Why having a PhD does not automatically make you an upstanding citizen

Gavin Hannaby
18 .
Some people are blinded by academic achievements.

Vicki Roust

You just have to look at some of our politicians with PhDs etc to know that it doesnt make you an outstanding citizen!! :-)

Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case

Ha. Godwin's Law.
Just saying. Carry on.

1
Noel O'Gara

In the cases you mention there is a mountain of hard evidence that they were murderers.
In Tabak's case there is only his confession which was conned out of him after months of isolation and accusations that they found his dna on Jo's breast. The confession was to a lesser charge after being lied to that he would never see the outside again.
The confession was given when he was suicidal and brought on by a police agent posing as a chaplain.
The dna that was alleged to have been found on her breast was used to convince Tabak's lawyers and everybody he met in jail that he was guilty of her murder. In the end it transpired that it was a lie and there was no dna linking him to Jo.
To compare Tabak to the architects of mass murder under Hitler is really off the scale.
Delete

Charlotte Eveson
18 .
Admin
"
Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case 9 hours ago
Ha. Godwin's Law.
Just saying. Carry on."
I know lol but it was such a fantastic opportunity to illustrate the point I could not resist
Noel
I am not directly comparing VTs case to any of the above , I was just fed up of seeing posts about how VT must be an upstanding citizen just because he had a PhD

1
Louise Frank
18 .
Having a PHD or not having a PHD doesn't actually prove anything.
I mean having a PHD doesn't automatically mean someone has been wrongly convicted. Whereas not having a PHD doesn't automatically mean someone hasn't been wrongly convicted.
Tony Steele didn't have a PHD and he was wrongly convicted.
Whereas Stephen Griffiths was studying towards a PHD and was not wrongly convicted.
Same city too.
It really makes no difference.

Charlotte Eveson
18 .
Louise I totally agree , it is irrelevant

Philip Hollingbery
18 .
For that matter, my childhood hero Dr. Barnes Wallis devised a bouncing bomb which in 1943 drowned 749 French, Belgian, Dutch and Ukrainian prisoners of war and slave workers. However, he had people to help him in this own-goal, so his Ph.D is no more relevant here than that of Dr. Goebbels.
Evidently my post about the importance of trust was too theoretical, so let me put it another way. How many posters here bank their money in a substantial stone-built building with branches on the high street? And how many of you use a bank offering 18% interest in a Portakabin set up in the corner of a back-street car park? There is nothing theoretical about the importance of trust in our day-to-day lives.
Whatever silly arguments you may post on this forum, I bet you would all of you think twice about leaving your daughter alone in a room with a worthless junkie like Daniel Lancaster - whereas you would be very quick to defend the attractions of a young man who had spent five years industriously researching for a Ph.D in a subject that led him to be head-hunted to a £45,000 a year job. Your daughter might protest that his conversation was rather limited, but your instincts would tell you that someone who had invested so many years of his youth in himself would not risk throwing it away in an act of folly.
If you really believe that of someone like Vincent Tabak, then it is a wonder any of you dares go out of your home.

Charlotte Eveson
18 .
The thing is Phillip I would not leave a daughter alone with ANY stranger , I am sensible enough to realise that killers come from all backgrounds

1
Louise Frank
18 .
I don't have a daughter to advise on this. But I do advise myself.
I treat everyone the same regardless of their education when it comes to my company and aquaintance. I'm quite happy to have dinner with people who have let's say 'shady' activities. And my door is generally open for those who want to come and see me. The fact that there are a small minority of terrible crimes committed isn't going to stop me speaking to people and having them over for a second. I'll decide based onthe conversation if I want the person to return - not based on their academic credentials.
You have a point with the money thing though - but the difference is not academic - it is proven track record. I'll put my money into a bank on the highstreet because my parents and their parents did that and it is seen to be secure - but that doesn't mean it's entirely safe. It's not based on some premise that bank employees have PHDs (for a start that's not actually true so much in this country).
Also - I'm not sure I put as much store into this spending time in education thing as others here seem to. My other half is Dutch, he was born at a similar time to Vincent (late 70s) and spent all of his late teens and the vast majority of his twenties in education - it's actually much more common of Dutch people of his age than people might think - purely because of the flexibility of the Dutch university system in comparison to the UK system which gives students a fixed amount of time to complete or to start paying through the nose.
Dutch students of the age of Vincent received government subsidies for fees and living costs - so it was much more the case that someone who was bright would go and do studies.
In the UK the argument might have a 'tiny' bit more bite - but even then - people do stupid things, and some people throw away perfectly good lives for a variety of things - so I don't think PHDs show any baring on whether someone will turn to criminality or not.

Philip Hollingbery
18 .
@Louise F,
For a moment I thought you were a real person - after all you could be a descendant of Anne Frank, only she never had a chance to get children - any more than Vincent Tabak will have that chance, with the way things are going.
The education regime you describe is similar to the Danish one. I would have expected academic circles to be buzzing with apprehension over the conviction of Vincent Tabak, but the prosecution and the defence have so totally played down his Ph.D that nobody seems to have noticed. That is why I am shouting it from the rooftops.
William Clegg's failure to draw the jury's attention to Vincent's Ph.D and its Preface was a clear sign which side he was on - the wrong side. You don't tell a jury that there is nothing to like about your client and persuade me you are on his side.


1
Louise Frank
18 .
No offence Philip - but is anybody real in your world? What is real anyway?
If you're asking if my name is real then no it is not - I never use my real name on facebook due to the advice of the teaching unions and also through bad experiences. I'm sure you can appreciate that. Especially as I have quite liberal views on many issues which seems to go against the grain on a lot of discussion boards leading to personal attacks - unfortunately.
Anyway - I don't know anything about the Danish system, I just know about the Dutch system having befriended my own partner (who is Dutch) online nearly 11 years ago when he had just started his studies.
If you're arguing that the defence wasn't particularly stunning then you don't need to bother convincing me of that - I didn't think it was particularly brilliant either.

Philip Hollingbery
17 .
@Louise,
My profile is real, and so is Noel O'Gara's. It is possibly easier to get away with it when one is retired, or when one lives in a different country from the one where the crime took place. Even if you hide behind a non-human moniker and use a pseudonym, you do post like a real debater, and you admit to having a life outside Facebook - unlike far too many of the posters here.
"What is real anyway?" is a very deep question. The bars on the window of Vincent Tabak's cell are about as real as they can be. His prospect of waking to them every day for the next twenty years or so is very real. The hatred of 57 million Brits towards the Dutchman convicted of plucking an English rose is very real.
It's also refreshing to hear that you concede that his defence wasn't particularly brilliant.

4
Gavin Hannaby
17 .
My profile is real, and so is Noel O'Gara's. It is possibly easier to get away with it when one is retired, or when one lives in a different country from the one where the crime took place. Even if you hide behind a non-human moniker and use a pseudonym, you do post like a real debater, and you admit to having a life outside Facebook - unlike far too many of the posters here.
The proper translation:
'I can see room to manipulate you to my way of thinking, and so I wont call you a dummy profile or throw insults your way just yet.'
I have a life outside of facebook. The question is, do you Philip? To me it looks like you don't.

1
Louise Frank
17 .
@ Philip - I never suspected either you or Noel of being fake. Although I also wouldn't be massively concerned if either of you were using fake names anyway. As you say it's the way people 'speak' (well write) that shows whether or not they are 'real'. I've read Noel's website lots of times anyway - I think I may have come across it before Joanna went missing because I had read extensively about the case of Tony Steele who lived not far from where I grew up. (although it may have been a different website that I read about it on).
Everything I say about my self is real, I'm honest about myself and my views on things even when they might not be very popular. I'm also generally open to changing my opinion.
For someone not locked in a prison cell 'real' can be a lot of things. I don't think you can ever really know what is real to be honest. Which makes criminal cases much different to the black and white that I think people imagine.
That's very sad Philip - irrelevant of guilt or not - I find prison, that lack of freedom, to be an immensely sad thing. To be able to feel the air change when the first snow falls but not to be able to reach out and pick it up. To be able to feel the warmth the sun creates but not to be able to sit out in it when you want. I find it very sad. But more so than that - the hatred from others, loneliness. Yes, I think that's sad too. On the other hand - if someone has been killed, and a person has done that, they've also prevented that person from enjoying those things too. So although I find it immensely sad, I can see why prison exists. (of course - that assumes a person in prison is guilty - if they are not then the sadness is all the more biting).
I didn't think much of the defence at all - just from a legal point of view. My batchelor degree was in law (at the insistence of my parents - I'm now training to teach as I think I may have mentioned). There didn't seem to be much of the traditional defence of a client in the defence. Although, personally I think this is for other reasons than a sinister motive - I think that they were perhaps not too bothered about defending him and as he had admitted to manslaughter by the time of the case - perhaps it wasn't deemed too necessary to put forward a superb defence? Maybe if he had plead not guilty there would have been a different defence? I don't really know about that. For all I know Vincent himself may have asked for the defence to be conducted in this way.

Philip Hollingbery
17 .
@Gavin,
"...manipulate you to my way of thinking..."
How wrong you are! Did you ever see a single manipulative post under my name? I wouldn't know how to be manipulative to save my life. Neither did Vincent Tabak unfortunately. He was one of the few persons in that court room who was definitely neither manipulative nor deceitful. You just don't get a Ph.D in an engineering subject if you are manipulative and deceitful.
@Louise,
"Vincent himself may have asked for the defence to be conducted in this way"
You can't really believe that can you? If you read the reports of his preliminary court appearances you'll quickly come to the conclusion that he was trapped in a situation over which he had no control. By the time of his last preliminary appearance in Setpember, his hair was beginning to go grey from anxiety. He was 33.
It's not very often that parents "insist" on prescribing anyone's career, unless they wanted you to take over the family solicitors' firm.
I have the feeling that most of the more brutal murderers are smart enough to elude the police, and a lot of innocent people are serving life sentences as a result. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the former post on this forum...

1
Louise Frank
17 .
They didn't 'insist' on prescribing my career Philip - only my degree. My own choice was aparantly not a good one for getting a job - or at least that was their opinion. With the benefit of hindsight I know that's not true, but 18 year old's don't know everything (unfortunately!) so they have to go on the advice they get given.
Lol - my parent's wished they owned a solicitors firm. My dad's a gardener and my mum stayed at home with us until we had gone off to secondary school.
I don't know what the reason was for the way the defence was Philip - I was surmising reasons for why it could have been - what the reason was I couldn't know.
I don't think that 'most' brutal murderers are smart enough to elude the police, maybe a couple but I think most people make mistakes when they commit crimes and these are what get people caught.
I'd be very surprised if a murderer was commenting on this forum - wouldn't that be a bit daft?

Noel O'Gara
17 .
Louise, you should familiarise yourself with what happened to Anthony Steel, a former neighbour of yours whose life was destroyed by corrupt policemen, many of whom still walk around your area with their heads held high.
If you met one tomorrow you would feel chuffed if he says hello to you.
They stitched up Steel for a murder committed by Peter Sutcliffe and he was exonerated after serving nearly twenty years in jail and died within a few years of being released. He never got a penny compensation to the best of my knowledge.
He was just another Stefan Kiszko and another victim of the West Yorkshire corrupt police who have conned the public that they got the Ripper locked up when they always knew that they had a copycat killer Sutcliffe, a man they had previously eliminated a dozen times.
http://www.yorkshireripper.com/2011/12/29/carol-wilkinson/
Vincent Tabak is now trapped in that same vice as both Steel and Kiszko and the posters here are so fixated that the police got the killer of Joanna Yeates, yet there is not a single piece of hard evidence that proves that.
Bent cops can only operate when they have an audience of fools who want to believe that they are honest and are prepared to accept flakey evidence and coerced confessions of isolated men as proof.
It could have been you Louise instead of Steel.
Delete

Louise Frank
17 .
Hi Noel. I don't live there anymore, I was brought up there, and it couldn't have been me because I'm much younger than Tony Steele. Nobody in that area would feel chuffed about being greeted by a policeman though, haha! More likely worried about what they might be arrested for. It's quite a rough area, I don't know if you've ever visited it. I know quite a bit about what happened though having read and been interested in what happened as soon as I heard about it. As far as I'm aware you're right that he was never compensated though and that it was flimsy evidence that was presented in such a way that it looked like good evidence.
However, I'm not convinced Carol's murder had anything to do with the Ripper murders. For example, I think Carol's murder was in daytime, whereas I was under the impression the Ripper murders were committed during the night.
(On the other hand - her murder does fit the timeline of the the other Ripper murders in Bradford.)

Philip Hollingbery
16 .
@Louise,
"...is seen to be secure - but that doesn't mean it's entirely safe. It's not based on some premise that bank employees have PHDs"
My point about the bank had nothing to do with the education of the employees, but rather the reasons why banks are so often housed in very substantial stone buildings. First and foremost it is to keep the rain and the robbers out, but it also shows potential customers that the owners of the bank have a strong incentive not to disappear with your money on an impulse, because they would then lose all the money they had invested in the building itself, not to mention their reputations. It's the same with Vincent Tabak's Ph.D - after investing five years of his life in engineering research, he had a lot to lose by strangling an unknown girl on a sudden whim and ending in prison for life. No doubt his main motive behind the Ph.D was the £45,000 a year job to which he was going to be head-hunted. However, ensuring that any intelligent detective would instantly rule him out as a suspect on discovering that he had no motive when his neighbour was murdered without being raped would also have been a reasonable expectation of a young man who relocated to a job in another EU country where he had no friends nor family.
A woman in an episode of "Inspector Lewis" was found hanged in her home, and the stand-in pathologist incompetently declared a case of suicide. However the imaginative DS Hathaway discovered that the dead woman had done the vacuum cleaning and had made an appointment with her hairdresser - hardly the actions of a suicide. If it had been real-life, then her husband's friends would have flocked to the forum discussing her case to invent the most fantastic reasons why she would have acted in the way she did - such as incriminating her husband, getting revenge on his mistress etc. However, because it was fiction and the fictional detectives are so cosy and cuddly, everyone who saw the episode understood the DS's reasoning. Why is it then so difficult to grasp that, by the same token, a man who had invested five years in researching for a Ph.D would not commit a form of "suicide" just a few years afterwards by strangling his unknown neighbour on an impulse - unless he had a real motive that has not been disclosed to us, such as that she was blackmailing him?
"I'd be very surprised if a murderer was commenting on this forum - wouldn't that be a bit daft?"
Not at all. One of the Yorkshire Rippers used to strangle his victims and then send cheeky notes to the police telling them that he was much smarter than they were.

1
Facebook User
16 .
Phillip we do actually get your point you know and have done for months. (we are not thick or stupid) It is very very unlikely that someone who had invested 5 years researching for his PhD would commit a form of suicide by strangling his neighbour. Of course it is unlikely. And there are few cases which parallel it closely. It is quite puzzleling that this could happen. The motive is not immediately clear (I know that to you this means there was no motive) It seems almost impossible that it could happen. He was a nice quiet bloke who had a lovely girl friend, a very proud [of him] family back home in Holland. A mother whose pride in him knew no bounds. Prospective in-laws who felt that their daughter could not have found a better, finer, more suitable, more perfect, partner. Everything was hunky dorey to say the least. Wonderful. Idyllic. Wonderful prospects of highly intelligent kids. Marvelous!!
But as we have seen no amount of unlikeliness can ever equal impossible.
The chances of life having formed on this planet were very very slim indeed. It was very unlikely. But not impossible as we know.. Many many things had to fall into line for there to be life and evolved life on earth. Just 5% more oxygen in the atmosphere and life would not be viable as we know it. (too many fires) And other endless variables which had to fall into line for us to exist at all.
So with Tabak a lot of very unlikely things fell into line that evening when he strangled Jo Yeates. But however unlikely they all were, they culminated in Vincent Tabak taking the life of Jo.
And however much you defend his right to view whatever porn he likes and his right to have whatever fetishes he likes and however much you say that these proclivities should not have been revealed about him because it is character assassination, the fact remains that he was into this strange unusual porn related to the strangling of women for some sort of sexual satisfaction. There is your motive. The one you have said all along does not exist.
So however unlikely it may seem, it happened, Tabak killed his neighbour and you are unable to change that fact by words. We are not stupid so do not treat us as stupid. OK? Thank you

1
Philip Hollingbery
16 .
"We are not stupid so do not treat us as stupid. OK? Thank you"
Speak for yourself. You are not among the posters who disengages their brain when posting.
If you have understood why Vincent Tabak was such an unlikely killer, why on earth did the police suspect him in the first place, immediately after having suspected another unlikely man? Why not start trawling a list of plausible perpetrators? Oh I forgot, the police already knew who the killer was and couldn't touch him, so someone else had to be thrown to the media.
If Vincent really were guilty, why did his second solicitor announce that bail would be applied for, and then change his mind? If he were really guilty, and not an innocent who was to be stitched up, why did Vincent Tabak have four different solicitors in succession? Why didn't they allow him to enter a plea at five out of the six preliminary hearings? If they really knew he was guilty, why was he remanded far away in isolation from his girlfriend and family if it were not to "encourage" him to plead guilty? Didn't the police think they had enough evidence to convict him? How can any method that is used to "encourage" a remand prisoner who has denied the charge on arrest to plead guilty be anything but coercive and therefore invalid (so long as no fresh evidence has become available).
If Vincent really were guilty, why did his famous defence lawyer William Clegg QC find it necessary to help the prosecution so vigorously? Why did he allow video links with no eye contact? Why did he demand the highly emotive excursions to Joanna's flat and dumping spot and a trial in hostile Bristol, while the prosecution would have preferred Winchester? Why was Clegg's idea of a good character reference the statement that his client had no criminal record but otherwise there is nothing to like about him? If the prosecution was not floundering, why did Clegg not present Tabak's Ph.D and its warm and loving thesis Preface to the jury as further good character evidence?
At Steve Wright's trial the prosecution were not embarassed to question him about his patronising prostitutes, and he acknowledged that he had a history of doing so. If Vincent really led the double life that the media described, and if this really played its part in the crime, why did it not come out in court as bad character evidence? If the conviction really was as sound as you continue to insist, why bring the totally unsubstantiated porn and prostitutes up AFTER the verdict when it could serve no useful purpose? I don't really think I need to furnish the answer do I? The porn and the prostitutes were no more nor less in evidence than you would expect from a young heterosexual man in his situation and his relationship, and they had nothing to do with the crime, because she was killed by someone else.

Facebook User
16 .
As I have understood it the police 'cleared' him once after routine questioning probably because he was so high flying and because he appeared to be such an unlikely perpetrator.
Being 'suspected' is not the same as being questioned routinely and surely you will allow the police to question people in the absence of a crystal ball.
So we would expect them to question VT. [had this been your tragedy Phillip you would have gone mad with the police if they hadn't bothered to question someone on the grounds that they were nice or had a PhD. or wrote a nice self appraising prologue in their PhD. You would have asked them what the hell they were doing by not questioning EVERYONE in proximity of Joanna leaving no stone unturned.]
So after the police have questioned him and more or less discounted him, he then pushes his luck and contacts the British police himself from Holland. To the officers who traveled there He came across as anxious and worried about things which it was thought would not make an innocent man worried. Suspicion was born.
The swab was taken with his full consent.
back in the UK after some time it was realised that there was a possible match of VT's DNA with the material on the body. At this point it was inconclusive but over the next several days when new advanced techniques were used to MAGNIFY the sample it was seen to match VTs with a billion to one chance of it not being his. They did not tamper with the DNA evidence; they used a technique to amplify what was there already. That is why they suspected him in the first place Phillip. They had solid evidence that he had been in contact with Joanna's body.

1
Philip Hollingbery
16 .
"had this been your tragedy Phillip you would have gone mad with the police..."
- No I would not have been able to resist the deceitful manipulation of the Police Liaison Service to use my tragedy to assassinate the character of some innocent patsy - any more than David Yeates or Tanja Morson have been able to do. Apart from Greg Reardon, who should have been the No. 1 suspect, anyone living in the same house as Jo Yeates would have needed their head examined if they had killed her for other than a very good reason.
"he then pushes his luck and contacts the British police himself from Holland"
- He and Tanja Morson did exactly what any other normal responsible citizens would have done when they believed that they had information that would help the police. Like most people, they had no concept of the way detectives actually work on a real-life case, where the objective is to get a conviction, in contrast to the fictitious detectives whose goal is to seek the truth. Nor did they realize that their understandable actions would be turned against Vincent in the artificial world of the court, where no testimony is what it seems and Vincent was a wicked killer seeking to divert attention from himself by incriminating the landlord. Even the late and unlamented Sue Jeffries conceded that the real killer would have kept quiet in such a situation.
"The swab was taken with his full consent."
- Rubbish! If he had not consented, then he would have been charged with obstructing the police with their inquiries and thrown into the darkest cell with the snow blowing in through the bars of the open window. Taking the swab without prior consent and a caution was a breach of both Dutch and English law.
"They had solid evidence that he had been in contact with Joanna's body."
- Codswallop! Forensic scientist Lindsey Lennen gazed at the rows of 1's and 0's on her computer screen and saw what her paymaster had told her to look for, namely the words: "Suspect: Vincent Tabak Ph.D". I am sure she would also have seen the words "Gregory Graham Reardon", "Christopher Jefferies", "Bernard felis felis", and others besides, but these persons were not on the agenda. Once she had enhanced the samples, they were gone in a puff of smoke from her Lott's Chemistry bunsen flame, and no one could contradict her. If her evidence proved anything at all, it was that they lived at the same address and shared the same parking place and dustbins - not that Vincent Tabak had been in contact with the body.
If Vincent Tabak had really killed Joanna, why did the judge AFTER passing judgement make an oaf of himself by declaring the prisoner in the dock to be "deceitful, dishonest and manipulative", when there was ample evidence publicly available - including his research work and his job - that his character is honest, industrious and dependable? Was Mr Justice Field basically very unsure of himself in his heart of hearts? Did he have to bluster and bully to convince himself that he was in control? If Vincent Tabak really was a killer, why was the only person in court who had known the accused personally for long enough to testify to his character, Shrikant Sharma, not asked to do so, and thereby help the judge not to make a fool of himself? If Vincent Tabak really had killed Joanna, why does the CPS persist in making themselves look foolish by repeating the judge's doubtful character assessment?

Facebook User
16 .
OK we do not agree.
I know he is guilty
you know he is not guilty
what more can be said??

Gavin Hannaby
15 .
"had this been your tragedy Phillip you would have gone mad with the police..."
- No I would not have been able to resist the deceitful manipulation of the Police Liaison Service to use my tragedy to assassinate the character of some innocent patsy - any more than David Yeates or Tanja Morson have been able to do. Apart from Greg Reardon, who should have been the No. 1 suspect, anyone living in the same house as Jo Yeates would have needed their head examined if they had killed her for other than a very good reason.
I'm sure to a sexual deviant like Tabak killing Jo was for a, 'good reason' as you put it.




Noel O'Gara
12 .
Mike, all those computer searches you pin your faith on were made by Tabak AFTER he became aware that his next door neighbour, an attractive blonde woman, had gone missing believed to be a murder victim by most rational observers.
As a next door neighbour he would have been an indifferent uncaring and self centred ass hole if he didnt take an interest in the events all around him.
If he had been her cunning and manipulative psychopathic killer and went to all that trouble as you believe in cleaning up his dna, hair, fibres, saliva etc etc, the last thing he would do is get on his pc and leave a trail of searches that would incriminate him.
He looked up the dustbins when all of Bristol were doing that and pc plod was sifting through hundreds of tons of rubbish looking for a pizza box.
Tabak may have been smart enough to suspect that Greg did it and he may have heard them fighting through the partition wall separating their bedrooms. That would provide a reason for many of those searches.
After his unnerving experience in Schipol airport, he probably intensified his searching because he was afraid that he might be set up just like the landlord nearly was.
If you are prepared to put blind trust in the police to offer that as evidence when they failed to find any real evidence that such an unlikely suspect murdered his neighbour without any motive, then Mike you have great faith indeed. But it is misplaced however clear it is to you.



Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
12 .
No Noel, the Longwood Lane searches were done before Joanna was found.

