect was that the opportunity to examine that DNA and look for an identification from it was lost. LGC, which provided evidence in the Stephen Lawrence case, admitted that one of its staff members made a 'typographical error', leading Scotland Yard to spend more than a year trying to trace a non-existent suspect."
http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16199518
This is the same bumbling happy-go-lucky firm that used its Lott's Chemistry Box One set to "enhance" the low-copy-number DNA from Joanna Yeates's body and the boot of the car used by Vincent Tabak Ph.D that were the only basis for his arrest and murder charge. He was spirited away to solitary confinement in Worcestershire and denied any visits from his girlfriend and family until he agreed to enter a plea of manslaughter. His own defence told the jury that there was nothing to like about him, so they returned a verdict of murder and Mr Justice Fields sentenced him to life in prison.





1
Facebook User

You seem a very bitter unhappy man. What is wrong with you? Are you doing it to impress Mr Ogara? I would not bother if I were you. You do not come over as ''clever''. Just pathetic.
Be yourself . Be happy. Tell your wife that you have become embroiled in a discussion and that you are now addicted to writing nasty things in this discussion. She will understand and maybe take you out a bit more. SMILE don't be so sad.
I did feel sorry for you for a while, but I don't now because you make no effort whatsoever to reign in your silly ideas and vile attacks on other people.
When you are cornered by intelligent people like Charlotte, Vicki, Gavin, Aunt Sally, Ruth, who write properly strung together sentences, you resort to insults.
It is appalling that you have a murderer as your hero and demonise a perfectly innocent person who is bereaved.

Philip Hollingbery

"When you are cornered by intelligent people like Charlotte, Vicki, Gavin, Aunt Sally, Ruth, who write properly strung together sentences, you resort to insults."
I am sure all these people you name are very intelligent, but Charlotte Eveson is the only one who does not disable her brain on entering this forum. I suspect however that she is a Ph.D-hater. She scorns Vincent Tabak, just as most of the other girls scorned him because he was serious and studious instead of being flambuoyant and a touch psychopathic. Or perhaps it is the opposite - perhaps Charlotte feels that the intelligent and effervescent Joanna Yeates was entitled to a better class of killer than a mere architectural assistant.
But it worries me deeply that you disregard Vincent Tabak's excellent and hard-earned character evidence yet at the same time you have touching faith in the very marginal circumstantial evidence against him provided by a so-called expert witness. For all we know she may have hit the wrong key on her computer when analyzing the DNA samples. She may even have lied about the grades and number of her O levels when she applied for the job as low-copy-number-DNA-enhancer (no previous experience necessary).

1
Gavin Hannaby

I suspect however that she is a Ph.D-hater. She scorns Vincent Tabak, just as most of the other girls scorned him because he was serious and studious instead of being flambuoyant and a touch psychopathic.
The problem is the man portrayed publically was clearly not a fair representation of the real Vincent Tabak. A man paying for sex with prostitutes, and harbouring a secret fetish for strangling women.
Never judge a book by its cover, Philip. You are asking for disappointment when you do.

1
Charlotte Eveson

This made me laugh , a Phd hater lol , I neither love or hate the Phd , I set no score by it whatsoever in fact , it has no bearing whatsoever on whether the holder of that qualification is capable of muder or not

1
Gavin Hannaby

Philip certainly has a very inventive, albeit depraved mind.
'Phd hater' LOL

Philip Hollingbery

@Gavin,
"...paying for sex with prostitutes..."
Well he wouldn't get it free would he? But do you know, I don't believe he had sex with any of them, or even met up with them. I think he scrupulously paid out of his own money for those extra accommodations in California and Yorkshire, researched the call girl-market on internet, drew cash on his credit card, and telephoned them to hear their voices - but that was enough for him. He was acting out a fantasy up to a certain limit, and stopping at the critical time. I think it had to do with his mature but unfamiliar relationship with his girlfriend and being away from her. I like the man even more for it. Frankly though I am disgusted that we should have been party to his most private life at all, but who am I to criticize the voyeurism of 57 million Brits?
You demean yourself by taking the "fetish for strangling women" at its face value - as indeed did all the British media and their public. I find it frightening that people could not see what an embroidery it was. Be honest Gavin - if they hadn't found some signs of viewing internet pornography on his computer, we'd suspect they must have got the wrong computer. It was an astonishing feat on the part of those lawyers to get the media worked up into a lather about something they'd have taken for granted in any other context, and at the same time to get the media completely to disregard the sensational nature of the educational background of the person convicted of the sort of crime he was supposed to have committed. How I wish they would put their talents and high fees to serving society instead of destroying people's lives!

1
Gavin Hannaby

You demean yourself by taking the "fetish for strangling women" at its face value - as indeed did all the British media and their public. I find it frightening that people could not see what an embroidery it was. Be honest Gavin - if they hadn't found some signs of viewing internet pornography on his computer, we'd suspect they must have got the wrong computer
In all truthfulness, Philip, I thought he was 'probably' guilty even before the porn came to light.
Not every male of the species watches pornography you know, Philip. Certainly not fetish porn anyway. It seems too mighty a coincidence that his neighbour dies by strangulation while the man next door spends his days watching women being strangled online.
'But yeah, he is innocent no doubt because people can't get their head around the idea someone who has a phd could kill a woman'. I've put that in inverted commas so you recognise I am being sardonic.You're naivety regarding Vincent would be quite admirable, were it not laced with bitterness, resentment and contempt for the innocent people involved in this crime though no fault of their own, namely Greg, David Yeates, and any other poor soul you have slandered along the way in your quest to vindicate your hero.
It is the whole package of events when pieced together that reveals Vincents guilt. I think the person who actually puts the most emphasis on the porn on here, is actually you mate.