1
Facebook User
12 .
@ Admin ''I'll take you on though. Like you, I think the correct man is probably in jail. Unlike you however, I believe it's for the wrong reasons and for the wrong term. Noel has taught me a lot, even though I don't agree with everything he posts here, about how difficult it is for UK authorities to back down.
Admin I have said quite a few times that although I am sure that VT killed Jo, I think it is not entirely clear about the what really happened and there is doubt cast on the verdict.
But whilst Phillip (and Noel) will not accept that VT was implicated at all then the discussion with them does tend to come to a dead end.
If we were all debating the question of ''should it have been a murder verdict or should manslaughter have been accepted'' then the whole feel of the page would be different.
I would go with manslaughter except for one worrying thing ...the 42 injuries.
I would be prepared to accept a reasonable explanation for the injuries [an explanation which would still allow a manslaughter verdict.]

5
Eva Gietl
12 .
@Admin:
I think it was manslaughter and that VT didn't intend to kill JY.
However, IMO she died while he strangled her, and strangling someone could be considered to do someone serious harm. And, like it or not, if a person kills someone unintentionally but while doing them serious harm, that is considered murder in England and Wales.

1
Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
11 .
Um no Eva, with respect, that's not necessarily murder, and not necessarily a danger to society.
Extreme example, say an elderly woman kills a little girl accidentally by driving over her in a parking lot while doing her serious harm, that is NOT considered murder in England and Wales.
Less extreme an example, more relevant and one that Philip quotes, is the Lancaster case where he acknowledged strangling his victim but didn't realise it would kill her and his manslaughter plea was accepted, in England. He'll be out in a few years.

1
Charlotte Eveson
11 .
Eva
You are 100% correct it is classed as murder in this country if your intention was to cause serious harm but the person ends up dead
This is why the judge in the VT case asked the jury to decide if VT intended to kill Jo or seriously harm her because both are murder as of course she died


Updated 11 . by the author.

3
Charlotte Eveson
11 .
This could be why it went to murder , you don't squeeze someone's throat to silence them and not know you were doing serious harm.
I feel his intent only occurred minutes before he killed her but I do believe that someone struggling and fighting for breath for 20 seconds (and I think that was probably a conservative figure on VTs part) was long enough for him to realise what was happening and stop

2
Eva Gietl
11 .
@Admin:
In the Lancaster case, the strangling was allegedly consensual- part of their sex play. If I recall the case correctly, he was intoxicated. So, no intent to seriously harm (but a lot of stupidity).
An elderly lady running over a child: no intent to seriously harm.
Someone sexually assaulting a woman and strangling her to keep her quiet: intent to harm her.
As I said. I don't think he planned to kill her. Maybe he didn't even plan to assault her sexually, but IMO the situation got out of hand. And I think there was room for the jury to convict him of murder according to English law.

2
Facebook User
11 .
@ Charlotte ''I feel his intent only occurred minutes before he killed her but I do believe that someone struggling and fighting for breath for 20 seconds (and I think that was probably a conservative figure on VTs part) was long enough for him to realise what was happening and stop''
I think Charlotte in the above is right.
For some reason I want it to have been manslaughter, but try as I may to reconcile the dreadful occurrence with manslaughter, I can't and I think it was murder.
@ Eva ''As I said. I don't think he planned to kill her. Maybe he didn't even plan to assault her sexually, but IMO the situation got out of hand. And I think there was room for the jury to convict him of murder according to English law.''
I think that Eva is right re above.

1
Noel O'Gara
11 .
I would agree that Jo was intentionally murdered. If a man grabs a woman by the throat with his two hands and squeezes her throat until she no longer moves, there is no way her death could be accidental. She would struggle and scratch and kick as he overpowered her and when he brought her to the floor he made sure she was lifeless before he released his grip.
There is no middle ground to a strangulation not being murder.
If he shot her with a gun to the head or a vital organ it would be instantaneous or if he stabbed her with a knife in the heart that would be murder. Both would be quick actions but the premeditation is what would be in question.
In a strangulation, as he held her throat he knew that he must hold it until she passed out and so it was his intention to kill her.
The problem is they blamed the wrong man. Tabak had no motive to kill his neighbour, a girl he didnt even know.
Eva dont believe that liar who said he strangled Anna Banks in sex play. That is a killer's excuse to mitigate his crime. Nobody half strangles his girl in sex play. Its a fallacy but killers will come up with all kind of excuses to get away light and blame the victim for their crime.
Delete

1
Eva Gietl
11 .
@Noel:
There are a lot of people who enjoy a bit of strangulation during sex. It might not be your cup of tea but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

1
Noel O'Gara
11 .
dream on Eva.
Delete

2
Sue Graham
11 .
You are completely correct Eva, it does happen.
It's not my cup of tea but it certainly does exist. Although, I wouldn't expect someone who is completely out of touch with reality to understand that.
Noel, dismissing this as truth with your "dream on Eva" response just shows how much you're stuck in the dark ages. And clearly demonstrates your lack of "open mindedness".
You should try to educate yourself on a subject before being so quick to dismiss it.

Noel O'Gara
11 .
Sue G, normal people engage in normal sexual relations. A minority of people will put on all kinds of kinky gear to get a bit of atmosphere into their boring sex lives. A lesser number of odd bods will even engage in whipping and beating and using chains and ropes but to actually strangle or rather as Eva thinks half strangle a woman until she is gasping for her life is dicing with death and would only be done by a man who perhaps didnt care if he did choke his woman if she was stupid enough to allow him to do it.
It occasionally happens, like in the Anna Banks case but that creep murdered her and lied about the sex games to get out of it. If you believe that getting half choked to death intensifies your orgasm Sue G you would believe anything.
Delete

Sue Graham
11 .
Noel, Once again (as always) you profess to know it all.
You are WRONG if you think it doesn't happen. I'm not going to get into a long drawn boring debate with you about it as we've been here before with the same topic. I KNOW it happens because l know someone that does enjoy it.
Don't tell me what to believe or not to believe Noel, your arrogance simply removes any credibility from your argument.
Do your research!!

Noel O'Gara
11 .
have you tried it Sue G? Seeing as you know somebody who does enjoy being half choked to death why not get to the bottom of it and you will find she is spoofing. Go ahead and verify the practice seeing as you actually know somebody daft enough to do it. Be sure to ask her how she knows just when to tell him to stop before she snuffs it. Oh and ask her does it give him an extra kick to see her almost blank out or is it her who has a death wish?
Great to have that expertise here Sue and you seem to be the expert on that.
Delete


Sue Graham
11 .
Noel, are you actually telling me to go ahead and try it because you don't believe it to be true? Did l say l was an expert? No! I said it DOES happen.
What an arsehole comment to make!!
And as usual because someone say's something you don't believe, you resort to the lowest of the low replies! That really is vile and uncalled for!!


Updated 11 . by the author.

Sue Graham
11 .
Your friend was allegedly a so called "murderer" did you go out and try it just to "verify" it? You have claimed many times to be an expert on that subject!

Noel O'Gara
11 .
yes I am an expert on the Ripper and I had to study all about murder and how the police solved such high profile cases such as the Boston Strangler, Jack the Ripper, Jack the Stripper and many others.
You said ''You are WRONG if you think it doesn't happen. I'm not going to get into a long drawn boring debate with you about it as we've been here before with the same topic. I KNOW it happens because l know someone that does enjoy it.''
All I am saying Sue G is you are talking through yours. Go on and quiz her about it and see for yourself.
Delete

Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
11 .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotic_asphyxiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choking_game
http://www.evilmonk.org/A/breath.cfm

Noel O'Gara
11 .
those wiki sites could be edited by Sue J. I think you are not so dumb admin to let any boyfriend however plausible he appeared to be, to let him try to choke you in the expectation that you might get a better orgasm.
You just might not be able to stop him. Would you risk it?
Its pure madness that may be part of the porn movies but its for the birds only.
Delete

1
Eva Gietl
11 .
@Noel:
I am not sure if you display endearing naivity or appaling ignorance regarding slightly unusual sex practices.

1
Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
11 .
And Noel, I personally wouldn't visit dodgy massage parlours in the Canary Islands but hey, that's just me.
That last link is to an article written by a Californian paramedic, writing with his own name and contact details, who is also into sado-masochism himself, so it's a good analysis of the medical risks of the well-documented fetish of erotic asphyxiation. He writes as though he is against the practice (explains in detail why it's possible to suffer heart failure in under a minute) but he writes seriously about it.
There are thousands of online articles about it that aren't wikis.
Auto-asphyxiation is even more common, since as you say most partners would be loathe to take the risk. I've said before, although not everyone believed me at the time, that I personally know an undertaker in England who has retrieved a naked body found with a rope around his neck, poison ivy wrapped around his penis and porn and a plastic catchment container in front of him.
This doesn't apply to the Yeates killing except that you and Philip have brought in the Banks killing, which the judge ruled was as a result of a partners sex game which you say doesn't exist.

1
Facebook User
11 .
@ Admin http://www.evilmonk.org/A/breath.cfm
Thanks for the links especially the one above.
It has opened my eyes about it. Very dodgy. But I can now see why the jury /judge concluded as they did in the Lancaster case and why Tabak's case cannot really be compared at all with the Lancaster case.

Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
11 .
I agree the cases aren't comparable, except that I do get the point that the short sentence handed down in the Lancaster case could theoretically (highly theoretically, highly unlikely) have been used to persuade Tabak or members of his team that manslaughter was the way to plea.
But I find that particular article interesting because besides showing Noel that it's a practised fetish, it explains (something we've debated on here) how strangulation isn't only about cutting off blood to the brain, but can actually quickly cause the heart to behave in ways that cause it to stop, without CPR being useful afterwards.
Up until this case I'd always believed that strangling causes death either through lack of oxygen to the brain or crushing of the trachea so that breathing cannot be resumed. I've always said that the autopsy finding of heart stoppage may be relevant in this case, and I believe it may support the view that Joanna died more quickly than an ordinary person would expect, which led to Tabak's shock and panic.
It doesn't in any way excuse his subsequent behaviour, but may support the theory that he never intended to kill her. Not the reason I posted the article, but it does feed into that discussion.

Facebook User
11 .
I felt that too Admin when reading it. How quickly things could go wrong and how unlikely it would be to 'put them right' with cardiac massage without all the necessary equipment and personnel.
My massive stumbling blocks are the 42 injuries and the statement from Tabak that she didn't struggle.
To me, if she struggled it was murder. Logically she must have struggled. so it is murder. The injuries are a strange thing and maybe are explainable in a non incriminating way but I cannot for the life of me imagine how they could be explained in a non incriminating way.

1
Philip Hollingbery
11 .
The strangulation sex-play formed a major part of the defence's case presented to the jury trying Danny Lancaster. If the police thought it played a part in the death of Joanna Yeates, then why did the prosecution not put it to the jury that Vincent Tabak was acting out a fantasy derived from viewing porn and visiting prostitutes? Although DCI Phil Jones as recently as two weeks ago referred to these elements of the case as "bad character evidence", they were not in fact evidence. Not only were they not presented as part of the case to the jury, but they were not presented under oath and the accused was not questioned about them. They were fabrications by the police with which the QCs and the judge went along because they knew they had a very unsound conviction based on a very unsound plea and a complete absence of motive.
Not until the trial did absence of any valid grounds for making Vincent Tabak a suspect in the first place emerge. The excuse for making him a suspect was exactly the same as those for suspecting Chris Jefferies - both men happened to be in the vicinity of the victim at the presumed time of the crime without an alibi. But that is because they lived in the same house as the victim! So it is no grounds for suspicion at all. Any investigating officer would have asked what the likelihood was of a person with an MA or a Ph.D and exceptionally good previous character killing a neighbour whom they did not know without any motive. A billion to one against,wouldn't any normal intelligent person with a normal education reckon?
So why make BOTH Christopher Jefferies AND Vincent Tabak suspects?
What is the likelihood against this very eccentric course of action by the police being caused by a decision to frame a suspect - no matter how implausible - on the grounds that the real killer has already been identified and that his dad is a mate of the Chief Constable? A billion to one against, wouldn't any normal intelligent person with a normal education reckon?

Eva Gietl
11 .
@Philip:
The prosecution wanted to present the strangulation sex-play to the jury but the defense objected.

Facebook User
11 .
@ Admin ''Up until this case I'd always believed that strangling causes death either through lack of oxygen to the brain or crushing of the trachea so that breathing cannot be resumed. I've always said that the autopsy finding of heart stoppage may be relevant in this case, and I believe it may support the view that Joanna died more quickly than an ordinary person would expect, which led to Tabak's shock and panic.''
I had thought that as well Admin. The question could be, did he intend to kill her or just get some sexual satisfaction from going through the motions of strangling her and it went horribly wrong as mentioned in the article. The problem is that if poor Jo had lived, his life was still in a complete mess from the attempted murder and weird strangling assault. This would have ended his career any way [even if he only got 3 years] So did he want her dead because of that?? In the sense of making it impossible to testify against him?


Updated 11 . by the author.

Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
11 .
Mike, I'm not sure how autopsy reports work, haven't really ever gone into that, though I know they are thorough. But I know in reports of Whitney Houston's post mortem that I saw this morning things like her breast implant scars counted as two separate injuries, a caeserian scar or similar seems to be included, post-death injuries were included from CPR attempts, every piece of skin scalded in the bath was recorded as a separate injury, and so on.
When I look at my own hands from playing rough with my cat on the weekend that would probably count for half a dozen injuries alone. (But she's worth it and I barely noticed her scratches at the time.)
So "42 injuries" may be a bit dramatic when taken out of autopsy context? I recall that in court the key issues that emerged were the nose injury and the fact that some were probably post-death. I think if she'd really been beaten up in the encounter the prosecustion would have made more of the individual injury types.



Facebook User
11 .
@ Eva ''The prosecution wanted to present the strangulation sex-play to the jury but the defense objected.''
A great point Eva.

Facebook User
11 .
Good point. [Admin]
I did expect the defence pathologist to blow apart the 42 injuries thing and at the time it was strange to me that he didn't really do that.

1
Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
11 .
Mike, I'm not convinced that strangulation fetish is relevant to the Tabak case.
Physiologically the practitioner gets heightened pleasure by being strangled more than by strangling someone else (which is why auto occurences seem to be more frequent than partner ones and in males much more than in females). But that's probably why it flew in the Lancaster case. Even in that case I think the defence was just lucky with that approach, since the accused had boasted to friends that his girlfriend had been cheating and he'd sorted her out.
I think the strangulation porn in the Tabak case is a big post-trial red herring, myself. I'm still open to having my mind changed, but at this stage everything I've read points to a sexually clumsy oaf of an arsehole who was scared out of his little mind when Joanna died unexpectedly. If he'd called emergency services immediately, even if he'd been acting inappropriately, instead of his elaborate Failand project his future would look very different today.

1
Philip Hollingbery
11 .
"if poor Jo had lived, his life was still in a complete mess from the attempted murder and weird strangling assault. This would have ended his career any way [even if he only got 3 years] So did he want her dead because of that??"
Thank you for proving my point. The likelihood againt someone highly intelligent with a Ph.D and a promising career ahead of him attempting to have strangulation-based sex-play with a girl living next-door whom he had known for only a few minutes was at least 32,000 to 1. Multiply that by a similar likelihood against the landlord's doing something similar and you have a billion to one against this trial not being the result of a stitch-up agenda.
@Eva G,
"The prosecution wanted to present the strangulation sex-play to the jury but the defense objected."
They had had 9 months to submit the porn videos according to CPS rules for evidence so why did they wait until the trial opened to hold that cosy discussion without the jury present but without the journalists? THERE WERE NO STRANGULATION PORN VIDEOS EVA - they were yet another example of deceit and manipulation.
@Admin,
"When I look at my own hands from playing rough with my cat on the weekend that would probably count for half a dozen injuries alone"
So your DNA will be spread all over your cat's territory and picked up by every suit-case that is placed on the ground before being loaded into a car boot.

Noel O'Gara
11 .
admin, you have come up with one nut case after a trawl of the www, who documented his flirting with death and of course Sue G has a pal who enjoys that dubious practice also. Big deal. Keep an eye out for her funeral Sue G.
These are so isolated and you can only regard a person who tries such a mad act as suicidal or else a madman or woman.
It should be irrelevant to the debate about Tabak and I am trying to make that point in spite of Mike desperately latching on to it to support his threadbare case.
If indeed the prosecution wanted to bring that up in the trial, then it shouldnt surprise you that they are clutching at the remotest straws to support their wrong suspicion that Tabak was the killer of Jo.
Its a bit like the Kerry babies case when the Irish police rather than admit they were wrong, suggested that a girl became pregnant by two different men and killed both babies, so that the charge they made on finding the first body was correct eventhough subsequent dna tests showed that baby was no relation to the girl and the second body found subsequently on her farm was indeed hers. They were grasping at straws rather than say they screwed up and charged her in the wrong. But then the Irish police learned their trade from the British police.
Delete

1
Eva Gietl
11 .
@Philip:
How do you know that the prosecution didn't include the porn in their evidence before the trial started?
Just because the defence objected to the porn evidence and the judge ruled it inadmissible doesn't mean that the prosecution hid it before.
Btw, I should hope that there weren't any "cosy discussions" between prosecution, defence and judge before the trial opened.

Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
11 .
Philip: "So your DNA will be spread all over your cat's territory and picked up by every suit-case that is placed on the ground before being loaded into a car boot."
Well I didn't mean to accidentally support your theory :-) though yes, thinking about it... she is nowhere near the parking garage, by design since cats and cars lead to heartbreak, but left her alone for a few days last week while travelling to Joburg for business, plenty of food and water and the balcony door open so she could enjoy the sun and her favourite activity, bird-watching. On the last night away we received a call from the immediate neighbour to say she had joined him through his open balcony door to watch TV. True story. So I guess my DNA and that of family and friends is all over his flat now.

2
Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
11 .
Noel: "admin, you have come up with one nut case after a trawl of the www, who documented his flirting with death and of course Sue G has a pal who enjoys that dubious practice also. Big deal."
He's not a nut case in terms of his medical analysis of the risks of http://www.definition-of.com/asphyxiaphilia, and he clearly isn't in favour of the practise himself. Plus it was hardly a trawl - there are thousands of articles about the fetish and I spotted this well-researched article within the first 30 seconds or so.
Noel, if you want people to open their minds to your ideas, as I have, then please don't be narrowminded about what's happening outside of your personal experience.

Sue Graham
11 .
Phlip, "So your DNA will be spread all over your cat's territory and picked up by every suit-case that is placed on the ground before being loaded into a car boot."
Admin, "So I guess my DNA and that of family and friends is all over his flat now." Is that really the case?
Jo's cat was said (by VT) to of wandered into VT's flat a couple of times. Had that been the case, both flats would contain the dna from each others would it not? But yet there was no trace of VT being in Joanna's flat.
But just to be clear, l am not saying VT didn't do this, l am simply saying l don't think the cat theory stands.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/20/vincent-tabak-apologises-joanna-yeates-parents

2
Sue Graham
11 .
Noel "admin, you have come up with one nut case after a trawl of the www, who documented his flirting with death and of course Sue G has a pal who enjoys that dubious practice also. Big deal. Keep an eye out for her funeral Sue G."
Noel, l will treat this comment with the contempt it deserves!! Nasty!

Philip Hollingbery
11 .
@Sue G,
"Jo's cat was said (by VT) to of wandered into VT's flat a couple of times. Had that been the case, both flats would contain the dna from each others would it not? But yet there was no trace of VT being in Joanna's flat."
The alleged detection of low-copy-number samples of Jo's DNA in the boot of the car used by Vincent could be explained by the actions of the kitten Bernard and the loading of suit-cases. However that does mean that Bernard should be considered as a reliable spreader of DNA. Failure to discover anybody's DNA anywhere does not mean that they had not been in the vicinity, nor that Bernard had not been active in distributing limited stocks of DNA in arbitrary places.
The police's allegation that a suspect's DNA had been found on Jo's breast came four weeks after the discovery of her body and three weeks after a saliva swab was taken from Vincent was timed to coincide with Vincent's arrest and with the police's decision to represent her killing as the result of a sex-related attack. Why on earth did it take Lindsey Lennen so long to analyze those samples and match them to Vincent? Obviously, as Vincent suggested when he was first arrested, because someone such as Sky News or The Sun paid her to do so. At that time he still had a solicitor (Patrick Crossman of Radstock) who obviously knew the way that real DNA merchants earn their living. A man who had led as sheltered a life as Vincent would never have invented such a cynical allegation by himself. Had he been the real killer, he would have been careful not to let his DNA get anywhere so careless.


Updated 11 . by the author.

2
Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
11 .
Sue G: "Admin, "So I guess my DNA and that of family and friends is all over his flat now." Is that really the case?"
No, not really. DNA research is still a fragile science in my opinion.
The cat theory is bollocks, once again in my opinion.
My neighbour's civil life partner did actually die last year under suspicious circumstances. They had moved out a few weeks before to a flat across the bay, but it was very close to the time frame of one of the periods they lived in their next-door-penthouse. The surviving husband is back living next door and he's a friend of mine, as was his husband.
If they'd been living next door at the time and a family member or I had been suspected of murder because our cat was in their flat it would have been thrown right out of court. The cat theory is insane.

Sue Graham
11 .
Admin, "The cat theory is bollocks, once again in my opinion." lol my sentiments exactly!!
Philip, "The alleged detection of low-copy-number samples of Jo's DNA in the boot of the car used by Vincent could be explained by the actions of the kitten Bernard and the loading of suit-cases.
That doesn't account for Jo's blood that was found in VT's boot!!
"Why on earth did it take Lindsey Lennen so long to analyze those samples and match them to Vincent? Obviously, as Vincent suggested when he was first arrested, because someone such as Sky News or The Sun paid her to do so."
I think you're getting a little carried away there Philip lol

Sue Graham
11 .
Philip, "Failure to discover anybody's DNA anywhere does not mean that they had not been in the vicinity"
Very good point! There goes the theory that VT could not of been in Jo's flat that night!!

Philip Hollingbery
10 .
Sue G,
"That doesn't account for Jo's blood that was found in VT's boot!!"
That is exactly what it does do. Jo plays with kitten AT ANY TIME, the kitten scratches Jo many times as described by Admin, then wanders out into car park with Jo's blod on its claws, lurks around the Renault Megane in the car park, depositing tiny fragments of blood on the ground beside the car. Some of these cling to a suit-case while it is placed on the ground prior to being loaded into the boot of the Megane. There could have been long days or weeks elapsing between each of these events.
Philip, "Failure to discover anybody's DNA anywhere does not mean that they had not been in the vicinity"
Sue G: "Very good point! There goes the theory that VT could not of been in Jo's flat that night"
This is what I believe is known as a "straw man" in a discussion.


Updated 10 . by the author.


Sue Graham
10 .
Philip, I can't believe you even took the time to write that!

1
Philip Hollingbery
10 .
@Sue G,
I was multi-tasking. It's what we men are good at. I had not finished before I was interrupted. The question of whether VT was in the flat or not has nothing to do with VT's DNA, though it does have something to do with the absence or presence of Jo's blood in the flat.

1
Charlotte Eveson
10 .
There was no blood from Jo in her flat as none was released until she was dead and was moved

Debra Ann Clements
10 .
There was no blood or forensics of a dead body in Jo's flat because Jo she never got back home that eveining.
The witnesses in court prove as much. Florian Lehman said he and his wife Zoe heard screams as they walked down the path to the party which was across the road from Jo’s flat. He said it was coming from ‘quite a distance away’ and in the direction of Clifton College playing fields. His wife Zoe also confirmed hearing the screams.
Matthew Philips a teacher also attending the same party said her heard a commotion as he was outside waiting to go into the party.
And in the buildings where Jo lived neither Geoffrey Hardyman nor Chris Jefferies heard any screams. Confirmation that the only screams heard were outside the flat!

1
Sue Vendone
10 .
Debra
Absolutely agree with you. If VT was guilty and Jo's life was taken at the flat, he would have been picked up immediately. The disarray at the flat would have to be the cause of a struggle and no DNA left behind after such a struggle is just incredible. The killer staged this disarray not VT imo

Debra Ann Clements
10 .
1. No blood or forensics in flat.
2. Witnesses heard screams outside.
3. Geoffery Harydman and Chis Jefferies heard nothing.
4. No sexual assault, which means the real killer placed the earrings and the strategically placed knickers.

Dyna Victoria
10 .
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 or so.”
Father George Henwood, the last person to see and speak with Miss Yeates before she died, told the court he set out on his usual dog walk around Clifton around 8.15pm to 8.30pm when he spotted a couple, as well as Miss Yeates. He recalled the freezing conditions, and saying to Joanna: “It’s slippy, isn’t it?” She replied “Yes, it is.” According to the Crown these are the last words she spoke before she died.
http://.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/joanna-yeates-trial-13th-october-2011/
the screams have always bothered me.....

1
Charlotte Eveson
9 .
I have always considered the possibility that the struggle took place in the hall but the death occurred on the path
Therefore screams would have been heard as "outside"
It may also explain why VT wanted to buy rock salt and testified that he "put her down on the path" as he was carrying her round to his flat
For one why take her to your flat ? Maybe because she died on the path
Saying that just because the other residents did not hear the screams mean nothing because if she was screaming outside you must still ask yourself why did they not hear it ? Other further residents did

1
Sue Vendone
9 .
Charlotte
This is clutching at straws. If as you say "For one why take her to your flat ? Maybe because she died on the path" Why would he set up her flat afterwards to look like a sexual assault had taken place, contaminating the flat with DNA? Well of course he didn't, someone else did.

1
Charlotte Eveson
9 .
The way I look at it is this
There is enough evidence to convict VT of murder
He has confessed
Of course I cannot 100% say VT is guilty as I was not there but , I have no reason at all to believe at this time that it was a set up or VT gave a false confession.
so I think of it this way
Of course VT may not have told the full truth in order to save some of his skin , so I feel he gave a watered down version of the truth.
So I look at possible scenarios and I feel the most likely is he was angry and worked up about TM being at he works party , I think he was waiting for Jo to come back and he attacked her within minutes of her arriving home , it is quite possible the attack started in the bedroom or hall , she broke free for a second and got to the door and may have been killed on the path , think about it if she was screaming on the doorstep he would HAVE to stop her
She died on the path and to avoid further risk he took her back to his flat not hers
Now the way I look at it that is entirely possible , of course none of us will ever know but nothing leads me to think that there is NO way VT did this

1
Charlotte Eveson
9 .
Sue
It's not clutching at straws , he said he took her back to his flat and I have always thought why? People do things for a reason

Debra Ann Clements
9 .
The police case was that she got home and that she was killed in the flat, but there in no evidence that that is the case. No only did Geoffery Hardyman and Chris Jefferies not hear anything, but all other witnesses point to the screams being outside.
It is simply impossible for there to have been a struggle with 42 injuries, including a broken nose, and blood matted hair to leave no forensics of the murder from either Jo or Tabak.


Updated 9 . by the author.

Charlotte Eveson
9 .
Plus the flat was not set up to make it look like a sexual assault took place

Charlotte Eveson
9 .
She did not have blood matted hair , she had some blood in her hair that ran from her nose after death when moved
Also the police say they feel she was killed in her flat as they cannot prove otherwise and they are going on VTs watered down version of the truth

Charlotte Eveson
9 .
I ask anyone to point to ANYTHING that they can see to say that version of events is impossible



Charlotte Eveson
9 .
Debra
"No only did Geoffery Hardyman and Chris Jefferies not hear anything, but all other witnesses point to the screams being outside."
What if she was killed on the doorstep ? Outside
Why did they not hear anything if the loud scream was outside , other residents did ?

2
Sue Vendone
9 .
Charlotte
Yes I concede it could be a possible reason for him taking her to his flat.........obviously he would not know if any friend was about to turn up and he wouldn't want his dna all over her flat!!
So, then you must ask why someone, who,as you put it, wanted to avoid further risk, would be so daft as to let himself into her flat, and stage a sexual assault?

3
Charlotte Eveson
9 .
sue
He may not have done ? Nothing makes me think he Staged anything

2
Charlotte Eveson
9 .
He said he went back into the flat , turned oven off and shut the door

Debra Ann Clements
9 .
The facts are the screams point to the attack being outside, as does the fact there is no foreniscs in the flat too. There was no sexual assaut, so therefore the real killer staged the flat.

Charlotte Eveson
9 .
Debra
Sorry but that statement makes no sense to me

Charlotte Eveson
9 .
Just because full sexual assault did not occur does not mean it was not intended and she was killed before it occured

Debra Ann Clements
9 .
On the contrary Charlotte it not only makes sense it shows unequivocally that Tabak is not the killer, and that Vincent has been locked up for a crime he did not commit.
The screams were heard outside, she was attacked outside, and this is why there are no forensics of Jo's blood or Tabak's DNA in the flat.
Therefore someone placed the knickers in the hallway and the earing in the bed - the real killer.

Debra Ann Clements
9 .
Charlotte you said:
'So I look at possible scenarios and I feel the most likely is he was angry and worked up about TM being at he works party , I think he was waiting for Jo to come back and he attacked her within minutes of her arriving home , it is quite possible the attack started in the bedroom or hall , she broke free for a second and got to the door and may have been killed on the path , think about it if she was screaming on the doorstep he would HAVE to stop her
She died on the path and to avoid further risk he took her back to his flat not hers'.
Whatever do you mean Vincent was waiting for Jo to come back. He did not know Jo, and would have had no idea what time Jo was returning that night, or even if she was returning home that night either. Why the hell would he want to attack her, you explantion is utterly farcical.
You say he took her back to his flat. But there was no DNA or forensics in Taback's flat either.
You explantions are merely guesswork, whereas everything I have pointed out are the facts of the case, and prove VT is not the killer.

Sue Graham
9 .
"The screams were heard outside, she was attacked outside, and this is why there are no forensics of Jo's blood or Tabak's DNA in the flat."
The screams were heard outside the flat because that is where VT probably attacked her. Just because Geoffrey Hardyman and Chris Jefferies didn't hear the screams that doesn't mean it didn't happen. GH is 78 years old and was in bed ill with a cold, he was most likely flat out with the help of medication. In his own words "he slept well that night".
The absence of dna does not mean VT wasn't there. The blood only appeared after death by which time Jo was most likely in VT's flat. Whatever happened with the sock? Did VT use this to stem the blood from going anywhere?
He could easily of gone back in to Jo's flat wearing gloves, picked up a few items and clumsily thrown them around. Turned the oven off and helped himself to the pizza whilst planning his next course of action.
And then there's always the fact that he "unequivocally" admitted it!

Sue Graham
9 .
"You explantions are merely guesswork, whereas everything I have pointed out are the facts of the case, and prove VT is not the killer."
Get over yourself Debra, your sounding like a very spoilt child that's not getting her way. This is a discussion group, not debra is CORRECT therefore all discussions must stop.
You sound just like someone else on here, your comments are venomous towards people.

Sue Graham
9 .
Debra,
"You say he took her back to his flat. But there was no DNA or forensics in Taback's flat either."
If you carried someone into your flat/house, laid them out on your bed, placed a large bag next to them, and put them in it. Where would all this dna come from? Bearing in mind you only placed them on the cover. They didn't walk in and touch everything in their path. How hard was it for VT to change the cover and throw away the one he put her on? VT said himself he put her on his bed, why was there no evidence of this? Like l said, easy to throw away the cover!!
Is this included in your "facts"

1
Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
9 .
Sue: "Get over yourself Debra, your sounding like a very spoilt child that's not getting her way. This is a discussion group, not debra is CORRECT therefore all discussions must stop."
Wow Sue, attack the post and not the poster please. Then this.......
Sue: "You sound just like someone else on here, your comments are venomous towards people."
I'll assume for now that you are running with the tired theory that Debra is me. Any time I've posted venomously it has been about disruptive posting style, wearing my admin hat, not about personal opinions on the Tabak case.
Wearing my poster hat, Debra's thoughts are fundamentally different to mine and that's fine.
All opinions and debates are welcome here, Sue, just not rudeness.

Philip Hollingbery
9 .
@Sue G,
"And then there's always the fact that he "unequivocally" admitted it!"
This just goes to show that it was a coerced "confession" obtained by playing the risk of a murder sentence off against the "bonus" of a manslaughter sentence. The statements he made in court were designed to try to create a manslaughter scenario even though they were obviously at variance with the known facts and with Greg's testimony about the state of the flat.
Debra, you have shown unequivocally that Vincent could not have committed the murder in such a way as to cause the screams that were heard by persons some way away but not by two other people inside the house, as he had no knowledge in advance that she would be coming home. So he could not have been the killer at all.
Charlotte, you are describing the actions of an emotionally unstable psychopathic person, who wanted to avoid further risk, yet as Sue V points out would be so daft as to let himself into her flat afterwards, and stage a sexual assault. But there is no evidence to show that Vincent was anything like that - on the contrary, all that we know about him suggests the absolute opposite. The clincher is that both Clegg and Lickley avoided the opportunity to question Vincent's boss Shrikant Sharma about the accused's personality, and that can only mean that they knew very well that he would never have carried out the sort of attack you and they have been trying to invent.
During the investigation, the police did not issue the usual warnings to young women to take extra care and not to go out alone after dark. Nor did they check out many privately owned CCTV surveillance systems. This indicates they already knew who the killer was, that there was only one person who would have a motive to stage a sex attack in the flat with nickers and earrings, and that the police were just hoping that the media would forget about Joanna Yeates as soon as possible so it could be marked "unsolved".

Sue Vendone
9 .
@ Phillip -Nor did they check out many privately owned CCTV surveillance systems.
Yes thats a mystery to me..or have they been checked out and we don,t know it.


1
Charlotte Eveson
9 .
Debra
"On the contrary Charlotte it not only makes sense it shows unequivocally that Tabak is not the killer, and that Vincent has been locked up for a crime he did not commit."
I'm afraid it does not no.
You are saying that because 2 men did not hear the screams and there was no forensics in the flat then VT was not the killer. Sorry but the two do not go,!
As I said and you seem to be ignoring the possibility she could have been killed on her doorstep
And yes it is possible he could have been waiting for Jo , initial reports stated that CJ told him about Greg jump starting the car and although he does not know Jo he would have seen her many times.
Just because he did not know what time she would return does not mean he took the opportunity if he saw her pass the window
To say the flat was staged to look like a sexual assault occurred is ridiculous , there were signs of a struggle in hall , earrings on bed and floor and a pair of clean knickers on the table , he could have easily took her earrings out and threw them onto the bed to try and make it look like she was at the flat over night

Philip Hollingbery
9 .
@Sue V,
I read somewhere - not necessarily a reliable source - that the police invited commercial premises with CCTV to save them a lot of work by running through their own recordings! I can also recollect that more than a week went by before they noticed that there were private CCTV cameras in Canynge Road, but by that time the recordings had been overwritten.

1
Charlotte Eveson
9 .
Sue
Sue Vendone 17 minutes ago
@ Phillip -Nor did they check out many privately owned CCTV surveillance systems.
Yes thats a mystery to me..or have they been checked out and we don,t know it.
What many private CCTV ? Have you knocked door to door and counted them?
VT was caught at various locations across the area on CCTV , some of which were shown in court , some were not as not needed as the defence did not need to dispute his movements that night

1
Charlotte Eveson
9 .
Debra
"You explantions are merely guesswork, whereas everything I have pointed out are the facts of the case, and prove VT is not the killer."
Where are these FACTS that prove VT is not the killer?
Up till now I have read nothing at all on here that makes me even slightly consider that VT may not be the killer let alone FACTS that prove it
Of course my theories of exactly where and why he killed Jo are guess work and I stated that myself
But what is not Guesswork on my part are the FACTS that there was enough evidence to satisfy the CPS even before the his confession
And the FACT that he did confess

1
Philip Hollingbery
9 .
@Charlotte,
"And yes it is possible he could have been waiting for Jo , initial reports stated that CJ told him about Greg jump starting the car and although he does not know Jo he would have seen her many times."
He could not possibly know whether she had gone away to Swansea for the weekend to stay, as Rebecca Scott subsequently claimed she had contemplated doing only 40 minutes before her death. Your suggestion that he stood in the window on the off-chance that she would come home and immediately rushed out and strangled her would not even fit in with the personality of the Yorkshire Ripper, let alone Vincent Tabak. However, it is a common feature of stitch-ups to devise scenarios which border on the physically impossible. For Vincent Tabak to have encountered Joanna Yeates that night, plausibility requires that it would have to be HER initiative, and although that would also fit in much better with their known personalities it is still most unlikely that she would have chosen to call on a neighbour she did not know in that way.
"...not needed as the defence did not need to dispute his movements that night"
Neither the defence nor the prosecution needed to do other than conduct a show trial, as hindsight shows that the verdict was a foregone conclusion. The prosecution neglected every opportunity to show that the accused had the sort of personality that you are trying to pretend he had, and his defence neglected every opportunity to show that he didn't.

2
Charlotte Eveson
9 .
Perhaps what some see as "signs of a sexual assault being staged in flat" are the real signs of an ATTEMPTED sexual assault having took place

1
Charlotte Eveson
9 .
This is interesting
" Organized Nonsocial Offender
This is a different animal altogether. He's the complete opposite of the disorganized offender. He has very organized, even compulsive, thinking processes and behaviors, which tend to show in his appearance, lifestyle, car, and employment. Ted Bundy is a classic example of this type of offender. He had a very anal personality.
This type of offender is organized in everything he does. According to Holmes, "They are nonsocial because they choose to be so." They are loners because they have an enormous ego and feel no one else measures up to them.
These type of offenders are usually very bright, have attended at least some college, "are socially competent and have sex partners." They usually come from a middle class background, are very sociable and are able to con people easily. They tend to hold good jobs but often have a history of drug and alcohol abuse, especially while committing the crimes.
Because of his personality, he's not the type to be suspected of the crime at first. He will take great care in both planning and committing his crimes, as well as getting rid of the evidence.
The organized offender, true to his personality, takes his time and picks just the "right" one - someone very vulnerable, who can be controlled. One killer remarked, " I can tell by the way they walk, the way they tilt their heads. I can tell by the look in their eyes.
Other Characteristics [Holmes]:
Planned offense
Targeted stranger
Personalizes victim
Controlled Conversation
Controlled crime scene
Aggressive acts
Body moved
No weapon
Little evidence
Debra
You asked why he would attack her , answer I don't know I'm not in his head but have you read the above info from the link on the thread could it be an attempted rape gone wrong?

Charlotte Eveson
9 .
Phillip
Have I not already explained that just because he did not know if or when she would return does not mean she was nt on his mind and he took the opportunity as soon as she passed his window.
he could have been watching and hoping she would return and unfortunately for Jo she did

1
Sue Vendone
9 .
@ Phillip 'I can also recollect that more than a week went by before they noticed that there were private CCTV cameras in Canynge Road, but by that time the recordings had been overwritten.'
Yes I also recall this and being amazed that these camera's had not been checked, one would think that even if the police had overlooked this, the residents might have offered them a look

1
Charlotte Eveson
9 .
Admin
I have no thoughts whatsoever about who you are or Debra but have you heard the saying "the lady protests too much me thinks"
Unless I'm thinking along different lines to Sue she was not meaning you this time
And any suspicious mind ( as most on here probably are) would expect there to be a purposeful display of different lines of thought between an admin and their true profile to throw people off the scent
Personally I don't think about who anyone is but , just saying

2
Louise Frank
9 .
It's possible the screams heard by the party goes weren't Jo's screams - it was a Friday night - they could have been the screams of people going out.

Noel O'Gara
9 .
Charlotte says ''VT was caught at various locations across the area on CCTV , some of which were shown in court , some were not as not needed as the defence did not need to dispute his movements that night''
There is nothing surprising in that Charlotte as he did go for a drive a few times that night of the murder. He was just one of thousands of other innocent people driving round Bristol that night. You want to imagine he was a murderer caught on cctv as the police wanted the public to believe. He was just a cool guy getting his shopping and killing time.
I often wondered why Jo would have a good car with a duff battery. Definitely not one for any female particularly a professional lady who was comfortably well off and enjoyed a good salary.
Which leads me to suspect that Greg had decided to kill her before he kissed her goodbye that afternoon. He probably pretended he needed to jump start the car to establish an alibi with his landlord. Amazingly that simple stratagem seemed to be enough for many observers to conclude that he was up in Yorkshire before Jo even left the Ram pub.
He probably drove to that pub and stalked her from there until she stepped into the Tesco Express because he knew that was the last shop on her way home. He just waited up for her at the junction of Canynge Road, to come by and called her over to the passenger seat of her own car, which she would have no hesitation in doing. Only to be grabbed by the neck and choked to her death with two final screams that were heard just at that minute.
Jo never got back to her flat, all her gear was in her car and Greg put it in the flat on Sunday night.
Greg could count on Chris Jefferies to say he left for Sheffield about 5.0pm. and his beloved brother would be pressed to lie for him. When he got back to Bristol he staged the sex assault, scattered her belongings around the flat and pondered on his abduction staging plan for four hours before he made that call to Jo's parents. Only Greg knew that her body would be found in Longwood Lane within a few days or less. He was sweating.
So this was no manslaughter but a premeditated murder and the police cocked up the investigation and framed an innocent neighbour who is serving life.
Delete

1
Eva Gietl
9 .
@Noel:
Your whole theory is based on the fact that the car battery was "Definitely not one for any female particularly a professional lady who was comfortably well off and enjoyed a good salary"?
This is once again an example where you think extremely within out-dated gender roles.
How do you know that the police have only his brother's word for his alibi?
If you are going to say "Where's the police's evidence for GR being in Sheffield if they have it?", then I'll have to remind you that no-one has to prove their innocence. The police have to prove guilt. If the police don't have sufficient evidence to suspect someone, it's not the public's business to know what that person did that evening.
That's why the police haven't shown all the evidence they used to rule out the rest of Canynge Road to the media. That doesn't mean the police haven't checked other people's alibis, either.

Debra Ann Clements
9 .
Quote Admin:
Sue: "You sound just like someone else on here, your comments are venomous towards people."
I'll assume for now that you are running with the tired theory that Debra is me. Any time I've posted venomously it has been about disruptive posting style, wearing my admin hat, not about personal opinions on the Tabak case."
Thanks once again Admin for clearly stating that I am not you and not the admin of this page. Obviously it is transparently clear to anyone with half a brain cell that I am not you.
I actually think they know I am not you, and it is just part of their harrassement and bullying campaign to get those posters that think Vincent is innocent to give up on this page, after all they have their specific bile page solely for that very purpose, where they have targeted, me, you, Noel, Philip, Linda, Sue V and Dyna, in fact that is all they do.
They show themselves up to be weak, pathetic, nasty and vile bullies. As I have stated before if I was admin of this page, those that continually spit bile, and posters whose sole aim is to get this page closed down would have been got rid of long ago.
Indeed this is a discussion group, where people can state their opinions. It is not a place for foul language, bullying and attacking any poster that believes Vincent Tabak is innocent. It is quite clear that certain posters past and present are afraid of anyone that thinks Vincent is innocent, I believe they must have a vested interest in keeping an innocent man in jail, whilst the real killer is free.
Message to fake profile Colin James.
You said you know where I live, as you have found me and my family on 192.Com. Well that would be because I have a real profile unlike you. You are pathetic and weak, a typical bully. You have no bollocks, but then again you could be a woman with gonads and a hairy chin. Seen as you claim to know lots about my family and where we live, why not pop round and put you big fat mouth where you money is, instead of hiding behind your fake profile and behaving like a complete an utter bullying moron.


Updated 9 . by the author.

1
Philip Hollingbery
9 .
@Eva G,
"This is once again an example where you think extremely within out-dated gender roles."
You are hoist by your own petard. Noel's battery argument is genderless. Everyone in Clifton can afford cars with immobiliisers (a new word I have learnt on this forum, thank you Charlotte) and original batteries with 7 year guarantees. They can also afford a set of jump leads not for their own cars but for helping out other motorists less well off than themselves. So the jump-start was yet another clever ruse by the No. 1 suspect. Noel's sex-neutral reference to Jo's professional status was precisely to anticipate and ward off the slings and arrows of the kind of posters so graphically described by Debra.
@Louise F,
"It's possible the screams heard by the party goes weren't Jo's screams - it was a Friday night - they could have been the screams of people going out."
I believe in the screams because their timing was very close to Jo's ETA at the flat and the cessation of any electronic signs of life from her. These could all have been contrived by the prosecution's selective submission of evidence, but the screams actually support the defence's case (if it had one) because their timing makes Vincent's presumed attack on Jo seem even more bizarre and logistically implausible.





Eva Gietl
9 .
@Philip:
How is "Definitely not one for any female" gender-neutral?
Btw, a) not everyone in Clifton can afford a car, and b) maybe the ones who can don't want to afford a car with immobiliser.

Dyna Victoria
9 .
Re Noel.."he probably pretended to jump start his car.."
I dont think you could "fake" a jump start..its quite an intricate process from what Ive read..you would certainly need to know what you are doing..the involvement of Cjs car and his physical help would indicate that the battery failure of the Ka was genuine..imo

Philip Hollingbery
9 .
@Eva G,
That is rampant feminism on your part. Although Noel was referring to a specific woman and wants to emphasize that point because the victim was female, the sentence as rewritten below conveys exactly the same argument as Noel's original phrasing, since the key factors are characteristics of the VEHICLE and the socioeconomic status of the OWNER.
"I often wondered why Jo would have a good car with a duff battery. Definitely not one for any person M/F, particularly a professional person who was comfortably well off and enjoyed a good salary."

Sue Graham
9 .
Debra,
Thanks once again Admin for clearly stating that I am not you and not the admin of this page. Obviously it is transparently clear to anyone with half a brain cell that I am not you.
Admin:
"I'll assume for now that you are running with the tired theory that Debra is me. Any time I've posted venomously it has been about disruptive posting style, wearing my admin hat, not about personal opinions on the Tabak case."
Admin & Debra, At no point have l ever said on here that Debra is you so, l don't know why you have jumped to that conclusion. I have no idea who Debra is and neither do l actually care who she is. If you want me to name the poster l was referring to then l have no problem in doing so, just let me know!
As you once said to me, "never assume" and in this instance, you were wrong.
The reason l said that to Debra, was because of the way she attacked Charlotte, who in my opinion, has been extremely polite given the way some have spoke to her on here.
So just to clarify once again, l couldn't care less if Debra is admin or not, l have better things to worry myself with than who the hell runs a facebook group.

Philip Hollingbery
9 .
@Dyna V,
"I dont think you could "fake" a jump start..its quite an intricate process from what Ive read..you would certainly need to know what you are doing..the involvement of Cjs car and his physical help would indicate that the battery failure of the Ka was genuine..imo"
OH YES YOU COULD. If it were a spur-of-the-moment fake, then you would slacken one of the terminals on the battery sufficient to increase the resistance sufficiently to block a high starting current but not the ordinary current needed for the accessories. If the fake were planned a few hours in advance, you would leave the headlamps on for several hours. In very cold weather a battery can deliver only about one-third of its normal rated capacity, and the little battery in a Ford Ka could quickly be exhausted.

1
Sue Graham
9 .
"I actually think they know I am not you, and it is just part of their harrassement and bullying "
Debra, At what point have l EVER bullied or harrassed you? Never, is the answer to that so, seriously grow up and act like an adult. You really aren't that important to me!!
Don't aim your derogatory comments at everyone that disagrees with you! If l have a problem with you then l will say it to you. I don't need admin or anyone else to do my talking for me!!

Noel O'Gara
9 .
Dyna, it was no problem for Greg because when he asked CJ for a jump start the landlord would naturally assume his battery was flat and in due course he connected his jump leads to it and bingo, it started first time.
Greg probably moaned that the cold weather had run his battery down and nobody would suspect his plan.
Of course CJ would not dream that he had been deceived into jump starting Greg because he was being used as that alibi that he was setting up for his intended crime.
I wonder if the police ever investigated that aspect of the case. Did Greg buy a new battery? I doubt it.
Delete

Debra Ann Clements
9 .
I am aiming the comments at the people that lie and say I am admin and steal my photos and mention my family and children on facebook dear!

Philip Hollingbery
9 .
@Noel,
Even if it were a genuine problem, it could just as well have been a badly adjusted fan belt or a defective alternator that prevented a perfectly good battery from becoming sufficiently charged. When I first came to Denmark it was worn brushes on the dynamo that forced me to use the starting handle on cold days. It was a good thing for Greg's ruse that a Ford Ka does not come with a starting handle ;-)
On a more serious note, our entire case is based on facts that we KNOW derived mainly from the unreliable media. The popular interpretation of these facts does not hang together. The difference between us and them is that when a policeman makes a statement we do not treat it as gospel truth whereas they do. The vast majority of people have no problem in disbelieving anything Tony Blair says he did, so it is very odd when someone claiming not to be a policeman posts on here that the police "would have looked into this or that as a matter of routine". Did the English police look into Billy Tracey? Frankly I am a bit worried that Sue Jeffries will decide you are becoming such a threat to the credibility of the Bristol mafia that she will do a deal with Billy Tracey to pay you an unfriendly visit. No prizes for guessing who would be next on his list. I am sure they are as thick as thieves and that is why he is still at large.