Philip Hollingbery

@Gavin,
"the person who actually puts the most emphasis on the porn on here, is actually you mate."
I am not your mate. I am not the mate of anyone cruel enough to want to sacrifice a second innocent victim on the altar of Joanna Yeates.
The issue of the porn is very complex because it reveals so much about all the parties to the case - amongst others the judge, the prosecution, the defence, the media, Mr. & Mrs. UK (as Admin so impartially put it), and posters on this forum.
"the man next door spends his days watching women being strangled online"
He was far too busy with work and social activities to spend much of his time watching porn. As for strangulation, most of that takes place in mainstream TV crime series watched by people a lot less busy than Vincent Tabak. As Noel has pointed out, Amanda Hirst would have really had to burn her midnight oil looking for porn videos containing strangulation for the judge to look at - anyone who Googles the topic now just gets hits referring to the trial at Bristol Crown Court in October 2011.
There is nothing innocent about Greg. The only decent thing for him to do is to own up his cruel deed to someone who will listen (i.e., not DCI Phil Jones, nor Ann Reddrop, because their minds are set in stone).

Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case

Philip, please stop making accusations about Greg.
Conceptually, all the nobleness there may be in highlighting a potential miscarriage of justice is destroyed by trying to accuse another specific person of the crime.
(Noel's accusations against Tracey involve at least some evidence. Those against GR don't.)

Philip Hollingbery

Admin, there is an astonishingly large amount of evidence that is potentially incriminating for Greg - not least the evidence that he himself submitted in his testimony in court. This has been debated at great length in the thread "The curious case of Greg Reardon".
In highlighting the weaknesses of an unsound conviction - which Vincent Tabak's certainly is - there can be no legitimate objections to drawing attention to established facts apparently disregarded by the police that point to another potential suspect who was or might have been in the vicinity of the crime and has a vested interest in seeing the accused person convicted.
I'd like you to state which of your guidelines precludes making accusations against such plausible suspects. One of the justifications for posting accusations or criticism is precisely to encourage them or their representatives to post on this forum.
I don't think one has to be paticularly noble to regard the sex-related public character assassination and humiliation of Vincent Tabak that has taken place both in the media and on this forum subsequent to the trial as horrifyingly barbaric, uncivilised and degrading on the part of those who sanction it.

Noel O'Gara

"we had the evidence two years before the killer was charged. We spent two years trying to prove it could only be what we believed it to be."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jan/17/csi-oxford-lgc-forensics
Now is that not inspiring information?
Clearly this was inconclusive ideas that couldnt be described as evidence.
The Rachel Nickell case was solved with the stitch up of a man in Broadmoor who was promised leniency if he cooperated. This high profile case was an open sore for the Met and needed to be solved so that they could draw a line under it and move on.
Brilliant stuff.
Delete


1
Philip Hollingbery

Vincent Tabak became a suspect for no other reason than that he lived in the same house as Joanna Yeates. The police did not know of any motive he might have had, nor of any history of violence, sex offences, temper etc. that one would associate with a stranger killing. There were thousands of other people whom they could have made suspects with better reasons than him. Therefore, subsequently when they found low-copy-number DNA on Jo's breast that Lindsey Lennen obligingly stated to belong to their suspect, this must have been because they wanted to find it. Either it was planted there by the real killer or by the police themselves, or she chose to make a "mistake" which no one later would be able to verify because all of the sample was used up by the enhancement process.

Gina Sumner

phillip you are a silly stupid dangerous little man, bumping all these threads only goes to show how desperate you are.
Why don't you get it, its you, noel, debra, sue v, linda and a couple of others who are championing a killer of a young lady who had her life ahead of her. tabek was not stitched up, not a patsy, does not have false memory implanted, he put his hands around a young woman and stopped her life, whether he set out to do that or it was a possible rape, flasher, riffling through her knicker drawer, up his own backside thinking she would be attracted to him, he took her life. He is scum and anyone who can not see that is scum too.

Debra Ann Clements

Well said Philip. What these silly idiotic posters do not understand or simply choose to ignore is that miscarriages of justice are far from uncommon in the U.K. They constantly try to bully, and intimidate anyone that does not agree with their ill thought out arguments. We have a right to express our opinions; after all they bombard these pages with their utter drivel and nastiness.
They are all revolting vile posters with their incessant and totally predictable nasty behaviour and their continual personal attacks dearly show that it is they that are the real SCUMBAGS here. It is glaringly obvious to any neutral observer.
It is one thing to believe that Vincent Tabak is guilty and Reardon innocent, it is childish and pathetic that they try to stop others from expressing alternative viewpoints.

Noel O'Gara

Gina, your words might have come out of the mouth of DCI Jones, or DC Karen Thomas or CC Colin Port or a bevy of other bent cops who desperately need to cover their own arses for their crime of stitching up an innocent man for murder thereby leaving the real killer free to kill again if some future girlfriend falls foul of him.
Tabak was tricked into confessing to a crime he couldnt have done by lawyers who were in the pockets of the police and this case has exposed a seam of corruption in the West country that has hitherto been kept under wraps.
It could only happen where there is a culture of corruption and you are just one of the cheerleaders who try to mask it.
I hope the good and decent cops in Bristol are reading these pages and take note.


BACK TO VINCENT TABAK WEBPAGE