Noel O'Gara
9 .
indeed Philip but it was such a simple ruse by Greg that it is amazing everybody seemed to fall for it. It put him leaving Bristol at about 5.0 I think. But it also had sinister implications. The murder was premeditated and planned and the hiding of the body was carefully thought out but the car headlights from the golf club unnerved him and he fled before he could get her over the wall. Of course his dna was all over her but that was ok for the cops.
Delete

Debra Ann Clements
8 .
Quote Charlotte Eveson
Admin I have no thoughts whatsoever about who you are or Debra but have you heard the saying "the lady protests too much me thinks"
Unless I'm thinking along different lines to Sue she was not meaning you this time
And any suspicious mind ( as most on here probably are) would expect there to be a purposeful display of different lines of thought between an admin and their true profile to throw people off the scent
Personally I don't think about who anyone is but, just saying".
The lady does not protest too much. The lies form the other idiotic pages have been going on since February. Which bit of stealing my photos mentioning my children, husband and where I live do you believe is acceptable adult behaviour then Charlotte?
It is actually you that pretends too much that you are not interested who I am or who admin is, then you go on to say "that any suspicious minds would expect there to be a purposeful display of different lines of thought between an admin and their true profile to throw people off the scent".
You claim not to care who I and admin are then, imply once more that we are one and the same, and are pretending to have totally opposing views. You are utterly contrary, and playing the same games as the idiots on the other page.
There is a totally different viewpoint of admin and I Charlotte because we are not the same person, now which bit of that do you not understand?

Sue Graham
8 .
"I am aiming the comments at the people that lie and say I am admin and steal my photos and mention my family and children on facebook dear!"
Admin, assumed l was referring to her, l wasn't, end of! No need for a long rant from you on something that had nothing to do with my comment "dear".
And here you are still ranting on and on, spitting venom all over the place! Contact FB if you have a problem with other posters. But for god sake give it a rest!

1
Philip Hollingbery
8 .
Actually it is me/I who is the real Admin ;-) Getting myself banned was the ultimate subterfuge.

Sue Graham
8 .
Lol Philip you are exempt silly!

Debra Ann Clements
8 .
Ha ha brilliant Philip, of course we are all admin that believe in Vincent's innocence.
And I am Spartacus too! ;)


Sue Graham
8 .
And some people just cant let go can they, Dog with a bone!!

Debra Ann Clements
8 .
And some people are seriously ratttled. The lady doth protest too much! lol

Sue Graham
8 .
Rattle snake venom lol

Sue Graham
8 .
Anyway, good to see you've lightened up a bit debs, life's way too short!!

Debra Ann Clements
8 .
Poisonous serpent. lol lol Yes, life is too short indeed. But life is very long when you are locked up in a prison cell for a crime you did not commit. x

1
Sue Graham
8 .
Lol l couldn't agree more!
So moving on, l suppose we should get back to the tabak case, it'll be lights off soon! This should give him ample time to reflect on just what he did to poor Jo that night, dreadful! x

Philip Hollingbery
8 .
... surrounded by psychopaths who know exactly how to make life hell. Not to mention all your girlfriend and ex-colleagues and ex-friends outside who have been groomed by the police liaison service and the Dutch authorities to forget you ever existed and hand over any mementoes they may have of you. Nor your young nieces and nephews who have been told that their Uncle Vincent is very ill and is not expected to get better.
@Sue G,
Are you illiterate or something? Debra posted explicitly that he did not commit the crime. Can you really not read? You are welcome to post that you don't agree with her - but posting as if Debra is just stupid is offensive, and if you go on like that I am sure any decent Admin will ban you :-(


Updated 8 . by the author.

Sue Graham
8 .
Philip you hit the nail on the head there..
"Nor your young nieces and nephews who have been told that their Uncle Vincent is very ill and is not expected to get better"
Very ill indeed! There is always rehabilitation though!

Philip Hollingbery
8 .
@Sue G,
I don't think you got the message. THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT JO WAS NOT KILLED BY VINCENT TABAK. Please put your reading glasses on. You are welcome to disagree with me but not to post as if I am stupid. How many more times do you need to be told?

Sue Graham
8 .
Philip: this could be conceived as shouting at me "THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT JO WAS NOT KILLED BY VINCENT TABAK. "
And thats called being rude! I am not deaf nor do l wear glasses! I didn't say you were stupid either!
"How many more times do you need to be told?" Told what?

Sue Vendone
8 .
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/not_guilty/coerced_confessions/index.html

Sue Graham
8 .
That was pretty random sue lol

1
Sue Graham
8 .
Sue can you check the link again, it's just taking me to someone singing a song about insomnia, weird!!

Sue Graham
8 .
So, anyway Philip, l do agree that you feel vincent is innocent, where l on the other hand feel he is guilty. I also feel that the evidence quite clearly shows he is guilty, hence the reason he is where he is now.
There l managed to say all that without shouting at you, progress :-)



2
Sue Vendone
8 .
Sue G
Too much Chardonnay methinks? Good on you , at least you have lightened up?

1
Sue Graham
8 .
Lol sue l don't drink :-) perhaps l should lol

5
Lynne Kindon
8 .
That link takes me to.."Hello, Hello, Hello, please move along the line now, there's nothing to see now in this flat.

Sue Graham
8 .
Sorry Philip, l just noticed you edited your comment to this.....
@Sue G,
"Are you illiterate or something? Debra posted explicitly that he did not commit the crime. Can you really not read? You are welcome to post that you don't agree with her - but posting as if Debra is just stupid is offensive, and if you go on like that I am sure any decent Admin will ban you :-("
Well what can l say, lets start with, no l am not illiterate and l find it extremely offensive of you to ask! It's very noble of you to defend Debra, who might l add didn't seem to have a problem with what l said, just like l have no problem with what she said to me. Therefore l am a little confused as to why you have brought this up.
Furthermore, l can read, and that's another rude comment you have made towards me tonight.
"and if you go on like that I am sure any decent Admin will ban you :-("
Now philip, you wouldn't be trying to manipulate admin into banning me would you? In my book, shouting at someone, calling them illiterate and insinuating l cannot read, all constitutes "Offensive remarks"
Perhaps admin could clarify this for us?


Updated 8 . by the author.

Ivy Green
8 .
Sue V, does your link have any cases that involve someone with no history of mental illness/learning disabilities or that didn't protest their innocence after their arrest? (Haven't read through the whole lot).

Ivy Green
8 .
Sue V, does your link have any cases that involve someone with no history of mental illness/learning disabilities or that didn't protest their innocence after their arrest? (Haven't read through the whole lot).

1
Noel O'Gara
8 .
interesting article Sue V. they were the lucky ones who didnt go to the electric chair.
The practice is even more widespread in the Uk but the media cover up for them. They only report the official proceedings in court. They dont champion innocent people pleading that they have been wrongfully convicted.
They only report about them after they have been released and grudgingly refer to it as a miscarriage of justice when it is police crime almost always enabled by judges who lean towards a conviction every time.
Only since the birth of the internet has the corruption been exposed to scrutiny and the bent cops named.
DCI Jones and CC Colin Port will be exposed as the authors of the stitch up of Vincent Tabak in time.
Delete

1
Sue Vendone
8 .
Olive Green
Sorry i did not read it through myself sorry,, just googled coerced confessions and found it kind of tallied with what Noel had been saying.......did it help you at all?

Sue Graham
8 .
Lol sue are you on the chardonnay? Who's Olive? lol

1
Ivy Green
8 .
Sue V, not really. I can understand people who have learning disabilities, or reside in a mental institue, as in the first case, being coerced into making a confession, but not someone like Tabak, who was/is highly intelligent by all accounts. Also, even the person in the first case then had the presence of mind to appeal and get help from the Innocence Project, whereas Tabak has made not a peep about his innocence since he confessed.

1
Sue Vendone
8 .
Sue G
LOL just having a bit of fun with Ivy

Sue Graham
8 .
Lol

1
Ivy Green
8 .
I feel a bit like the designated driver on a night out here...

Sue Vendone
8 .
I read somewhere that intelligent people are more likely to suffer depression......just saying maybe VT was more easily worn down by interrogation and solitude than more simple souls


Sue Graham
8 .
Lol Ivy

1
Ivy Green
8 .
I don't think he would have been able to take the stand in his trial, and do his best to convince people that it was manslaughter, if he was depressed enough to not care about being accused of something he didn't do.

Sue Vendone
8 .
Ivy
That is something to be questioned by those in court

Ivy Green
8 .
Sue, what I mean is, if someone was depressed enough not to care that they were being accused of a grave crime that they had not committed, there is no way they would be able to take the stand and answer questions to the extent he did.

Sue Graham
8 .
VT showed no signs of mental health issues or depression, during the trial. He looked down at the ground, managed to squeeze out a tear, rubbed his eyes and answered some of the many questions put to him. At no point was there any mention of his ability to take the stand

1
Ivy Green
8 .
I agree, Sue G, I really don't think he falls into the category of people that have made false confessions. In the unlikely case that he did, he would probably have spoken out about it by now.

1
Charlotte Eveson
8 .
Debra
I shall not comment on your rant towards me as I presume you are peed off by others behaviour , but I have not seen any photos or comments about your family.
I come on here to TRY and debate and avoid personal nit shit.
My comment mainly concerned the way Admin automatically thought Sue G meant her and she didn't she meant another poster from what I could tell.
It was my observation that it could be construed as "the lady protesting too much"
So please do not presume to know what I think , I couldn't give a monkeys who anyone is and wether you believe that , well , again I could not really give a monkeys

1
Philip Hollingbery
8 .
@Ivy G,
"I can understand people who have learning disabilities, or reside in a mental institue, as in the first case, being coerced into making a confession, but not someone like Tabak, who was/is highly intelligent by all accounts. Also, even the person in the first case then had the presence of mind to appeal and get help from the Innocence Project, whereas Tabak has made not a peep about his innocence since he confessed."
Because Vincent Tabak is highly intelligent he had no experience of negotiating from a position of extreme weakess nor of using deceit and manipulation to get his way. He was used to a loving family and academic life where he was valued for his intelligence and skills. Intelligence avails nothing if you are surrounded by experienced manipulative bullies determined to crush you. All the wrongly convicted people in the article "Coerced False Confessions During Police Interrogations" linked by Sue V, and others who have been wrongly convicted, have been able to get hold of lawyers who would fight for them. Innocence projects operate through lawyers who specialize in fighting for their clients. If your lawyer is more interested in getting future briefs from the local police, as Vincent Tabak's lawyers were, than they are in defending you, then no amount of intelligence will save you. William Clegg was hired by Kelcey & Hall, not by Vincent Tabak. Both were paid their fees by the county, not by Vincent Tabak.
Vincent Tabak was made a suspect at random out of all the men who were believed to be in Bristol that night without alibis. When he was arrested, his duty solicitor Patrick Crossman of Radstock told him to answer "No comment" to almost every question. He told him to declare in writing that he did not know Jo Yeates and would not have recognised her by sight, and that the DNA on her breast could be accounted for only by a corrupt lab technician. But he did not tell him to state that he had a Ph.D and to deny having killed Jo. Having no experience of being arrested for murder before, and naively believing that his innocence would eventually emerge, he could only do his his solicitor told him to do.
In the course of the next few weeks the local solicitor representing Vincent Tabak was changed three times until the police found one who was prepared to go all the way get him to plead guilty to manslaughter, Ian Kelcey. This plea was coerced. He may have been subject to torture, and the use of a video link indicates that he probably was tortured. However, it is very conspicuous that his local employer did not rush to protest his innocence nor help provide him with a solicitor who was not in the pocket of A & S Constabulary. Only his family, friends and fellow students from Holland protested his innocence. He had no one locally who was working on his behalf, and the Police Liaison Service quickly silenced his girlfriend Tanja Morson. Being a newcomer to the country made Vincent Tabak completely vulnerable to the manipulation and deceit of the authorities who had decided to convict him. He is not protesting his innocence because he knows he will be beaten up by specially briefed fellow prisoners if he does.
If you believe that having a Ph.D does not provide any assurance that Vincent Tabak did not carry out the motiveless killing of a stranger, then it follows that being a prison governor does not provide any assurance that Simon Cartwright did not sanction the torture of his high profile remand prisoner. Nor does it follow that being a Chief Superintendant of Police provides any assurance that Colin Port did not arrange the conviction of an innocent Dutchman to protect his old friend John Reardon's son from the fate he deserves. If you believe that having a Ph.D does not enormously strengthen a person's credibility, then neither does being a forensic scientist mean Lindsey Lennen was not lying about unverifyable DNA on Jo's breast, nor that being a QC means we have to believe Nigel Lickley's allegations about porn on Vincent Tabak's computer.

2
Eva Gietl
8 .
@Philip:
"In the course of the next few weeks the local solicitor representing Vincent Tabak was changed three times until the police found one who was prepared to go all the way get him to plead guilty to manslaughter,"
If this was true, that is that the first three solicitors were not prepared to work on behalf of the police, but the fourth one was, so why didn't the first three solicitors make this public? Why did they remain mum on the topic of VT's innocence and the deceitfulness of his fourth solicitor and of the police?

1
Charlotte Eveson
8 .
Eva
I totally agree , there were far too many people here to be relied upon to keep quiet in such a massive high profile case , one which was already under a great deal of scrutiny because of the press treatment of CJ
Bosses from above in all the disciplines involved here would be screaming at their workforce to make sure everything was spot on and to the book
And as for this comment
"
In the course of the next few weeks the local solicitor representing Vincent Tabak was changed three times until the police found one who was prepared to go all the way get him to plead guilty to manslaughter, Ian Kelcey"
The police do not choose VT does and the fact that he had one of the top defence lawyers in the country shows he certainly had the ability to do this
Clegg was known for helping to free Barry George , his reputation was based partly on this , does he sound a likely candidate for allowing a stitch up in another high profile case , IMO no

1
Philip Hollingbery
8 .
@Eva,
"If this was true, that is that the first three solicitors were not prepared to work on behalf of the police, but the fourth one was, so why didn't the first three solicitors make this public? "
Each of Vincent Tabak's solicitors failed him in many quite specific issues - they failed to advise him to deny the charge against him, they failed to advise him to enter a plea, they failed to apply for bail, they failed to ensure that he was allowed three visits per week as the rules prescribe for a remand prisoner, they failed to apply for a writ of habeas corpus so that evidence of his being drugged, tortured or intimidated could not be concealed by the use of a videolink, and they failed to advise him that the evidence against him was insufficient for a conviction. I hope you noticed that Christopher Jefferies was shrewd enough to get a London lawyer who was not under the thumb of Colin Port. I suspect that Buro Happold were groomed by A & S Constabulary in advance of Vincent Tabak's arrest not to try to provide the employee they had head-hunted to the UK with a decent solicitor, as he had no one else locally who would look after his interests.
@Charlotte,
"Bosses from above in all the disciplines involved here would be screaming at their workforce to make sure everything was spot on and to the book"
By your own admission, no one can be trusted to behave the way you would like or expect them to behave. If you want me to believe that a young man with a Ph.D, a promising career and everything to lose would go ahead and kill a girl he did not know with no credible motive, then you cannot seriously expect the rest of us to believe that bosses would not act to protect their own interests even if it meant sacrificing innocent people. That is in fact exactly what we can see everyone doing here. If you want me to believe that a man with Vincent Tabak's credentials cannot be trusted, then neither can Colin Port, DCI Phil Jones, Ann Reddrop, Patrick Crossman, Paul Cook, Michael Fitton, Ian Kelcey, William Clegg, Lindsey Lennen, Mr Justice Field, Shrikant Sharma nor anyone else in this case be trusted to have done other than save their own skins and damn anyone who got in the way.


Updated 8 . by the author.

2
Eva Gietl
8 .
@Philip:
I trust that most of these people perform their professional duties according to professional standards, just as I trust that VT performed his professional duties impeccably.
If any of these people behaves in their private lives lawfully or not, I have no idea. They might beat their spouses and children, they might be shoplifters, tax evaders, drunk drivers. I don't know.
You need to accept that there is a difference between private and professional life. There are a lot of people who adhere perfectly to their professional standards and ethics, and who fail in their private lives, and vice versa.

1
Charlotte Eveson
8 .
" I hope you noticed that Christopher Jefferies was shrewd enough to get a London lawyer who was not under the thumb of Colin Port"
And VT did not do the same with Clegg ? In fact an even bigger one
" I suspect that Buro Happold were groomed "
I've not read of so much "grooming" since last years Crufts
so far we have had
TM
Jo,s Family
VTs family
VT himself
And Now BH
Must be an awful lot of gullible people around , still probably have not got PhDs

Charlotte Eveson
8 .
Philip
"By your own admission, no one can be trusted to behave the way you would like or expect them to behave"
No , I like Eva expect people to work to their professional standards , but I also am aware that historically there have been errors as in any profession and most likely underhand practices
What I am saying is the bosses would have told them no mistakes !

1
Noel O'Gara
8 .
Philip you have it well set out there as to what happened in the early stages of the intended stitch up. The changing of the lawyers is perhaps a clue to their suspicions that it was a stitch up and they didnt want to oppose the prosecution service who provide much of their work briefs and pay them such enormous sums of money for that dubious service.
Once a solicitor declines or passes the brief, there is no way that he would come on record and say why he ducked it. He would remain silent and witness the stitch up from afar.
When a lawyer gets involved in what he thinks is a stitch up, his correct approach would be to attack the prosecution and force them to back down.
However in practice that is rarely done and they just play along and put up a mealy mouthed defence just like William Clegg performed for his victim.
But make no mistake about it, many people in high places in Bristol are highly suspicious that Tabak was stitched up but they darent say it.
Philip has put it on record here and I would endorse every word he said in those last two posts, although he occasionally goes off the rails and allows himself to be needled by the liaison gang.
Delete



Eva Gietl
8 .
@Noel:
"...many people in high places in Bristol are highly suspicious that Tabak was stitched up ..."
Where is proof for that?

Philip Hollingbery
8 .
@Eva,
"...there is a difference between private and professional life."
The murder for which Vincent Tabak was convicted could only have been carried out by what is commonly called a violent psychopath - a murderer who neither knew the victim personally nor set any value by her life (since her killer had no obvious motive). There is no way that an extreme personality like that could be concealed from colleagues, especially in an academic or professional environment. There is no way such a person could get a Ph.D in a highly technical field like Vincent Tabak's.
This question of the accused's personality was carefully avoided by both QCs during the trial. His description of how he strangled Joanna resembles an explanation of how to dismantle a bicycle wheel. Only when Mr Lickley asked him if he became sexually aroused did he respond with a vehement denial. It is obvious that he had no inkling at that time that he was going to be hung out in public after the trial by the prosecution, the judge, the police and the media as a perverted sex monster - without William Clegg lifting a finger.
@Charlotte,
William Clegg may have got Barry George off but in this trial he was hired by Ian Kelcey to put Vincent Tabak away for life. At least some of the people I have named have to be psychopaths to have done this to the man in their power, and they have succeeded in getting an innocent man convicted deliberately, not by "mistake".
@Noel,
"...he occasionally goes off the rails and allows himself to be needled by the liaison gang."
If they can have that effect on me, think what they would have done to poor TM, whose boyfriend was suddenly dragged from her bed at dawn, never to lie in it again.

1
Ivy Green
8 .
"He is not protesting his innocence because he knows he will be beaten up by specially briefed fellow prisoners if he does."
How do you know this? Is it common practice, and if so, how did all the people in Sue V's link manage?

1
Noel O'Gara
8 .
Ivy, they are just the lucky ones you read about. Most people in England know about Stefan Kiszko because of his mother's persistance in trying to get a lawyer to assist him and his subsequent death soon after he was exonerated.
He was a big fat soft touch of a mammy's boy who couldnt stand up to the intimidating accusations of the West Yorkshire heavies who surrounded him shouting and screaming at him that they knew he did it.
The publicity may also be due to the fact that the murder he was convicted of was in all probability committed by Peter Sutcliffe, and that was a matter that they didnt want to shine a light on, hence they were quick to stitch up another innocent man for that murder, namely Ronald Castree who is now serving life.
I actually got locked up for a week for trying to assist him and that was an education in seeing how the judge worked with the police to ensure that Castree had no chance. If you heard his defence lawyer speaking you would vomit.
Stitch ups are very common in England but they are rarely exposed and even more rarely championed by the media.
Delete

3
Ivy Green
8 .
Noel, even Stefan Kiszko retracted his confession, Tabak has not. Has there ever been a case when someone with no history of mental illness/learning disabilities has confessed and not later claimed they were coerced into it?

1
Noel O'Gara
8 .
Ivy he is in the tower. Nobody knows where he is right now. How could he protest his innocence from a high security cell? Who would champion him or even listen to him after that demonisation as a sex pervert and pedophile?
Nobody other than Clegg has access to him and it might take him months to even get to know about solicitors who would take up a case of wrongful conviction. His brother lives in a foreign country and probably cant visit him much. Anyway he might get one hour per month. Tabak would be denied access to newspapers directories computers and his phone calls would be very limited. Imaging if you were in that position and innocent.
Really and truly he might never get out because of that coerced confession but that wont stop people like Philip and others including myself pointing out the crime that has been committed against him and how they did it.
Just look at the opposition to him on this forum where people just cant engage with the idea that he might have been stitched up.
They are very quick to jump to his confession and his cooperation at trial. But he just acted out what he was briefed to do by Clegg and if he strayed from the script the judge would shut him up and order the media not to report any disturbance. You have no idea how the courts of England are stages set for show trials under the direction of a judge whose job is to oversee the act and it is all well rehearsed in advance and the outcome already planned. In that way the judge can direct the jury what to consider and what to ignore. Surely that alone tells you that the jury is blinkered.
Delete

1
Philip Hollingbery
8 .
@Ivy Green,
"How do you know this? Is it common practice"
A few days after the trial verdict, an anonymous police spokesman issued a statement about illegal child porn images found on Vincent Tabak's computer, for which it was considered unlikely that he would be further prosecuted. This surprising statement (considering the man's good relations with his seven young nieces and nephews) was taken at its face value by the media and the citizens of Bristol, one of whom, however, Dyna Victoria, after long deliberation, posted on this forum in a way to cause the penny to drop. Paedophiles are among the least popular of prisoners among the other inmates. This unsubstantiated statement was a deliberate malicious signal from A & S Constabulary to the more violent inmates of Long Lartin Prison to vent their surplus energy on Vincent Tabak. It is not difficult to guess what will happen to him if he tells anyone that he is not being properly treated in prison.

Debra Ann Clements
8 .
Quote Charlotte
'Debra
I shall not comment on your rant towards me as I presume you are peed off by others behaviour , but I have not seen any photos or comments about your family.
I come on here to TRY and debate and avoid personal nit shit.
My comment mainly concerned the way Admin automatically thought Sue G meant her and she didn't she meant another poster from what I could tell.
It was my observation that it could be construed as "the lady protesting too much"
So please do not presume to know what I think , I couldn't give a monkeys who anyone is and wether you believe that , well , again I could not really give a monkeys".
That's jolly splendid for you then, and I couldn't give a rat's arse who you may be either Jimbob. LOL
I come on here because I believe Vincent is innocent. So please do not presume anything about me either, thank you!

Charlotte Eveson
8 .
"That's jolly splendid for you then, and I couldn't give a rat's arse who you may be either Jimbob. LOL"
I'm glad , that's how it should be , it makes a refreshing change not be be presumed a police officer or CPS

Ivy Green
8 .
Philip, why would these paedo-hating prisoners only take out their violence on Tabak if he told anyone that he was not being treated properly in prison. What's to stop them taking it out on him at any time regardless of how he claims he is being treated in prison?
If you were locked up for a murder you didn't commit, would you keep quiet about your innocence, not tell anyone, even your family, and just hope that someone like yourself or Noel would come along to write about it on some internet site?

Charlotte Eveson
8 .
"This question of the accused's personality was carefully avoided by both QCs during the trial"
Maybe that was because he was lacking in personality , friends and neighbours described him as a loner

1
Eva Gietl
8 .
@Philip:
How do you know VT liked his nieces and nephews?

2
Charlotte Eveson
8 .
Chances are he saw very little of his Nieces and Nephews

1
Philip Hollingbery
8 .
@Ivy G,
I cited the illegal child porn as an example of the way any prisoner can be made extremely vulnerable without us non-prisoners imagining it. We all tend to judge prison life, mistakenly, by the quality of the furnishings or the draughts through the gratings - but it is the relationship between prisoners and non-prisoners that is absolutely decisive. Supposedly sympathetic persons such as Salvation Army Chaplains and volunteer visitors assume unsympathetic personas in relation to prisoners because being a prisoner does not have the social and legal characteristics of a human being.
No prisoner, whether innocent or guilty, is likely to have an easier life inside if they are constantly protesting their innocence to anyone within earshot. If I had a lawyer who had "defended" me the way William Clegg did in this trial, I too would give up. It should be obvious to you that Vincent Tabak had concrete grounds to appeal, since he denied the charge of murder and Mr Clegg did not present his exemplary good character evidence to the jury. But Clegg has not allowed him to lodge an appeal. It should be obvious to you that Vincent Tabak has good grounds for suing all the British media for defamation on the basis of their allegations of his strangulation fetish. Has Clegg allowed him to do that?
@Eva, Charlotte,
The jury was not even allowed to know about the existence of the seven young nieces and nephews, nor anything about the personality of the accused. The mother of some of them, Vincent Tabak's ex-sister-in-law, was outspoken in denying that he could possibly have murdered anyone when he was first arrested. He referred to them fondly in the Preface to his doctoral thesis, especially the eldest, to whom he was particularly close, and acknowledged how much he missed them at the time when he was completing the thesis in England. He had posted photos of them on his Facebook profile which was taken down shortly after his arrest.
Maybe Vincent Tabak is a loner but even loners have a right not to be convicted of a horrific crime that they haven't committed. However since DCI Phil Jones gave evidence at the Leveson Inquiry it has become much clearer to me how manipulatively the police and the CPS exploited the fact that their prisoner had relatively few friends, none of long standing, in the UK, and no family in the UK - while leaking hints to the British media about his sensational interest in - wait for it - PORN and PROSTITUTES. Everything was done to prevent the public and the jury from thinking of him as anything but a brutal non-entity. Although journalists noticed that he has a Ph.D and had been head-hunted to the UK, they failed to attribute any significance to these sensational facts because there were no pre-trial debriefings.

Charlotte Eveson
8 .
Phillip
"He referred to them fondly in the Preface to his doctoral thesis, especially the eldest, to whom he was particularly close, and acknowledged how much he missed them at the time when he was completing the thesis in England"
It's well known that when writing such things they bear little resemblance to reality , same as job applications , it's sup rising how many people take part in such wonderfully diverse pastimes when asked "what do you do in your free time"
"Although journalists noticed that he has a Ph.D and had been head-hunted to the UK, they failed to attribute any significance to these sensational facts"
Probably because anyone with any common sense knows there is no significance , blimey Inspector Morse would not have got past the first episode if he had to rely on the uneducated to do all the killing


1
Philip Hollingbery
8 .
@Charlotte,
"when writing such things they bear little resemblance to reality"
Like Mr Lickley's unsubstantiated account of Vincent's depraved double life, or the police's statements about "looking into other sex attacks", or the child porn images, you mean? The journalists methodically reported these to 57m Brits who swallowed them as if they were gospel truth. Unlike these manipulators, Vincent had no hidden agenda when writing his Preface, and the jury would have no difficulty in taking it at its face value either if they had had the chance.
Give me patience O Lord. Only a very few of Inspector Morse's killers are seriously psychopathic. The great majority are motivated by significant economic gain, sexual jealousy, revenge and other very specific motives. An engineer with a Ph.D might have murdered Jo because she threatened to leave him and take the children, or because he caught her torturing one of his nieces, but DCI Phil Jones knew full well that a stranger murder without a motive committed by someone with Vincent Tabak's credentials was statistically so unlikely as to need very careful grooming of the media. In my opinion the crime journalists on the serious media made asses of themselves and the British public as well.

2
Eva Gietl
8 .
@Philip:
Most crime happens within a socioeconomic circle. The most likely killer of a white middle-class professional is another white middle-class professional.
VT wasn't on his way to become a serial killer, IMO. Nothing about this murder says "serious psychopath" to me. Everything says "something went seriously out of hand" to me.

Charlotte Eveson
8 .
Phillip
For one she was not a total stranger , she lived in the same building and he would have seen her coming and going
Statistically unlikely maybe but of course not impossible
And of course there was a motive she was screaming and he needed to silence her . Most likely because he was sexually assaulting her

1
Charlotte Eveson
8 .
"Vincent Tabak did online research on sexual offences after killing Joanna Yeates, Bristol crown court heard on Wednesday.
Among the phrases Tabak Googled were "sexual offence explained" and "definition of sexual assault", the jury was told."
Why would he do this when the police had not indicated a sexual assault had taken place ?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/19/vincent-tabak-joanna-yeates-death

Charlotte Eveson
8 .
"Mr Lickley asked him why he searched online for the definition of sexual assault and sexual conduct.
Tabak replied: "I think I was a bit worried if my pass at her would be seen as sexual conduct. I was not sure what a sexual offence meant."
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Vincent-Tabak-denies-killed-Joanna-Yeates-kicks/story-13631183-detail/story.html
According to Wiki forced kissing is classed as a sexual assault so IMO even his watered down version of the truth did him no good
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault

1
Ivy Green
7 .
Noel,
"Nobody other than Clegg has access to him and it might take him months to even get to know about solicitors who would take up a case of wrongful conviction. His brother lives in a foreign country and probably cant visit him much. Anyway he might get one hour per month. Tabak would be denied access to newspapers directories computers and his phone calls would be very limited. Imaging if you were in that position and innocent."
If I were in that position and innocent, I would use the limited phone time and one hour a month visit to say "I'm innocent, get my a decent lawyer and do something about it" to my relatives. Funny how other wrongly convicted people have managed to get themselves heard. The only reason we're not hearing from Tabak is he has nothing to say, knowing that he's rightly serving a sentence.

1
Noel O'Gara
7 .
Charlotte wrote
"Mr Lickley asked him why he searched online for the definition of sexual assault and sexual conduct.
Tabak replied: "I think I was a bit worried if my pass at her would be seen as sexual conduct. I was not sure what a sexual offence meant."
His reply shows you the extent to which he was traumatised by his incarceration and isolation. He was bending over backwards to keep to the deal and agreed assault as rehearsed with his lawyers who were telling him to keep to the script or he will be stuffed. He was terrified to divert from the script and you might not understand that or rather you dont want to think about it. Tabak was sticking to his agreed deal and he had no advice other than from that pervert called William Clegg who sold him down the river. He and Kelcey then collected massive fees for their crime.
Why do you think Tabak was looking at the floor during most of the trial and crying his eyes out with his head hanging down?
You were seeing a brainwashed bewildered man who had been terrorised and isolated and conditioned over the past nine months and he was doing his best to keep to his confession.
Delete

3
Sue Graham
7 .
Noel,
"Why do you think Tabak was looking at the floor during most of the trial and crying his eyes out with his head hanging down? "
He was ovbiously looking at the floor because he couldn't face eye contact with Joanna's family after what he did to their lovely precious daughter. Now come on "crying his eyes out" is a gross exaggeration. He shed a tear, removed his glasses wiped it away and that was it. Show me a link that states he was crying his eyes out!!
"Under cross-examination Tabak said he couldn’t remember - his response 80 times in the witness box when faced with difficult questions. Giving evidence he occasionally struggled for composure, with a hand to his brow, a gulp, but there were very few tears."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2053178/Joanna-Yeates-trial-verdict-Vincent-Tabak-guilty-murder.html

2
Sue Graham
7 .
I think you must be mixing up your cases Noel.
The facts seem very different to how you actually tell them!!

1
Charlotte Eveson
7 .
Noel
"His reply shows you the extent to which he was traumatised by his incarceration and isolation. He was bending over backwards to keep to the deal and agreed assault as rehearsed with his lawyers who were telling him to keep to the script or he will be stuffed. He was terrified to divert from the script and you might not understand that or rather you dont want to think about it. Tabak was sticking to his agreed deal"
Well that's how you see it Noel but a far more likely version would br VT desperately trying to stick to his half truths and not drop himself in it further by telling exactly what happened.

1
Noel O'Gara
7 .
you believe his confession and that he owned up to the crime he committed. If that were the case why can he not remember the answer to 80 questions in the witness box?
Surely if he was repentant and unburdening himself he would tell it as it was?
He had his head bowed during most of the trial. That was to hide the tears.
Delete

Sue Graham
7 .
There must of been a big puddle on the floor then Noel. Funny how nobody else spotted it but you, and you weren't even there, you were on the bog lol

2
Charlotte Eveson
7 .
Noel
"you believe his confession and that he owned up to the crime he committed. If that were the case why can he not remember the answer to 80 questions in the witness box?"
He could , but the thing is you see , when you are faced with fast paced questioning from the likes of Lickley it's very difficult to stick to your half truths and not land yourself in it , much easier to say I can't remember than risk incriminating yourself further
Surely if he was repentant and unburdening himself he would tell it as it was?
He wasn't , he was telling a watered down version of events to try and save his skin

Sue Graham
7 .
Noel,
He was never going to sit there and reveal everything he did, he tried to incriminate the LL, move the blame to Jo by claiming she was flirting with him. He just couldn't admit it all, he was consumed with selfpity and trying to save his own arse from a long sentence. He answered certain questions that didn't reveal that much!
One post has been deleted
« … 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 … »


1
Noel O'Gara
7 .
Lickley knew that he had a vulnerable man who was trying his best to stick to his agreed deal with Clegg. He put on a great show pumping questions at a man who he knew could not answer those questions.
Tabak was punch drunk and delusional during that trial. He had been turned into a zombie and they knew it.
Its easy to kick a man when he is down and thats exactly what Lickley did. He didnt want answers. He only wanted to put on a show knowing that the victim was already in his cage.
Delete

Sue Graham
7 .
Philip:
@Noel,
"...he occasionally goes off the rails and allows himself to be needled by the liaison gang."
If they can have that effect on me, think what they would have done to poor TM, whose boyfriend was suddenly dragged from her bed at dawn, never to lie in it again.
Lol l nearly squeezed a little tear out at the last bit there, managed to sook it back in again before forming a puddle on the floor!!
"He only wanted to put on a show knowing that the victim was already in his cage."
The only victim in all of this Noel, is Joanna Yeates!! VT certainly doesn't deserve that title!!

1
Noel O'Gara
7 .
look at it this way Sue G, Lets assume that Tabak was the killer of Jo. DCI Jones and his gang of highly paid detectives were convinced that he was the killer after making all those dna tests that were later revealed to be a sham.
If they had proof that Tabak was the killer why did they have to hold him for nine months to break his will and force a confession?
It was the confession, with so many unanswered questions, that convinced you and all your group that he was the killer. that is your rock and you are clinging to it.
Without that confession what did they have?
Just google searches for everything that he could think about the murder as he followed the police enquiry online and on the hour because he was a suspect and lived next door to the victim.
There was a murder case in Ireland a few years ago. It was the Rachel O'Reilly murder case and her husband Joe was suspected and eventually found guilty after a long trial. But he was photographed as he walked into the high court every morning and he had every opportunity to talk to anybody who could help him. The police had the evidence that convinced a jury that he was guilty. There was no confession or coercion necessary once police have proof that a suspect is guilty of the crime. He is serving life.
In Tabak's case they broke a vulnerable man and conned him to confess to a lesser charge. Once they had that in the bag they went for the jugular and screwed him despite the fact that they had no proof that he was the killer.
Habeus corpus used to be a beacon of British justice to prevent abuse. Tabak's case has exposed that as a mirage also.
Delete

2
Sue Graham
7 .
Noel:
"look at it this way Sue G, Lets assume that Tabak was the killer of Jo. DCI Jones and his gang of highly paid detectives were convinced that he was the killer after making all those dna tests that were later revealed to be a sham." - Lets remove this part..."that were later revealed to be a sham." Because, if we are "assuming" he was the killer, and the police were of the same opinion, we would have no reason to think they were a sham would we?
If they had proof that Tabak was the killer why did they have to hold him for nine months to break his will and force a confession? - They didn't hold him for 9 months to break his will and force confession out of him. On the 9th Feb he voluntarily said to the prison chaplain “I’m going to tell you something that will shock you, I’m going to plead guilty" Speaks for itself.
It was the confession, with so many unanswered questions, that convinced you and all your group that he was the killer. that is your rock and you are clinging to it. - LOL my group! I am one person Noel, l am not a "group" And l am not clinging to anything. I believe he is guilty for so many reasons, the mere fact that he volunteered this information only strengthens what l believe. Why plead guilty if he didn't do it? He wasn't tortured or beaten into submission.
"Just google searches for everything that he could think about the murder as he followed the police enquiry online and on the hour because he was a suspect and lived next door to the victim." - But he wasn't a suspect at the time he was on google searching the number of things he searched before Joanna was even reported missing, was he?
He became a suspect the moment he tried to incriminate the LL, the police saw through his lies!

1
Noel O'Gara
7 .
If he really was the killer and as cunning as you think, then the last thing he would do would be to contact the police when they had the landlord in custody.
The police recognised his vulnerability when they saw him getting upset during that questioning and his sister fussing over him. They knew then that they had a soft touch and he became a target for the stitch up because they had to release Chris Jefferies next day.
Delete

2
Sue Graham
7 .
His own arrogance played a big part in his downfall! Things may have turned out very differently had he not made the call re the LL's car being moved. But l have no doubt the police would of caught up with him in the end!!
Why do you think he made that call Noel?

Sue Graham
7 .
So they questioned him while his sister was present?

1
Sue Graham
7 .
"If he really was the killer and as cunning as you think, then the last thing he would do would be to contact the police when they had the landlord in custody."
That's the perfect time to come out with what he said, in his eyes he thought the police would be silly enough to fall for it and they would think it had to be the LL, he was doing what some would call, sticking the boot in! Detracting the heat from him.
"They knew then that they had a soft touch and he became a target for the stitch up because they had to release Chris Jefferies next day."
Lets rewind here! You have stated previously on many occasions that the only reason CJ was released, is because you intervened. Now your changing that? What's it to be?
You see this is where you lose me Noel, you change the facts to suit yourself!

2
Sue Graham
7 .
God help you if you ever find yourself being questioned Noel. 300 statements later and they'd have to give up and re-enact the whole scene, you keep chopping and changing what your saying!

2
Charlotte Eveson
7 .
"If he really was the killer and as cunning as you think, then the last thing he would do would be to contact the police when they had the landlord in custody."
Noel , statements like this is exactly why most people do not take you seriously
Of course he would , he knew they were questioning CJ but had not charged him so he thought he would give them an extra piece of evidence against him hoping it would be the straw that broke the camels back for CJ
This shows just how clever and manipulative he was , and the icing on the cake for him was the way he got TM to do his dirty work , he got her to ring the police taking the limelight off him. He deserved those extra years given to him on his sentence for these actions.
Little did he know that the police would fly out to him to take a statement , unfortunately for him he slipped up and gave a different version of his movements that night to his original statement

1
Noel O'Gara
7 .
I dont agree with your reasoning. It is the reasoning of police officers. blinkered and self serving.
Sue G there is nothing inconsistent in my intervention with CJ.
Delete

Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
7 .
Charlotte, you said "unfortunately for him he slipped up and gave a different version of his movements that night to his original statement".
Is this unreported insider information? Or are you confusing his first police contact in the early hours of the Monday morning, when he'd been home with Tanja on the Sunday night, with his later statement about being alone on the Friday night?

Sue Graham
7 .
Noel,
You previously stated (a few times) before that CJ was only released through your intervention.
Above you said, and l quote, "They knew then that they had a soft touch and he became a target for the stitch up because they had to release Chris Jefferies next day."
Now you are intimating that VT became the sole target because the police knew they had to release CJ.
So, if they "had" to release CJ (as you say above) the next day, there would be no need for your intervention at all. You led people into thinking you were responsible for his release.
Your claims are not only inconsistent Noel, they are misleading.

Sue Graham
7 .
My reasoning is in no way self serving and how you came to that conclusion is beyond me. Give it up with the police officer nonsense, it really is old now.

1
Philip Hollingbery
7 .
@Eva:
"Most crime happens within a socioeconomic circle. The most likely killer of a white middle-class professional is another white middle-class professional. VT wasn't on his way to become a serial killer, IMO. Nothing about this murder says "serious psychopath" to me. Everything says "something went seriously out of hand" to me."
Exactly! The most likely killer of Joanna Yeates was another white middle-class professional, namely Gregory G. Reardon. He knew her sufficiently well enough for grounds for strong antagonism to arise, he had no reason to rape her, and his own testimony against Vincent Tabak in court and his body-language were particularly self-incriminating. He would also have had a much stronger motive than any other killer to dump the body. Most murders are of this kind. However, Clifton is populated by white middle-class professionals, many of whom would not have been able to prove that they were not in the presumed vicinity of the crime at its presumed time. None of the testimony in court revealed why the police should have made Vincent Tabak a suspect in the first place rather than any of these other people. Since Christopher Jefferies was released after three days, exactly the same can be said of him. The fact that these two men were arrested out of thousands, while the obvious suspect was never arrested, points inescapably to the deliberate conviction of a scapegoat.
What is important is whether the killing said "serious psychopath" or "something getting out of hand" to the jury. Their verdict was the first of these. Yet the question of Vincent Tabak's psychopathic tendencies or their absence was not explored in court at all, despite the presence of one very credible witness with relevant knowledge. Reardon's testimony of a struggle taking in several different rooms in the flat, creating disorder which he had conveniently tidied up before Jo's parents arrived, and the placing of Jo's earrings and her nickers, emerged only in court, after the police had decided at the time of his arrest to built a sex-related case around Vincent Tabak, but without letting him know. Vincent Tabak's Counsel did not question Reardon's testimony, even though it contradicted his client's account. I deduce that the reason Reardon went round shaking the hands of the detectives who were in court after the verdict was to thank them for their help in putting together the story about the earrings and the nickers that clinched the murder verdict.


Updated 7 . by the author.


2
Eva Gietl
7 .
@Philip:
" while the obvious suspect was never arrested, points inescapably to the deliberate conviction of a scapegoat."
No, it points to the obvious suspect having a very strong alibi.
"his own testimony against Vincent Tabak in court and his body-language were particularly self-incriminating."
In what way?
Besides, if GR had been the killer, he certainly wouldn't have spoken so glowingly in defense of CJ against the media.

1
Philip Hollingbery
7 .
@Eva,
"No, it points to the obvious suspect having a very strong alibi."
The 4½ hours delay before Reardon called the police is self-incriminating; had it really happened as he testified, then it would have been obvious to him that a crime had been committed, he would have touched nothing and called them straightaway. His body language was very artificial, and contrasted markedly with the spontaneous grief of Jo's family.
In the 2002 Soham murder case, Maxine Carr spent 21 months in prison for providing Ian Huntley with a 'very strong alibi' of the kind that Frank Heaton provided for Reardon. The latter criticized the media's handling of his landlord only AFTER Jefferies had been released, and then only in a press statement that was obviously drawn up by the Police Liaison Service in consultation with Amanda Hirst.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jan/02/joanna-yeates-police-reassure-public

2
Eva Gietl
7 .
@Philip:
"of the kind that Frank Heaton provided for Reardon": How do you know that this the only source for his alibi?
He spoke of the media and CJ BEFORE CJ was released:
"Police have now been granted more time to question her landlord, Chris Jefferies, 65, about her death after he was arrested on suspicion of murder last Thursday.
....
A statement released on Saturday by Mr Reardon, who reported his girlfriend missing on 17 December, said: "Jo loved it here by Bristol harbourside and found great joy in the rowing club."
He described....
But apparently referring to reports about murder suspect Chris Jefferies, the couple's landlord, he went on: "Jo's life was cut short tragically but the finger-pointing and character assassination by social and news media of as yet innocent men has been shameful." "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8235055/Joanna-Yeates-was-stolen-from-us-say-family.html

1
Philip Hollingbery
7 .
@Eva G,
"How do you know that this the only source for his alibi?"
It isn't. When Charlotte E first posted on this forum, she reported CCTV footage that placed Reardon's car a long way from Bristol at about the time when Jo is supposed to have been killed. But the fact that Heaton was very reluctant to talk to journalists is very suggestive. The jump start and the trip to Sheffield were intended to create an alibi.


Updated 7 . by the author.

2
Eva Gietl
7 .
@Philip:
If there are other sources for his alibi, there is no comparison to Ian Huntley.
Every sensible person is hesitant to talk to journalists if murder is involved. IMO, there is nothing suggestive about it.

Noel O'Gara
7 .
Eva said
But apparently referring to reports about murder suspect Chris Jefferies, the couple's landlord, he went on: "Jo's life was cut short tragically but the finger-pointing and character assassination by social and news media of as yet innocent men has been shameful." "
I would say that Greg was whinging about the comments on newsgroups suggesting that he was the killer.
He didnt shave in those first few days and that would hide any scratches on his face as she struggled for her life and he was covered up when he appeared in public in those early days. I dont know if the forensic experts looked under Jo's finger nails but I suspect that her killer's dna would be found there if they looked.
But then they probably had CJ in custody before they got any results back from their labs and by that time they had declared Greg to be a witness and they were looking at the two other most unlikely patsys to stick it on.
Sue G I have no doubt that the A and S police were rumbled by my intervention and the stitch up of Tabak just proves that CJ was going down that path had I not intervened.
These cops wouldnt be surprised when they are told that Sutcliffe is not the Ripper and they didnt want an author like me on their case so soon. You could call it the curse of the Ripper and it is very real.
Delete

Sue Graham
7 .
"I dont know if the forensic experts looked under Jo's finger nails but I suspect that her killer's dna would be found there if they looked."
Lol now that's just silly even coming from you Noel, clearly you don't take any of this seriously, if you did, you wouldn't come out with such ridiculous statements like that.
"Sue G I have no doubt that the A and S police were rumbled by my intervention and the stitch up of Tabak just proves that CJ was going down that path had I not intervened. " - At the time VT was being interviewed, you had no idea of this, so again, utter nonsense.
How many ways can l twist the facts and say silly things, that's your agenda Noel!!
www.stitchupofapasty.com - That's more like it!!!


Updated 7 . by the author.

Philip Hollingbery
7 .
@Noel,
"The police recognised his vulnerability when they saw him getting upset during that questioning and his sister fussing over him. They knew then that they had a soft touch and he became a target for the stitch up"
I agree that that was the moment when Vincent Tabak's fate was sealed. DC Karen Thomas used that long interview to find out about his background and establish that his widowed mother does not speak English and his brother was divorced with young children. In other words the police from Bristol knew that they were not going to be dealing with a Dutch family able to mount an effective defence on Vincent's behalf. The family employed a media adviser who turned out to be worse than useless.
@Sue G,
They didn't hold him for 9 months to break his will and force confession out of him. On the 9th Feb he voluntarily said to the prison chaplain “I’m going to tell you something that will shock you, I’m going to plead guilty"
No Sue the chaplain's testimony was deceitful and manipulative. All he told the chaplain was that his solicitor had advised him to enter a plea of manslaughter. He was desparate for the chaplain's advice as to the wisdom of doing so when he had not actually killed anyone. We KNOW he had not killed anyone because we KNOW that the grounds for his becoming a suspect were entirely arbritrary, as I have already reiterated. Actually he did not sign what you would call "a confession" until 22 September.
But the grounds for sending him to Long Lartin were NOT arbitrary. It is one of the prisons associated with torture. That is to say that it is one of the prisons used for Islamic suspects who are interned on the basis of intelligence knowingly obtained under torture in countries where it is permitted, and whom many of the public believe deserve to be deported to those countries. In other words, torture is hardly unknown at Long Lartin even if the victims are not allowed to breath a word about it. That is why Vincent Tabak appeared by video link before two of the three judges who heard him, and why he was hardly allowed to say anything. The effects of the torture used to get him to sign those statements would have been too obvious to the journalists.
@Eva G,
I know this forum is not about the Soham murders, but I have noted certain other similarities, notably the coerced manslaughter plea and the scenario devised by Huntley's Counsel, which was even less believable than Vincent Tabak's "kiss and scream".


Updated 7 . by the author.

2
Jen Halo
7 .
Whoa! I said I was leaving and never going to return, but sadly for all, I couldn't resist it! :-) I've been reading regularly, so have kept myself up to date with the debate/discussion or whatever you wish to call it these days.
Noel I'd be very interested to know in what way you intervened, thus causing CJ's release. Secondly, if you felt it appropriate to intervene for CJ's release, why didn't you feel the same about VT's predicament and try to obtain his release too?


Updated 7 . by the author.

1
Sue Graham
7 .
Philip:
"When Charlotte E first posted on this forum, she reported CCTV footage that placed Reardon's car a long way from Bristol at about the time when Jo is supposed to have been killed."
So, if the car was seen on CCTV a long way from Bristol, why was there a need to create an alibi with the jumpstart? All he had to do was be seen on CCTV a long way away from Bristol.

Sue Graham
7 .
Tabak told him: “I’m going to tell you something that will shock you,”
“Vincent Tabak told him ‘I’m going to plead guilty’,”
The chaplain asked him “what for?” and Tabak replied: “For the crime that I have done.”
When he was asked if he meant “the young lady in Bristol” he said “yes” and the chaplain asked him: “Are you sorry?”
Mr Lickley told the court: “He said he was.”
On May 5 Tabak pleaded guilty to manslaughter at a court hearing.

1
Charlotte Eveson
7 .
Admin
"Charlotte, you said "unfortunately for him he slipped up and gave a different version of his movements that night to his original statement".
Is this unreported insider information?"
It was reported and discussed at trial
"At this point Tabak made a huge mistake. Spotting a chance to frame Jefferies, he contacted Avon and Somerset police and suggested the landlord had been out and about in his car on the night of Yeates's death. The murder team sent DC Karen Thomas to Amsterdam and on New Year's Eve she spoke to Tabak at a hotel near Schiphol airport for six hours.
For the first time, Tabak's behaviour seemed suspicious. He talked to her about Jefferies but seemed, in Thomas's words, "overly interested" in the forensic examinations police were carrying out. Tabak also gave Thomas a different version of what he had done on the night of Yeates's disappearance, explaining that he had gone out twice, once to take photographs of the snow and the second time to go to Asda."
The first time he spoke to police he said he had stayed in all night untill he went to collect TM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-case-vincent-tabak

Sue Vendone
7 .
It seems that everyone who believes VT is guilty.......also believe everything that they read in the press......that s why the media is so powerful

Philip Hollingbery
7 .
@Charlotte,
"a different version of what he had done on the night of Yeates's disappearance"
It has occured to me that I was once interviewed in connection with a murder in the Portsmouth suburb where my wife's "predecessor" lived. I had no idea whether I had an alibi for the evening in question or not, though I later found out that I didn't have one, and the detective tricked me by claiming (falsely, I think we later established) that there was a discrepancy between what my girl friend had told him and what I told him about our relationship. How on earth can anyone remember exactly what they were doing on an evening when they were at home not doing anything special and maybe popping out for a Rizla or two?
There was nothing suspicious about Vincent Tabak's behaviour. He became a suspect because A & S Constabulary were under immense pressure from the media and other forces to solve it before they brought in another team and made DCI Bones and his pack look incompetent. So the media are very much to blame for Vincent's misery.

Ivy Green
7 .
"The 4½ hours delay before Reardon called the police is self-incriminating; had it really happened as he testified, then it would have been obvious to him that a crime had been committed, he would have touched nothing and called them straightaway."
No it isn't. Most people would not automatically jump to the conclusion that a crime had been committed. It's not the sort of thing that happens often, and you never expect it to happen to you.



2
Ivy Green
7 .
"It seems that everyone who believes VT is guilty.......also believe everything that they read in the press......that s why the media is so powerful"
Not true, I was never convinced of CJ's guilt (or Robert Murat's when that was going on), but to imagine the press (and everyone else involved in the case) have lied about absolutely everything about Tabak is a bit ridiculous as well.

1
Philip Hollingbery
7 .
@Sue V,
"...believe everything that they read in the press"
That is the big paradox. Just because someone is a journalist, that is apparently a reason to trust every word he writes. But if he is an engineer with a Ph.D, a £45,000 a year job, a sweet girlfriend and everything to lose - oh, these are not reasons to trust him, says Charlotte, Sue G, Ivy G.
Why was Jo killed in December 2010? - because in November 2010 she graduated. She was in a relationship with an alpha male who was used to getting his own way and being spoilt by his elderly parents. He couldn't bear the fact that it was now she who wore the trousers and he was second fiddle. It was too much for him and he snapped.
@Ivy G,
Neither the press not the police have lied about everything. The police have lied about some things and the press have faithfully believed their lies. The police have deceitfully manipulated the media - and the editors and the public have behaved like willing idiots. In particular, the police have ensured that the media treated the porn and the prostitutes as sensational. There is nothing sensational about them - they are everyday interests of a large proportion of the male and female population. The conviction of a Dutch engineer with Ph.D (who was head-hunted to the UK) for killing a stranger without any motive is a unique sensation, but the police have ensured that this went unnoticed.


Updated 7 . by the author.

1
Charlotte Eveson
7 .
It is certainly not wise to believe everything you read in the press.
Personally I base my belief that VT Is guilty on what was said in court and official police reports only
And Phillip I'm sure many people see that having a PhD does not bring automatic trust not just us few listed and certainly not only people who believe VT to be guilty either
Ask people who believe he is innocent or even people who are not sure if having. phD brings automatic trust , good standing and detonate inability to murder and see what answer you get

1
Ivy Green
7 .
"But if he is an engineer with a Ph.D, a £45,000 a year job, a sweet girlfriend and everything to lose - oh, these are not reasons to trust him, says Charlotte, Sue G, Ivy G."
...and evidently Philip, Noel and Sue V. who won't believe his confession of a killing.

Noel O'Gara
7 .
I notice that nobody has commented on the Irish case where a man charged with the murder of his wife was on bail and was photographed every morning of his trial as left his taxi and he walked into the court. Nobody could say he was coerced or denied the right to a fair and public hearing. The police had the evidence to prove his guilt and they convinced a jury of that and he was jailed for life.
The English courts are an absolute disgrace because they are so geared up to enable the police to coerce any arrested person into making a confession. They will often accept a lesser charge if they come on a hard nut just to close the file and pretend they got the right man.
Jen asked me.
Noel I'd be very interested to know in what way you intervened, thus causing CJ's release. Secondly, if you felt it appropriate to intervene for CJ's release, why didn't you feel the same about VT's predicament and try to obtain his release too?
I emailed a blistering attack on them accusing them of attempting to frame the landlord who didnt remotely fit the profile of a killer under the circumstances when there was an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence that pointed at the boyfriend. I sent it to an associate of mine who lives locally and he added to it and slapped it on the police contact immediately. CJ was released hours later.
After Tabak was arrested and when I saw the way the arraignment was proceeding as he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, I observed how he was advised not to enter a plea and how no bail application was made and how his lawyers were changed in those early days so the signs were there that a stitch up was in progress and I could see that they were going to hold him to crack him up. I saw that LGC Forensics were involved about mid January and I know Chris Gregg who went to work for them and how he stitched up John Humble as the Ripper hoaxer with dummy low copy number dna which can be attributed to anybody. The last straw for me was when he was arrested, the police leaked to the media that they found the killer's dna on her breast and stomach and jeans.Tabak was arrested that morning and not named in those articles but the inference was obvious. From that day the nation believed that the cops had caught a sex killer and they still believe that. That was enough to signal to me that it was a stitch up.
So I made that webpage immediately and updated it as things developed.
About May I came on this forum and the stitch up that I recognised was played out as the parents were shepherded to a special hearing in May accompanied by liaison officers where Tabak confessed by video and from that moment I knew that they had broken him mentally.
Their conviction was based on that confession and without it the police would be up the creek without their paddle.
As it is, they have committed a heinous crime that hopefully will see them all locked up for many years to come and the sooner that happens the better for the whole nation.
http://www.suffolkstrangler.com/vincenttabak.htm
Delete

2
Jen Halo
7 .
Thank you for your reply Noel.
Couldn't you have done a similar email when VT was arrested via your associate, seeing as you were so sure that he was being stitched up, and you were, apparently, successful in having CJ released?
What would you suggest would be necessary to have everything reviewed? And have you done any steps apart from writing on your site with this in mind? If you truly believe what you put forward, I would presume you would take it further, and not just sit and write about it here.
I'm not saying I think VT innocent. I still think that on the evidence presented to them the jury made the right decision. But I also think that there were too many unanswered questions, and this still bothers me.

1
Noel O'Gara
7 .
CJ being a such an unlikely candidate and not fitting any criminal profile was the most unlikely suspect. For a retired teacher and an articulate and highly educated man who owned most of the building, it would be unthinkable for him to murder his tenant, and for me as a businessman with long experience of murders and police stupidity, not to mention having been educated in crime by the real Ripper who is still a free man I could see that they were up a gum tree.
Tabak was a young man and little was known about him at that time. We all even thought he only had a bike.
The article about the sex attack with dna on her breast was something that I had to wait and see what they had so I had to give them the benefit of the doubt. As things developed I saw that his rights to the presumption of innocence were trampled on and the stitch up became more obvious.
You will agree that if they really had the goods on him there was no reason to hold him in isolation for nine months. They wouldnt have objected to his bail because he was no threat to other women and he could have been tagged or closely monitored during that time on bail. But they needed to work on him to get his cooperation and he was particularly badly served by the worst lawyers in England, who were nothing more than a fig leaf for the crown who paid them a vast amount of money for their cooperation in the crime of fitting him up.
Delete

1
Philip Hollingbery
7 .
@Noel,
"I notice that nobody has commented on the Irish case where a man charged with the murder of his wife was on bail",
Of course nobody on this forum would consider bail sensational enough to arouse any comment when it is granted to a suspect in a country like Ireland where respect for the due process of law is presumably the rule rather than exception. I hope you could say the same of many English police authorities - but not Avon & Somerset. When Charlotte's friend Colin Port was answering a question about his statement to the Leveson Tribunal about the six weeks that Christopher Jefferies remained on bail after Vincent Tabak had been charged, he regretted the large number of suspects currently on bail in his police district, implying that he would like to detain as many as possible if it were up to him. In Long Lartin, perhaps? I don't remember the number of bailed suspects offhand but it was at least 1,500. I expect Charlotte will have the exact figure.
"...Chris Gregg who went to work for them and how he stitched up John Humble as the Ripper hoaxer with dummy low copy number dna which can be attributed to anybody."
After Scottish investigators had systematically identified a Palestinian bomb maker under contract to Iran as the person responsible for destroying Flight 103 over Lockerbie, the British government sent in a discredited forensic scientist called Alan Feraday with a City & Guilds education (i.e., not a Ph.D) with a remit to "prove" that Libya was behind the atrocity and ensure that a very respectable Libyan called Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was framed for the crime. This forum is not about Lockerbie but it is very much about bringing in corrupt scientists to kickstart the framing of an innocent person, and sometimes the media lie about it too, like the BBC here: "...police arrested Miss Yeates' landlord Christopher Jefferies but he was soon released and was never charged. And DNA evidence soon led them to Tabak." As everyone on this forum knows, Lindsey Lennen obligingly produced the magic DNA from Jo's breast (which could just as well have come from a fox or a squirrel) AFTER Tabak had become a suspect.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-14904647

1
Sue Graham
7 .
Sue V
"It seems that everyone who believes VT is guilty.......also believe everything that they read in the press......that s why the media is so powerful"
Why do you say that sue? That's quite a big assumption to make. With all due respect, you posted a link on here the other night to a page you had not completely read yourself, as if to back up a claim Noel, had made.
I have read most articles and followed all the court tweets, from the beginning till now. I don't believe everything that's said in the media at all, i'm not gullible.

Sue Graham
7 .
How many other cases are you pair going to try and blind people with. Constantly dragging up one case after another as if to validate your claims.
This is about Joanna Yeates, Vincent Tabak and the circumstances surrounding THIS case. Conspiracy theorists do exactly the same thing!
""I notice that nobody has commented on the Irish case where a man charged with the murder of his wife was on bail" - I wonder why!!


Updated 7 . by the author.

2
Ivy Green
7 .
Noel, Tabak made no application for bail. Who knows whether he would have got it had he made one. Also, I imagine someone who murders a neighbour they hardly know is considered a bit more of a threat to the general public than someone who murders their wife.

1
Philip Hollingbery
7 .
@Ivy,
A & S Constabulary knew very well that Vincent Tabak was no threat to anyone as it was they who had decided to stitch him up. Whether his second solicitor Paul Cook knew is something that is unlikely ever to be revealed to us, but at any rate he stated that bail would be applied when his client first appeared before a judge, and then a week later, without any explanation, Paul Cook declined to apply for bail. It is unlikely that Vincent Tabak had any say in the matter.

2
Ivy Green
6 .
"A & S Constabulary knew very well that Vincent Tabak was no threat to anyone as it was they who had decided to stitch him up."
No they didn't, this is just something you believe (or so you claim).
"It is unlikely that Vincent Tabak had any say in the matter."
Why?

1
Sue Vendone
6 .
Had Jo's killer been successful in hiding the body, she would still be a missing person. When she was found I believe he must have been in a complete state of panic, waiting for the knock at his door. In the following few days he would have displayed signs of extreme anxiety. Yet ironically, being unsuccessful in his bid to put the body over the wall worked in his favour. If she was still missing, what evidence would have incriminated VT? Google searches of LL lane? Porn viewing? The disarray in the flat? The visit on CCTV to Asda? After all people are incriminated without a body, but I don't think it would have been VT

Ivy Green
6 .
Sue V, the fact is Jo was found and it worked against the killer as his DNA was found on her. Do you not find his googling of LL in the days she was found a bit strange as this is where she was found? Not to mention all his other strange googling in the days following her disappearance. Not to mention that he confessed and hasn't since retracted the confession. Are we to believe all of the evidence was made up by the police? If they really went to all this trouble, why didn't they do a better job of it and plaster his DNA around the flat as well? It would have been no more difficult than all the other stuff they're supposed to have made up.


1
Sue Graham
6 .
"Yet ironically, being unsuccessful in his bid to put the body over the wall worked in his favour. If she was still missing, what evidence would have incriminated VT? "
I can't see how being unsuccessful in his bid to put the body over the wall worked in his favour, can you? Not sure what you mean by that. VT was in a state of panic, he said this himself. Sue i'm not being rude here, but have you researched anything about VT's behaviour after Jo was found?
You seem to be disregarding everything VT did or said. It's a bit of a pointless post really, Jo WAS found and evidence found on Jo's body matched VT's dna. There are many contributing factors as to why it was VT!!

1
Sue Graham
6 .
Ivy,
"If they really went to all this trouble, why didn't they do a better job of it and plaster his DNA around the flat as well? It would have been no more difficult than all the other stuff they're supposed to have made up."
Exactly! But then had his DNA been plastered all over her flat, some on here would simply say it came from the cat as he was flitting between both flats!

1
Charlotte Eveson
6 .
I'm presuming Sue G that Sue V is presenting a scenario where VT is not the killer in her post.
I agree though it seems a pointless thought as the body of course was found.
That can be said for any murder case , if the body was not found , or if the muder weapon had not been found etc.
It was not the DNA that first lead them to suspect VT anyway it was his changed version of events , his nervousness and his over interest in the forensics and the door , but of course without a body the investigation would have been different

2
Charlotte Eveson
6 .
Ivy I agree that if they were stitching VT up they would have planted more evidence than they did
Also they would not have stitched him up , coerced a confessio and then turn it down

1
Noel O'Gara
6 .
Amazing how you can swallow the fact that big strong 6 foot 4 inch Tabak didnt have the strength to lift her over the wall and we know that her blood was on top of it and yet you think he could pick her up and put her in a bicycle bag and carry her to his car, lift her out of it and then at that critical point he didnt have the strength to swing her over it. A man of his height would have no trouble if he just lifted her to his chest height and swing her over the wall. Greg would be shitting bricks as he planned to bury her in the quarry on the other side of the wall and he was much shorter than Tabak and so couldnt get her up to the top of the wall.
He then had the weekend to plan his story and he decided on the abduction struggle scenario to explain her disappearance.
How about the skis he was supposed to be carrying on the roof of his car? Was that ever verified?
Delete

Charlotte Eveson
6 .
Noel
Personally I feel he did not put her in a cycle bag , and neither did the prosecution , it was felt that he made up the story of the cycle bag to explain how his DNA got on Jos body.
If he did put her in a cycle bag he did it on his bed , no lifting as such involved.

Debra Ann Clements
6 .
Charlotte Tabaks DNA was NEVER found on Jo's body.
“The body was frozen, so that was quite tricky. Under the media glare, the work was flat-out: clothing, swabs, suspect's clothing, and all analysed and turned round in 48 hours.
Eventually, we found something," Lennen says. On swabs and tapes from her breasts, and tapes from three areas of her jeans. There were DNA components that matched one of the suspects, Vincent Tabak. But there wasn't enough, of enough quality, to evaluate.”.
BUT THERE WASN’T ENOUGH, OF ENOUGH QUALITY, TO EVALUATE!!!
"We couldn't say whether the DNA was from saliva, or semen, or even touch”.
Basically they couldn’t define even if the DNA was even human let alone Vincent Tabak’s or Greg Reardon’s or a rat or a fox.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jan/17/csi-oxford-lgc-forensics?fb=native

1
Philip Hollingbery
6 .
@Sue V,
"...In the following few days he would have displayed signs of extreme anxiety."
Within two days of Jo's becoming a Missing Person, the behaviour of the police revealed that they knew more than they were saying and that Reardon was let off the hook. Even without the body, and with his supposed alibi, the speed with which he ceased PUBLICLY to be a suspect and was granted witness status suggests that strings were being pulled behind the scenes. Just compare Reardon's treatment with that of Christopher Jefferies's - he remained a suspect for SIX WEEKS after the arrest of Vincent Tabak. Isn't the ground shaking under your case, Sue G and Charlotte?
Either Reardon can charm the hind legs off any police liaison officer, or his family carries a lot of clout with someone high up in A & S Constabulary. So no, he did not need to be anxious. He is used to having someone else to clean up the shit after him.
All Vincent Tabak's Google and internet searches can be discounted. Such signs of carelessness are only for the naive. No white-collar killer with leisure to reflect on his actions would have left so many inciriminating traces on his own computers - he would have done his research on a colleague's computer on in a public library. Therefore they were not incriminating or did not exist. On the contrary, the submission of them as evidence compromises the IT expert who testified about them and the Counsel who did not question them in court.

1
Sue Vendone
6 .
Only someone known to Jo would need to take the body to LL. IF it was VT, i agree with Noel, he would have no trouble lifting her over the wall. If VT had killed Jo her at her flat, he would have done his best to erase all evidence of her arriving home. With no body and no sign of her ever arriving home he could be more sure of distancing himself from the crime. But, conversely the killer wanted it to look like she arrived home and was attacked inside.

Sue Vendone
6 .
Ivy Green
I might be suspicious of the google searches if I knew they had been tested in court by the defence.. From only what I gather, the confession eliminated the need to test the evidence, so no I am not finding it strange

1
Philip Hollingbery
6 .
@Sue V,
We don't know how it REALLY looked inside the flat when Reardon got back from Sheffield - we only know how he told the court it looked. It could have looked exactly as he left it on the Friday for all anyone knows. The earrings and the knickers were definitely "put there" by agreement with sex-fixated DCI Phil Jones some time between Tabak's arrest and his trial.

1
Ivy Green
6 .
Sue G, LOL, yes the cat probably would be blamed. Everyone but Tabak seems to have been blamed at some point by certain people.

Ivy Green
6 .
Sue V, Tabak had opportunity in court (and since) to say if any of the evidence that was presented against him was a lie. I don't think the killer wanted it to look like she had arrived home and been attacked inside. I think she did arrive home and was attacked inside, and the killer didn't necessarily have the presence of mind there and then to straighten out the flat and make it look like she hadn't arrive home.

1
Ivy Green
6 .
"Only someone known to Jo would need to take the body to LL."
Or someone who knew their DNA would be found on her body.

Ivy Green
6 .
Philip,
"Within two days of Jo's becoming a Missing Person, the behaviour of the police revealed that they knew more than they were saying and that Reardon was let off the hook. Even without the body, and with his supposed alibi, the speed with which he ceased PUBLICLY to be a suspect and was granted witness status suggests that strings were being pulled behind the scenes."
As far as I know, the first the police said that he wasn't a suspect was on the 29th December, after Jo was found. They had absolutely no evidence against him, understandably, and lots of evidence that things had happened as he said.



1
Sue Vendone
6 .
Ivy @Or someone who knew their DNA would be found on her body.
So if it was VT he would have definitely managed the height of the wall!

1
Charlotte Eveson
6 .
Debra
"Charlotte Tabaks DNA was NEVER found on Jo's body."
"We couldn't say whether the DNA was from saliva, or semen, or even touch. But we could say that the probability of it not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion."[84]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Joanna_Yeates
Now , the Jury were given the probability figures and how to interpret them
Less than one in a billion chance of it not being VTs along with the other evidence is enough for me to write that VTs DNA was found on Jo

Charlotte Eveson
6 .
Sue V
" If VT had killed Jo her at her flat, he would have done his best to erase all evidence of her arriving home. With no body and no sign of her ever arriving home he could be more sure of distancing himself from the crime. But, conversely the killer wanted it to look like she arrived home and was attacked inside."
I feel he did not "want" it to look like she arrived home I feel he was limited to time , in fear of the possibility of being seen in her flat and panicking

1
Charlotte Eveson
6 .
Ivy Green An hour ago
"Only someone known to Jo would need to take the body to LL."
Or someone who knew their DNA would be found on her body.
I agree , that's a very good point

1
Charlotte Eveson
6 .
Sue V
"Ivy Green
I might be suspicious of the google searches if I knew they had been tested in court by the defence.. From only what I gather, the confession eliminated the need to test the evidence, so no I am not finding it strange"
Although not tested publicly by the defence does not mean they were not scrutinised by the defence , it would generally be the case that as the defence did not challenge them then had been proved to be sound.
Also the CPS test the evidence and they found it sound in order to put the case up for crown court

Sue Vendone
6 .
Why would the defence bother, they would be working for nothing as the confession was the key

1
Charlotte Eveson
6 .
There is no guarantee that VT would get Jo over the wall , it was chest height on VT
It is very difficult to lift a dead person no matter how small
Your waist height is your centre of gravity it's very difficult to lift anything of any substance above your natural waist as it goes against our natural ergonomics
VT may not naturally have upper body strength just because he was tall
On his own admission he was getting tired by this point , he had already had to lift and carry her a few times also he almost did do it but he panicked after a few attempts with cars coming along the lane
I don't think it's a foregone conclusion by any means that he would definitely get her over the wall

Charlotte Eveson
6 .
Sue
The defence would bother because they were working on intent
It would have been in there interest to disprove the Internet activity as it showed him as in control and manipulating which does not go down well with someone who had accidentally killed someone

1
Noel O'Gara
6 .
Ivy, the A and S police would probably have to deal with several missing person cases every month. When Greg reported Jo missing the police didnt get too excited. The parents emotional appeal brought it into the public gaze. From then on Sky news gave this case a special priority in their news broadcasts putting it on the national stage.
Facebook appeals by Jo's pals and Greg's appeal for donations for missing persons added a new dimension.
It escalated massively when the body was found on Christmas day.
All of this heaped massive pressure on a police force used to dealing with everyday matters. It was beyond their ability as they cordoned off Canynge Road and set up an incident wagon while moving around in CSI white suits like they were on a film set but keeping one eye on the media reporting, while thinking up who did it.
The arrest and release of CJ shattered that image.
Then they were reported searching for the sock and sifting through hundreds of tons of garbage and all the while Greg had left Bristol, Tabak had moved to a friend's flat and the landlord was in hiding still under suspicion by much of the nation.
The media pressure resulted in the Met about to take over the botched investigation but Colin Port preempted that by giving Jones the green light to stitch up Tabak, the vulnerable Dutch lad who was shaking when DC Karen Thomas was grilling him in Schipol and they had his dna in the bag. The stitch up was put in train with the media briefing that they found the killer's dna on her breast indicating for the first time that it was a sex attack and Tabak was arrested that morning.
That Guardian article submitted by Debra contains an admission that there was no dna found that would link Tabak to Jo's body. Lennen euphemistically says that it was unnecessary to test it because he confessed. Then in the same breath she put odds on Tabak's dna. Now that is misleading and perfidious imo.
In the tv documentary it was also admitted that the dna was inconclusive, meaning not capable of proving anything.
Yet the liaison and police people here keep insisting that his dna was found. They just cant face the fact that they have been such foolish people to be taken in by all those lies.
Delete

Charlotte Eveson
6 .
It was far from inconclusive

2
Charlotte Eveson
6 .
Less than one in a billion chance of it not belonging to VT

1
Ivy Green
6 .
"Less than one in a billion chance of it not belonging to VT"
Sounds pretty conclusive to me. Of course he could have a squirrel or fox double.

1
Noel O'Gara
6 .
you just wont let go. Why not face facts. they admitted that the dna was not conclusive. period.
but they got his confessions by blackmailing him that they had his dna and Clegg convinced him that manslaughter was his best chance. Vincent went along religiously and stuck to the advice.
Delete

2
Eva Gietl
6 .
@Noel:
"you just wont let go. Why not face facts. they admitted that the dna was not conclusive. period."
We don't let go as long as you pick and choose the facts that suit you. The DNA wasn't conclusive INITIALLY. Then they enhanced the sample which made the margin of error larger than it would be for a sample that needn't be enhanced. But while 1 to a billion is not great in terms of DNA-based identification but a much better margin of error than most other forms of identification can deliver.


Eva Gietl
6 .
@Noel:
"you just wont let go. Why not face facts. they admitted that the dna was not conclusive. period."
We don't let go as long as you pick and choose the facts that suit you. The DNA wasn't conclusive INITIALLY. Then they enhanced the sample which made the margin of error larger than it would be for a sample that needn't be enhanced. But while 1 to a billion is not great in terms of DNA-based identification but a much better margin of error than most other forms of identification can deliver.

Charlotte Eveson
6 .
Eva
I totally agree , where as 1 in a billion is not the best in DNA terms , where else would you get odds like that? I would lay my money down on those odds.
And of course the DNA is used in conjunction with all the other evidence

1
Noel O'Gara
6 .
the prosecution admitted to the tv documentary makers that the dna was inconclusive.
you are talking about the billion to one lie that normally accompanies dna evidence in trials because there is no scientist working for the poor defendant.
If a child were tested for paternity where there were full willing sample profiles of dna then the billion to one probability is relevant.
Where low copy number or enhanced dna is involved the probability of that matching is zero. Zero. Because it is so blown up that like a photo that you would blow up, of course you might find a pixel here and there that matches.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbIdo6uJA5A
Put that with the Guardian article that they admit that they shelved the dna bit because he confessed and you ladies are exposed as delusional clinging to the dna lies that preceded the arrest of Tabak.
you should be ashamed of yourselves trying to demonise a man to support the corrupt police who framed him.
Delete

1
Charlotte Eveson
6 .
Noel
"Put that with the Guardian article that they admit that they shelved the dna bit because he confessed"
Which Guardian article is this ? Because they did not take him in for questioning until they had the DNA results back ?
This guardian article says this though
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jan/17/csi-oxford-lgc-forensics?fb=native
"We couldn't say whether the DNA was from saliva, or semen, or even touch. But we could say that the probability of it not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion."

2
Jen Halo
6 .
@Noel
Yesterday I asked "What would you suggest would be necessary to have everything reviewed? And have you done any steps apart from writing on your site with this in mind? If you truly believe what you put forward, I would presume you would take it further, and not just sit and write about it here."
The reason I ask you this Noel, is because you have the belief, and also the experience to know what to do, and to be able to do it.
Unless something is done by someone who believes his innocence, then he is going to continue to sit there, a proven guilty man for the rest of his sentence. We can all talk round and round about this over and over again, but that will not change the guilty verdict.
At this time, he IS proven guilty, and no matter what presumptions you or anyone else put forward on this or any other forum, that is not going to change. In other words, you can't change a verdict just by writing on a forum.
You need to prove your presumptions to the right people. I don't think that is here.

Charlotte Eveson
6 .
Well this is the thing Jen , if people have such a passionate belief he is not the killer and the time and means to do something about it why don't they ?
I can understand people being frustrated because they followed the case in depth and then VT has told half truths so the exact course of events is not known
I can also understand that some people have doubts for various reasons but to believe they have totally got the wrong man why not do something about it

2
Jen Halo
6 .
Quite Charlotte.
I am frustrated myself, that there are so many anomalies and unanswered questions. But on what they were shown and given at the trial, I feel the jury made the right decision. However, if there were certain points that were not raised, or evidence not shown or challenged properly, then that does and will leave some doubt to some people. I can fully understand that.
I would hate to think that a miscarriage of justice has been done though, and those who truly believe that is the case surely would take positive steps to seek to have that miscarriage sorted rather than just post here their unproved theories.
Thing is, I also think it is totally wrong for people to go around and accuse someone else without proof for the crime.

1
Noel O'Gara
6 .
I live in Ireland and I wrote a book about the Ripper. I can only tell you my own experiences. If you dont want to know or if you oppose me when I try to tell you what happened in the Ripper case, then thats your prerogative.
Many more innocent women have been murdered by the real Ripper Billy Tracey in England since I first tried to tell the police. They blanked me just as they would blank anything that differs from the conviction of Tabak. Thats why I had no choice only to write a book.
I can tell the story as long as I live but at the end of the day its you people who have to live with the Ripper and you are just not willing to listen to the facts that many of your police are corrupt and only interested in closing each case firmly shut and moving on to get their salary at the end of the month. If somebody gets their throat cut in London they dont give a tinkers curse because its nothing to do with them.
When they are prepared to let that bastard get away and cover up the stitch up of the nutcase Peter Sutcliffe to kid the public, then nobody is safe. Just ask any policeman or woman about it and see how they duck it, if you dont believe me.
In the Tabak case I have recognised the lies that accompanied his arrest and the way they broke him down but just look at the opposition that dogged me all the way on this forum because they need to believe the police are honest.
There are many honest people who will be shocked and disturbed to accept that Tabak was framed but that is the real world that we inhabit. Its got the good and the bad and you better believe that.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/prostitute-murders-the-tragedy-of-the-cases-still-unsolved-786412.html
Delete

Ivy Green
6 .
I agree Jen. It's odd to happily turn a blind eye to the evidence pointing to Tabak, and rubbish it all, yet accuse another man for no good reason at all.

Eva Gietl
6 .
@Noel:
It is not that I need the police to be honest. I hope they are but there are lots of instances when they are not.
The reason that I "oppose you" is that your arguments are not based in facts. They are based on presumptions from which you draw conclusions that sound not logical to me. The effect of your reasoning is not improved by your rambling which is interspersed with accusing everyone disagreeing to be "police" or "not a house wife". This leads me straight to your misogynistic mind set.
All of that together is not conducive to persuading others of your very controversial point of few.

Debra Ann Clements
6 .
Noel you are correct the A & S police admitted the DNA WAS inconclusive! Which means it was not decisive, not established and indeterminate, it was UNRESOLVED!
It was not proved to be Tabak's DNA or anyone else's .
Inconclusive results indicate that DNA testing did not produce information that would prove an individual as the source of the biological evidence.

Eva Gietl
6 .
I meant "point of view", of course. Freudian slip?

Jen Halo
6 .
Noel, I am not getting at you, or anything like that. You hold a very strong belief about Tabak's innocence, and all I'm wondering is why you don't do something more than just posting on a forum that is not going to change anything?

1
Philip Hollingbery
6 .
@Noel,
I agree with your arguments about the false statistical claim by Lindsey Lennen that the DNA on Jo's breast had to be Vincent Tabak's. When he was arrested, his solicitor advised him to sign a statement that he believed she was lying because she had been paid to lie. The validity of this claim is confirmed by the reasons why he was made a suspect in the first place. By the time this had happened, the police had decided that Jo was murdered by someone who did not know her and did not have any motive other than, possibly, a failed attempt at rape. There were thousands of people known to have been in the vicinity at the time, any one of whom might have done this deed, and millions of others who could not prove that they were not in the vicinity. Especially if we apply your theories, Charlotte, that any man might commit rape. Of the thousands, there would have been many with police records (even if only traffic offences), many who were known to have a history of aggression, bad temper, knocking their wives about, probably even some suspected of sexual offences. But very few with Ph.Ds. Why were swabs not taken from any of these? Why was Vincent Tabak, with his irreproachable history, made a suspect? Why did two officers fly to Holland when his witness statement could have been faxed from his local police station?
We all know the answer very well, though some of us will not admit it. It is the same reason as the reason why Christopher Jefferies was arrested - to find a scapegoat. No one is in any position to contradict Lindsey Lennen's claims about the DNA on Jo's breast because the samples were used up in the enhancement. But the likelihood of someone like Vincent Tabak Ph.D having killed Jo is less than a billion to one against.

Eva Gietl
6 .
@Philip:
So you know the men who had to give swabs? How many were there?



2
Charlotte Eveson
6 .
The DNA was inconclusive until sent for further detailed testing , the results of the further were back before VT was taken in , they were back much earlier , at the point they released CJ as those DNA results showed that the DNA was not CJs
Debra , you say that the DNA was not good , how come they managed to eliminate that it belonged to CJ then ? As it did , yet you say they could not even tell if it was human lol
It was presented in court that there was less than 1 billion chance it was not VTs , not the strongest DNA but far from inconclusive

1
Charlotte Eveson
6 .
Sorry NOEL you seemed to have missed my question
Noel
"Put that with the Guardian article that they admit that they shelved the dna bit because he confessed"
Which Guardian article is this ? Because they did not take him in for questioning until they had the DNA results back ?"

2
Charlotte Eveson
6 .
Phillip
The reason VT became a suspect was because when the police flew to speak to him he gave a completely different version of events as to his movement that night from his first statement
He was overly interested in the forensics
he suddenly said he might have stepped into Jos hall even though he said he had never met her
This does not make him a killer at this stage but it does make him a suspect
The reason they flew to speak to him was not to do with him but CJ , they had CJ under arrest and they needed to speak to him ASAP

1
Facebook User
6 .
@ ''The reason they flew to speak to him was not to do with him but CJ , they had CJ under arrest and they needed to speak to him ASAP''
Hell of a good point Charlotte.
They were convinced they had the right man in CJ and Tabak's information was going to strengthen their conviction that they had the right man. [or so they thought]
then Tabak acted suspiciously and we know the rest.
''he suddenly said he might have stepped into Jos hall even though he said he had never met her''
yes talk about covering his back. His words above were meant as an explanation of why the police had found evidence of VT in the flat! [even though they hadn't] (but VT did not know that they hadn't, and was covering his back big style.)

Ivy Green
6 .
"Why was Vincent Tabak, with his irreproachable history, made a suspect?"
The DNA evidence (the likelihood of it not matching his was less than one in a billion, quite strong evidence no matter how many times you shout about it)? His movements on the night? His behaviour when a DNA sample was taken? His story about his movements on the night changing? And of course all the very damning googling he did.
Having just seen Charlotte's post, that better explains why he first became a suspect.

1
Noel O'Gara
6 .
Charlotte said
''The DNA was inconclusive until sent for further detailed testing , the results of the further were back before VT was taken in , they were back much earlier , at the point they released CJ as those DNA results showed that the DNA was not CJs
Debra , you say that the DNA was not good , how come they managed to eliminate that it belonged to CJ then ? As it did , yet you say they could not even tell if it was human lol
It was presented in court that there was less than 1 billion chance it was not VTs , not the strongest DNA but far from inconclusive''
You are jumping to conclusions there Charlotte. You think CJ was eliminated because the dna proved he was not involved.
So what evidence did they have to arrest him then?
The answer is none and it was a similar case with Tabak because if his dna was on Jo's breast they would have arrested him within a few days of his supplying his dna at Schipol.
You are all grasping at straws to square the circle.
Delete

Philip Hollingbery
6 .
@Eva:
Yes, two. Christopher Jefferies and Vincent Tabak. I do not know if a swab was taken from Gregory Reardon or not. I do not remember reading any newspaper reports about swabs being taken from any of the others, but I do know that there was a call from Kerry McCarthy, the Labour MP for Bristol East, for all the men in Bristol to be DNA tested. Talk is cheap.

Eva Gietl
6 .
@Philip:
So if you don't know whose swabs were taken, how can you write "Why were swabs not taken from any of these? " ?

1
Philip Hollingbery
6 .
@Ivy,
You are mixing up grounds for suspicion and evidence. The alleged DNA evidence and the alleged Googling were collected AFTER Vincent Tabak was made a suspect. The only grounds for making him a suspect that have been mentioned are absolute CRAP - his changing his story, witnessing against his landlord, interest in aspects of the investigation filmed by TV precisely because they were interesting. Any one of those thousands of people would have reacted the same to being treated as a suspect. You know perfectly well that any serious detective would have been looking for murder suspects with a history of violence, mental instability, convictions of any kind, sex offences etc. You want to know why people call A&S Constabulary "Keystone Cops"?
@Eva,
Canynge Road is a long road that was swarming with reporters at the time of the investigation. If the police had gone from door to door taking swabs from thousands of people don't you think it might have been mentioned in the media? Or did the police disguise themselves as delivery men and tell each suspect to say nothing to any reporter?

Eva Gietl
6 .
@Philip:
I am not sure, but I would guess that most murders of middle-class women are committed by middle-class men who didn't have a history of violence, mental illness etc.
The criteria you listed above seem to be the hallmarks of serial killers. But serial killers are a minority. Most murders are one-off (or gang-related).

Noel O'Gara
6 .
Eva, if you had to know the Real Ripper for some time you would revise the popular police interpretation of serial killers. The Real Ripper was not a serial killer who would ultimately be caught when he makes that mistake.
It was anything but good detective work that linked the murders he committed.
He actually had to bite some of them to ensure the police knew it was him and of course he was writing to them in concert with his murders as he roped in the nutter Sutcliffe whom he knew would be stitched up for the lot.
His murders were linked by the sheer level of brutality that he employed, not to hurt the victim who was already dead but to sicken the police who had to view the show he put on for them.
His motive was to wind up the cops whom he hated with a vengeance as he watched their performance via the news reports and they knew that but they constantly lied to the public that the Ripper was a man with a hatred of prostitutes.
The last thing the police want is a serial killer on their patch and they will not link murders unless they are pushed into accepting that they are linked because they know that its a challenge that they nearly always end up making fools of themselves.
Nobody seems to know if Greg had his skis on the roof of his car that day he travelled to Sheffield.
Delete

2
Ivy Green
6 .
"The only grounds for making him a suspect that have been mentioned are absolute CRAP - his changing his story, witnessing against his landlord, interest in aspects of the investigation filmed by TV precisely because they were interesting. Any one of those thousands of people would have reacted the same to being treated as a suspect."
As far as we know he wasn't being treated as a suspect until he did these things.

Eva Gietl
6 .
@Noel:
So do you think the murder of JY was part of a serial killing spree?

Sue Graham
6 .
Philip:
@Eva
"Yes, two. Christopher Jefferies and Vincent Tabak. I do not know if a swab was taken from Gregory Reardon or not. I do not remember reading any newspaper reports about swabs being taken from any of the others, but I do know that there was a call from Kerry McCarthy, the Labour MP for Bristol East, for all the men in Bristol to be DNA tested. Talk is cheap."
Incorrect Philip! Swabs were also taken from the 2 delivery men, who had delivered furniture 5 weeks before!


Sue Graham
5 .
Noel:
"Nobody seems to know if Greg had his skis on the roof of his car that day he travelled to Sheffield." - It was said at the start that Greg took his skis!
Another neighbour who saw Greg’s car parked outside his brother’s home that weekend said: “He must have been on top of the world seeing the twins for the first time. Then to be plunged into all this.
“His emotions have been pulled all over the place. What a rollercoaster. It must be unbearable.
“They’d seemed so happy. Both the lads are great skiers and Greg had his skis with him. They probably took advantage of the weather for a little fun.
“They are such a lovely family. It should have been a lovely weekend for them. It’s heart-breaking.’’
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/222649/Joanna-Yeates-boyfriend-s-torment-over-visit-to-newborn-nieces-Joanna-Yeates-boyfriend-s-torment-over-visit-to-newborn-nieces-Joanna-Yeates-boyfriend-s-torment-over-visit-to-newborn-nieces-Joanna-Yeates-boyfriend-s-torment-over-visit-to-newborn-nieces-Joanna-Yeates-boyfriend-s-torment-over-visit-to-newborn-nieces

Noel O'Gara
5 .
Eva, please dont play games. you know what I think. Murder is a very serious business. This site is being monitored by some police whose eyes are being opened. They are not all bent you know. I believe evidence. I look at the evidence and it all points at Greg. With the incompetence shown by the A and S police force in this case with both the landlord and Tabak it shouldn't surprise that they were conned by Greg's jump start and his brother's statement that he got there about 10.0 pm. The brother didnt know that he was being conned by Greg either because he probably gave him a story like he was spotted speeding by the cops and if they ask you or he had a minor accident etc etc.
Francis didnt know that Jo was murdered just hours before Greg got to his door and that Greg scarpered to him for an alibi. Once he made the statement he had to stick to it or he would be in big trouble also.
Delete

1
Eva Gietl
5 .
@Noel:
I am not playing games. But I answered a post of Philip where he mentioned all traits of serial killers to prove it couldn't have been VT because he didn't display any of those serial killer characteristics. In my answer to Philip I pointed out that VT wasn't going to be a psychopathic serial killer so I am not surprised that he doesn't display any of these traits.
You answer my post then by telling me how I don't know anything about serial killers. My question was maieutic: I wanted you to realize on your own that you were going off on an irrelevant tangent.

Noel O'Gara
5 .
Sue g, that Express article dated 11th January indicates the reporter did his own bit of detective work on Greg. The single comment at the bottom puts the spotlight on the vital time. The Express say he got there about the time that Jo was murdered, ie 9.0 pm approx. I interpret that as being what Greg and his brother told the cops. Only Greg knew the time of death and that was the time he needed to distance himself from.
''Neighbours heard screams from her flat at 9pm – by which time Greg is believed to have been with his family 140 miles away. ''
I wonder if the brother told the cops that he got there at 9.0pm because Greg asked him to. That reporter seems to think so. Yet as the reader points out it would have been impossible if he left at 7.0pm.
On that cold snowy night I reckon it would have taken closer to four hours to get to Sheffield unless he was in a real hurry. Seems strange how he only left after 7.0pm not long before she would arrive home. He waited till dark to leave on that journey. Its not the behavior of lovers and thats for sure.
Delete

2
Ivy Green
5 .
"''Neighbours heard screams from her flat at 9pm – by which time Greg is believed to have been with his family 140 miles away. ''
I wonder if the brother told the cops that he got there at 9.0pm because Greg asked him to. That reporter seems to think so."
Noel, you can be sure that if Greg's brother had said this to the reporter, it would be reported that he had said so, not just put as "believed to have been". Other reports put the time of arrival as 10:10pm, so I don't know why you have such faith in this particular reporter. As we know, from criticism of certain people here, Greg's brother wisely decided not to talk to reporters as he had already talked to police.

Noel O'Gara
5 .
if he had nothing to hide there was no reason not to talk. On the other hand if he had to tell lies because Greg asked him to say he got there at 9.0pm knowing that Greg got there at midnight or perhaps early the next morning, he would not be willing to embellish the lie for fear of getting caught out.
But because there was a cloud over Greg at that particular time and if he really did get there at 9.0pm then Francis would have had no hesitation in telling the world and his wife all about what happened at 9.0pm and no doubt he could rope in some of the neighbours to confirm the exact time. That would leave no doubt about Greg's alibi.
But with a no comment and no neighbour seeing him arrive at 9.0 pm that leaves him under a cloud.
I dont have great faith in that Express reporter Ivy but at least that is something to go on as far as Greg's alibi is concerned.
When he was waiting with murderous intent in the car for Jo to come by, the last thing he expected was for her to mark her time of death with two almighty screams. Without those screams nobody would ever know the time of her murder, but 9.0pm became a time that he had to create an alibi for.
Therefore by the time Greg got to see his brother in Sheffield, he suspected Jo's dying screams were heard and he had to invent a story so that Francis would cooperate and say he got there at 9.0pm. Maybe he told him he was sleeping in the car because he didnt want to disturb the babies. Who knows? But Francis covered for him.
Delete

1
Eva Gietl
5 .
@Noel:
"if he had nothing to hide there was no reason not to talk."
Yes, there is an important reason: his privacy. The newspapers and the public don't have any right to this information.

1
Philip Hollingbery
5 .
@Eva,
"My question was maieutic"
You may call it that - I would call it trolling. Noel does not go off the rails at tangents; that is more my style when taunted by the likes of Sue Jeffries. However, I did not introduce the expression "serial killer" - you did. A man who kills a women he does not know for a trivial reason has to be far more psychopathic than a man who kills his wife because she is going to leave him for another man taking their children with her. Why was Shrikant Sharma not asked in court if he thought his employee of three years standing were a psychopath? Solicitor Patrick Crossman helped put the noose round Vincent Tabak's neck by advising him to sign a declaration that we know about stating that he did not know Joanna Yeates if the same statement did not also contain a denial that he had anything to do with her death.
@Noel,
from the article in The Express:
"Last night chartered surveyor Helen said she couldn’t discuss the weekend. “We’ve spoken to the police and we don’t have anything else to say,’’ she said. “I’m sorry we can’t be of more help.’’"
We don't know whether the mother of the twins styles herself Mrs. Heaton, but her formal denial here echoes a similar response from Frank Heaton. I agree with you that they would have had no reason not to talk openly if there were nothing to hide - on the contrary, with Chris Jefferies and Vincent Tabak still totally unknown, the journalists had no one to suspect at that time except Gregory Reardon. So his family's reticence is doubly suspicious. It sounds from the article has if Reardon had been round grooming the neighbours to say nice things about him during his stay in Sheffield.
"Police were last night trying to trace a car seen 24 hours after Joanna disappeared being driven slowly up and down the isolated road where her body was found."
That would probably be the killer's father, anxiously trying to locate and move the body before it was discovered. No doubt the police have information about whether Reardon telephoned his parents while he was in Sheffield. But the heavy snowfall on the Saturday thwarted them. His trip to Sheffield seems to have been planned expressly to give him the alibi he knew he would need as prime suspect.

1
Facebook User
5 .
@ Eva ''I am not playing games. But I answered a post of Philip where he mentioned all traits of serial killers to prove it couldn't have been VT because he didn't display any of those serial killer characteristics. In my answer to Philip I pointed out that VT wasn't going to be a psychopathic serial killer so I am not surprised that he doesn't display any of these traits.
You answer my post then by telling me how I don't know anything about serial killers. My question was maieutic: I wanted you to realize on your own that you were going off on an irrelevant tangent.''
This post by Eva is 'trolling' according to Phillip. (or maybe he means that the sentence ''My question was maieutic'' is trolling? Eh?
Anything less trolling I have yet to read.
Same old Phillip 'when cornered write something nasty or silly.'

Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
5 .
For Philip. You have begun referring to "Frank Heaton" and are the only person to do so.
Please explain the "Heaton" connection to this case.
In the absense of an explanation I'd have no choice but to decide that you're seriously taking the piss and disallow further posting by you.

Philip Hollingbery
5 .
@Admin,
Gregory Reardon's half-brother's name is Francis (or Frank) Heaton. Their mother was Mrs. Heaton before she became Mrs. Reardon.

Noel O'Gara
5 .
Greg succeeded in convincing the police and Jo's parents that Jo had been kidnapped presumably for ransom during that first week before the body was found. Of course he was aware that she had a bit of money and her parents were well heeled and he embarked on an active missing persons campaign.
But the killer always knew that her body would soon be found.
By that time he had succeeded in convincing the police that he was innocent and distraught and it must have come as a great relief to him when the landlord was arrested. It signaled that the police considered him not involved as he witnessed Chris Jefferies discomfort.
Even Mr Stanley the next door neighbour who helped Greg with the jump start on the landlord's car was grilled for hours and his car taken in to the police station for the sniffer dog and taping up tests to try to find any trace of a body having been there.
Does anybody know if Jo's own car was forensically tested as that was the most likely place and the number one suspect car?
Obviously Tabak's car was not tested until after his arrest on 20th January and that was another blunder by the A and S police seeing as he was living next door to Jo.
Like I said before the police case against Tabak is falling apart at the seams.
Delete

2
Eva Gietl
5 .
@Noel:
"Greg succeeded in convincing the police and Jo's parents that Jo had been kidnapped presumably for ransom during that first week "
If that was true, why did the parents and the police state explicitly during the first week that they were fearing the worst?



3
Facebook User
5 .
@ Noel ''Obviously Tabak's car was not tested until after his arrest on 20th January and that was another blunder by the A and S police seeing as he was living next door to Jo.''
So the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't Noel.
One minute it is preposterous (to you and Phillip) that the police should suspect Tabak at all, and the next minute the police are wrong for not suspecting him and for not checking his car. You speak in riddles.

1
Noel O'Gara
5 .
not really Mike. I think that the incredulity that Greg went away on that cold night to visit his family and hours later his girlfriend was abducted, all this fed the national suspicion against Greg.
The parents believed and were hoping that she had been kidnapped until the body was found. That was as a result of the staged struggle by her killer which Greg spent four hours pondering over before he phoned Jo's parents. Because all her gear was in the flat nobody doubted for a moment that she got back there especially with the pizza bill placed in the table so conspicuously. One would have expected it to be in her bag or the bin.
So the police were also sucked into the belief that she got back and nobody for a moment would have thought that Greg might have met her on the road and taken her away.
Who else could or would have staged whatever was intended to convey? a kidnapper looking for ransom.
That was the only straw that the family could hope for and it bought time for the killer.
Certainly when they were examining the landlord's and Mr Stanley's car there was every reason to do Jo's car and Tabak's because of the obvious proximity.
They were very quick off the mark to fly to Schipol but they failed to do the most basic police test at the scene, check all cars at the house. So Mike they were negligent again in that I'm afraid. It might not be important except for the fact that they framed up an innocent man for the murder.
Delete

Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
5 .
Philip, Frank was raised with his step-father's surname. What game are you playing?
http://www.thisisnorthdevon.co.uk/Frank-Reardon-Helen-Holmes-married-Woolacombe-Bay-Hotel/story-12150486-detail/story.html

1
Philip Hollingbery
5 .
@Admin,
I am not playing any game. I got the name Heaton from a genealogical database. It did not occur to me that Frank Heaton might have changed his name to Reardon while still a child. That would explain why I was not able to find a marriage for him in the database. Well done for doing just that!

2
Ivy Green
5 .
Noel,
"So the police were also sucked into the belief that she got back and nobody for a moment would have thought that Greg might have met her on the road and taken her away."
If this was the case, why did the police take Greg's computer and phone away? The police always suspect partners first, so you can be sure they thoroughly investigated Greg until it became apparent that he could not have committed the crime.

1
Sue Vendone
5 .
Noel They were very quick off the mark to fly to Schipol but they failed to do the most basic police test at the scene, check all cars at the house. So Mike they were negligent again in that I'm afraid. It might not be important except for the fact that they framed up an innocent man for the murder.
Had they checked Vt 's car along with the others the 'microscopic speck of blood' would have been found before CJ'S arrest and it is odd that his car was not checked early..............??

1
Noel O'Gara
4 .
Ivy, Greg was not an idiot. Do you think any man who commits a serious crime would leave a trail of it or even a smell of it on his pc or phone? He made sure to text her at 10.30 to say he arrived in Sheffield and it sounded great to the police.
It was part of his false alibi. That was just about the time he had finished covering her body with leaves on LL and he was setting out for the north.
The question is, Ivy, did they do a thorough forensic of his car and did they check if he valeted it in Sheffield. In fact Ivy, Greg was the only person who could have done it.
As Sue V points out they obviously didnt check Tabak's car to find that microscopic speck of blood and that can only be described as more incompetence for the boys in the white plastic suits. But they do put on a good show.
Delete

1
Philip Hollingbery
4 .
@Ivy G,
"why did the police take Greg's computer and phone away? The police always suspect partners first, so you can be sure they thoroughly investigated Greg"
I am so glad you acknowledge that the boyfriend should have been the No. 1 suspect. That is why they took his computer and phone when Joanna Yeates disappeared - or at least, they said they did. It is hard to believe any other person would have harmed such a lovely girl as Jo.
"...until it became apparent that he could not have committed the crime."
Whatever the police found out, it is not necessarily what they acknowledged publicly. If they found out that Gregory Reardon could have committed the crime, or indeed that he DID commit the crime, they might still have decided to say nothing about it. That rather depends on whether he had friends in high places. Indeed, there are signs that they twiddled their thumbs because that is what did happen.
The facts that we know, and the things that he himself said, and did not say, make it almost impossible that anyone except him COULD have committed the crime. An alibi can be faked. A car does not have to be driven by the person in whose name it is registered. A mobile telephone does not have to be on the person in whose name it is registered. But no other killer than him would have moved the body but left everything else as we have heard it was left. It is phoney.

1
Facebook User
4 .
@ Phillip ''they might still have decided to say nothing about it. That rather depends on whether he had friends in high places.''
Twaddle.

1
Philip Hollingbery
4 .
"Twaddle"
OK, if you think that friends in high places is twaddle, then another possibility is that someone is Reardon's family knows something that someone else in a high place does not want to become more widely known, and that someone would go a long way to prevent that from happening, if you get my drift. I suggest you produce an explanation for why Reardon was not arrested and interrogated as intensively as Christopher Jefferies was despite the latter's absence of any possible motive - because the case against Reardon certainly adds up so very heavily that the alibi provided by his family cannot compensate for it. There are many possible explanations. There are those who think that the police in Bristol are not very bright, but in that case, why are they so successful in manipulating and deceiving so many people?

4
Sue Graham
4 .
Phlip;
"I am not playing any game. I got the name Heaton from a genealogical database. It did not occur to me that Frank Heaton might have changed his name to Reardon while still a child. That would explain why I was not able to find a marriage for him in the database. Well done for doing just that!"
You're turning into one mad stalker! I sincerely hope someone does something about your crazy behaviour! And admin, before you jump on the "sue don't be rude" wagon again, read back a few pages. Philip's not taking the piss, he has serious mental issues and you are encouraging it by allowing him to continue to slander a whole innocent family. You didn't like it happening to Debra and her family, but yet this sort of behaviour is ok? It's gone way past insane!!

2
Ivy Green
4 .
Philip,
"I am so glad you acknowledge that the boyfriend should have been the No. 1 suspect."
I didn't say he should have been, I said he probably was until it became apparent that he had nothing to do with it.
I agree with Sue that you have serious mental issues, not that I think you believe a word of the rubbish you write.
Mike, "twaddle" totally sums it up (all of Philip and Noel's posts), a pile of twaddle by twaddledee and twaddledum.

1
Philip Hollingbery
4 .
@Sue G,
"Philip's not taking the piss, he has serious mental issues"
I have to concede that compared with Noel, Debra and Sue V, my brain was not functioning properly when Greg Reardon was declared to be a witness. I did indeed show signs of serious mental issues until these clever posters set me on the rails.
In the very first report I ever read about Joanna Yeates's disappearance, the police stated that they knew she must have reached home because her mobile telephone, wallet, bag and pizza receipt were found in the flat. My very first reaction was to think, "But these things could just as well have been put there by her killer to make it look as if she had reached home". After her body was found and Reardon remained at large, my mind was not quick enough to work out that any other killer than him - and especially one living in the same house - would also have removed these objects with the body, so as to make it look as if she never reached home.
The police's first statement and the contents of the flat demonstrate that (a) Reardon is the perpetrator, (b) he acted to incriminate one of the other people living in the house, (c) the police worked this out almost at once, but decided for some reason not to make him the No. 1 suspect, (d) the police embellished Reardon's testimony in court about the state of the flat (which only he could know) in order to reinforce Vincent Tabak's conviction.

1
Dyna Victoria
4 .
"Greg locked the door and left a light on for Joanna Yeates, who had gone for drinks with work friends. He sent text at 1848 to his brother.
by skynewsgatherer via twitter edited by nicola.boden 10/17/2011 1:15:54 PM October 17, 2011 at 2:15 PM
Later that night Greg tried to call Joanna on her mobile and landline and then sent text at 2233. He got no response."
I assume the text to his brother was to say that he (greg) was on his way...if greg had plans to harm jo its doubtful imo that he would have contacted his brother at that particular moment in time..
his journey seems to have taken 3 plus hours if we are to assume that greg text Jo when he arrived, or soon after..

1
Dyna Victoria
4 .
If the police had gregs phone then Im assuming these texts were verified and located..giving Greg his alibi..


1
Noel O'Gara
4 .
Of course Philip, the jury were told that Tabak devised a cunning plan to hide the body three miles away from his flat so that the police would not suspect him of the murder. So he cleaned all his dna (an impossible task for anybody) and then bundled her body into his bicycle bag which the police went along with because they failed to find any trace of a dead body in his car, and he simply forgot to bring all her gear along.
So what was the point of him moving the body to LL while leaving all her stuff in the flat? It would still bring the police to his doorstep.
On the other hand Greg would have been desperate to pretend that she got back to the flat because he had waylaid her before she got there. So only Greg could have staged the struggle, with the earrings and knickers and the coats on the floor etc etc. The scenario that he staged certainly aroused the immediate concern of her parents when they left their beds after midnight for the three hour journey to Bristol on that really bad night and Greg's suggestion to them that Jo had been abducted or kidnapped for ransom became the probable motive for her disappearance.
He spent that four hours setting the scene.
During that first week there was a marked distancing between Greg and the family, who didnt know what to believe.
But there was some sixth sense evident in them that it was Greg who did it.
The parents in turn helped to convince the police that she got back to the flat and they wasted valuable time looking for a pizza and a sock while failing to apply hard logic to the scene and ask themselves why would anybody stage that scene.
Then they arrested the landlord thinking that he wouldnt want a dead body to be found in his flat or some such ridiculous reason.
and all the while Greg was shielded from suspicion because everybody believed that she got back to the flat because of his staging of that struggle with a hint of a sex attack thrown in by the earrings and knickers.
It was only after the parents saw Tabak confess to killing Jo on the video at the Old Bailey that they became convinced that he was the killer and they warmed to Greg therafter. That conviction was assisted by the police liaison officers who were in constant contact with the family in their efforts to allay any reservations that they might have had.
Needless to say they would have made a lot of hay out of the fictional dna that was found on Jo's breast and stomach and her jeans as he lifted her into his car.
All in all it was a classic in stitch up material and will in future be held out to be the stitch up that unraveled a British police force and undermined and exposed the criminal elements of the force and the corrupt lawyers who supported them.
Delete

1
Philip Hollingbery
4 .
@Dyna,
"I assume the text to his brother was to say that he (greg) was on his way"
Anyone who is prepared to believe that Vincent Tabak could text Tanja from Asda with a body in the boot has no right to reject the notion that Reardon could text his brother while lying in wait for his victim.
"If the police had gregs phone then Im assuming these texts were verified and located..giving Greg his alibi.."
Why should you assume that? If the police were like most posters on this forum, they would be QUITE SURE that Reardon could not possibly have done it, so they would not bother to check his alibi, just as they were not keen to check the CCTV recordings in Canynge Road.
@Noel,
"So only Greg could have staged the struggle, with the earrings and knickers and the coats on the floor etc etc."
There was no need for Greg to stage these things at all. His story was that he found a state of disorder in the flat and tidied a lot of it up - but most of the things he said were out of place were never out of place at all - apart from the things that were actually seen out of place by Jo's parents when they arrived. The earrings and the nickers were definitely inserted into his statement at the instigation of the prosecution so as to suggest that sex was involved in the killing.

Dyna Victoria
4 .
There was
22 information that was known to the police but it was also
23 known to others, and if you look at the article, it says
24 that police must have found a receipt or something in
25 the house. Well, we didn't find a receipt. We got that
Page 76
1 information from Joanna's boyfriend (LEV INQ)
why would he mention the receipt to the police if he were guilty..it proved that she was alive at 8.40pm that friday..and he had already left for sheffield..

Noel O'Gara
4 .
Dyna those phone calls and texts were sent by a criminal to cover his tracks and create an artificial alibi. Anybody could do that because there are no independent witnesses.
You appear to believe that they constituted an alibi when they were made to fake an alibi.
It also further shows premeditation of the murder intended.
Philip the purpose of Greg not cleaning up or planting stuff around the flat was to convince the parents that Jo was abducted and he succeeded in that. They fell for the fact that she got home leaving him in the clear having been seen off by the landlord and Mr Stanley.
Delete

Jen Halo
4 .
Hi Dyna. As Philip's post asking where did you get this link, has been deleted, I'd like to ask if you could point me in the direction of where you retrieved that information please. :)

3
Sue Graham
4 .
Philip,
"The police's first statement and the contents of the flat demonstrate that (a) Reardon is the perpetrator, (b) he acted to incriminate one of the other people living in the house, (c) the police worked this out almost at once, but decided for some reason not to make him the No. 1 suspect, (d) the police embellished Reardon's testimony in court about the state of the flat (which only he could know) in order to reinforce Vincent Tabak's conviction."
I have to concede that your brains still not functioning properly! But don't fret, look around you, there are others just like you!!

3
Facebook User
3 .
calumny
[kal-uhm-nee] noun, plural calumnies.
1.
a false and malicious statement designed to injure the reputation of someone or something: The speech was considered a calumny of the administration.
2.
the act of uttering calumnies; slander; defamation
detraction
[dih-trak-shuhn] noun
the act of disparaging or belittling the reputation or worth of a person, work, etc. without proof or foundation.
Admin can you not see that Phillip and Noel are not exercising free speech but are in fact accusing an innocent, bereaved man of murder. Furthermore they now bring Greg's brother into it to implicate him. It really is appalling now.
[As the A&S police are now officially aware of this discussion page I would like to direct them to the thread
The Curious case of Greg Reardon... with its 1532 posts quite a few are libellous.


Updated 3 . by the author.

Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
3 .
Jen Halo, I'm with you in wanting to understand Dyna's sources. It's been an uphill battle since the start of Dyna Victoria posting on this page.
@Sue Graham: "I have to concede that your brains still not functioning properly! But don't fret, look around you, there are others just like you!!"
Another uphill struggle. This is a classic example of posters discussing posters rather than the content of their posts. Why, why, why abuse perceived mental capacity of other posters rather than discussing the case?
Discuss the post and not the poster.
Please everyone, read the posting guidelines under About, and Sue Graham, you are really starting to annoy me.

1
Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
3 .
Mike, there is a chance that Greg Reardon murdered Joanna Yeates and that Vincent Tabak is innocent of the murder.
It's not my personal position, but if that position were correct then that's why we are damn fortunate to live in the age of the internet.
I think of the many thousands of people who have had their lives ended for killings they didn't commit and I rest my case, with sadness. What would have changed those tragic injustices? Communication.
That's what this page is. Communication.

2
Sue Graham
3 .
"Another uphill struggle. This is a classic example of posters discussing posters rather than the content of their posts. Why, why, why abuse perceived mental capacity of other posters rather than discussing the case?"
Admin, Did you read Philips comments to me a few nights ago? Or are you deliberately ignoring them? Why oh why oh why are you so blind to what's going on under your very own nose?
You have pointed me out many a time now but NEVER say a word to the most spiteful, vindictive, malicious person on here!
Tell me something admin, do you enjoy reading Philips posts where he openly accuses innocent people of murder, do you enjoy reading about his stalking conquests? Do you? Because no matter what you say about "freedom of speech" it's libelous slander and you have the power to stop it but you DON'T. Instead you encourage it!

Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
3 .
I feel sad reading this last post.
Sorry Sue Graham if it's too heated in the kitchen but, seriously, this a discussion of the CASE, not your sensitive feelings.

4
Jen Halo
3 .
Communication.....
Then those people who believe Tabak to be innocent should take formal steps to prove that, or to bring about a retrial or rethink or something.
If Tabak is innocent that does not automatically mean that Greg Reardon is guilty! Isn't it enough that one man, Christopher Jefferies, has already has had his life torn apart by being falsely accused of this murder? Let's not do it with another without proof. Proof, not guesses, or presumptions or conjectures, or fanciful pie in the sky theories!

2
Sue Graham
3 .
You feel sad about it?
I think most people have established you are void of any sort of feeling admin, it's you l feel sad for. That's why l was so surprised you jumped to defend Debra with her predicament. Why did her situation bother you. You have no feelings about this "CASE" you don't know Debra, just like you don't know the Tabaks or the Reardons or the Yeates!!
I like how you ducked out of answering anything in my last post. Practise has made perfect!



Sue Graham
3 .
Completely agree Jen!!

2
Ivy Green
3 .
Admin,
I don't understand why you're concerned about the feelings of posters on here, but not about people who are not on here to defend themselves, but are having vile things said about them and being falsely accused. Why on earth should anyone worry about being rude to Philip when he has no concern about all and sundry he falsely accuses.
Why have I been banned? How hypocritical. It seems you are considered more special if you're a poster on this forum (well, some people, anyway), than if you're a victim of murder. Why not extend the "staying civil" to everyone who has been affected by this horrible crime?
Sue G,
"You too? So who's benefit was the "please stay civil on here" for? Obviously admin believes we're not being civil because we were the ones that were banned! How strange!!"
Who knows Sue. It's very odd indeed.
Just ridiculous...you can be as uncivil and downright vicious and nasty as you like to anyone you like as long as they're not a poster on this forum (and that only applies to a select couple on the forum).


Updated 3 . by the author.

2
Sue Graham
3 .
Exactly Ivy, he doesn't give a second thought to the people he abuses with his tongue, why should others! Many people rise above it and l have too in the past, all in the hope that the administrator of this group will do the right, decent thing and have a word. Sadly it never happens and people resort to lowering themselves to his standard because he drives you to it. People have the right to defend themselves.
But instead the admin would rather come on and patronise those that speak up. Which isn't at all "cool."

1
Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
3 .
Sue Graham said: "I think most people have established you are void of any sort of feeling admin, it's you l feel sad for."
Post about the post and not the poster.
"That's why l was so surprised you jumped to defend Debra with her predicament. Why did her situation bother you."
Because it was posting about the poster (and her family, and her familly photos on other flipping sites on facebook) and not the posts or the case.
"You have no feelings about this "CASE" you don't know Debra, just like you don't know the Tabaks or the Reardons or the Yeates!!"
If every journalist or blogger had to be related to the family of a murder victim that would cause a collapse in societal communication. Your daily newspaper would only be written by the families of crime victims.
That doesn't make any kind of sense.

2
Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
3 .
Sue G, take some time out please.

5
Facebook User
3 .
@ Admin ''Mike, there is a chance that Greg Reardon murdered Joanna Yeates and that Vincent Tabak is innocent of the murder.''
And there is a chance that Princess Diana is still alive and living in a cave in northern Scotland.
and that Michael Jackson's death was faked to allow him to escape massive tax bills.
and that pigs might fly.

5
Sue Graham
3 .
"Because it was posting about the poster (and her family, and her familly photos on other flipping sites on facebook) and not the post or the case."
Ok so let me refresh your memory for you because you're clearly getting forgetful.
Greg Reardons brother, mother and father were never suspects in this case. What part of searching through databases and reporting this information back on THIS page is ok? You are contradicting yourself here. If this information is in the public domain, then the very same can be said about Debra's information.
So just to clarify, you are saying it is ok to look through Greg's entire family tree and post findings on here? Shall we put a notice board up just like they do back at the nick and stick post it notes under each name with "suspect?" or "witness?" or "maybe, because they don't look like their grieving enough?"
I think you get the point but are clearly going to ignore it!!
l was being civil until you banned me!
Ivy:
"Why have I been banned? How hypocritical. It seems you are considered more special if you're a poster on this forum (well, some people, anyway), than if you're a victim of murder. Why not extend the "staying civil" to everyone who has been affected by this horrible crime?
Just ridiculous...you can be as uncivil and downright vicious and nasty as you like to anyone you like as long as they're not a poster on this forum (and that only applies to a select couple on the forum)."
You too? So who's benefit was the "please stay civil on here" for? Obviously admin believes we're not being civil because we were the ones that were banned! How strange!!


Updated 3 . by the author.

2
Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
3 .
I have no vested interested in, or strong opinion on, the case of the murder of Joanna Yeates.
Please just stay civil on here.

1
Noel O'Gara
3 .
Dyna you say
why would he mention the receipt to the police if he were guilty..it proved that she was alive at 8.40pm that friday..and he had already left for sheffield..''
Jo got her pizza in Tesco Express at 8.40pm on that Friday night. she was just ten minutes walk to her flat when she stepped out of that last shop she visited. It was a straight road home. She was being stalked by her boyfriend who knew it was the last shop on her way home and when inside then he drove on ahead knowing she was headed his way.
He parked up on the left hand side lay by just before the junction for Canynge Road where he could observe the traffic and be out of sight himself and not blocking traffic. When Jo came walking past him he beckoned her over and she sat in to her own car and probably expected a blazing row, but she was grabbed immediately by the neck and she let out two almighty screams for her life before she was overpowered and choked to death.
Two witnesses claimed they heard two screams at 8.49pm one loud and the next a bit lower. And then he drove to LL and tried to dump her over the low wall and failed. So he covered her with leaves and hightailed it from the scene thinking that every car light he saw coming was the cops.
He pretended he had left for Sheffield but he was stalking her since she left her work place intending to strangle her because she had told him she was going to dump him and he couldnt take it.
admin its obvious that there is a concerted assault on you because they have lost the debate. They resort to trying to threaten you with libel slander etc, call myself and Philip mad and avoid answering any points raised simply because they know that they are wrong but cant admit it. Nobody admits to serious crime.
Delete

3
Eva Gietl
3 .
@Noel:
"... and avoid answering any points raised simply because they know that they are wrong..."
Is that the reason you have often avoided answering my questions to you, because you knew you were wrong?
@Admin:
It is one thing to implicate someone based on facts, and another thing to accuse someone without any shred of evidence but based on the fact that stitch-ups have happened, on the feeling that people with PhDs don't commit crimes without an apparent motive, and that it is unnatural that boyfriend and girlfriend don't live in each other's pockets.
There is not a single piece of evidence, it's all about the feelings that Philip and Noel have. Therefore it is not free speech, but just mean-spirited slander.
You will also notice that people fighting for falsely imprisoned innocent people rarely do this on a facebook forum as this- at least not the successful ones. They fight in courts, and they get publicity in newspapers and dedicated web pages. Also, they usually have physical evidence, or are able to show that a witness remembered incorrectly/ was bought off, etc. Not just baseless theories.

1
Philip Hollingbery
3 .
@Eva G,
"There is not a single piece of evidence, it's all about the feelings that Philip and Noel have. Therefore it is not free speech, but just mean-spirited slander."
- the pathology and location of the victim's body, the location of her mobile telephone, wallet, bag and clothes, the testimony given under oath by Mr Reardon of the 4½ hours he waited before contacting the police, the incarceration of a man with no previous criminal record in a prison for violent category "A" prisoners far from Bristol, the use of a videolink. These are not feelings, they are just a small part of the evidence on which I base the inferences in my posts. The same applies to Noel's posts.
I have never before in my life come across such a frightening deluge of what you call mean-spirited slander against an innocent private person as the feelings expressed by people in Bristol towards Vincent Tabak. It is not difficult to find things to like about Vincent Tabak, whereas there is nothing to like about Mr Reardon.

3
Charlotte Eveson
3 .
Post about the post and not the post , I see !
Witch
Sex obsessed
A police Officer
Filthy Disgusting mind
Work for the CPS
Believe every man is a rapist
I suppose it all depends on your posting style though , must be ok to post with veiled vile comments,
Here's another list
Mad
Nutcase
Full of self importance
Propaganda
Sad
Vile
Fiction

3
Joanne Rogers
3 .
I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw. ~William Shakespeare

3
Dyna Victoria
3 .
Noel..you say that greg was stalking her and had seen her enter tescos ,whilst watching from his car..if you knew Clifton Village you would be aware that its impossible to find a parking place, theres no way he could have parked up to observe her going into Tescos.
also the junction you mention, Clifton Park is way too far away from her door for any screams to have been heard by the witnesses..more likely the Padre walking his dog would have heard them since she was seconds away from having spoken to him...as she entered Canynge Road....


3
Facebook User
3 .
@ Phillp ''I have never before in my life come across such a frightening deluge of what you call mean-spirited slander against an innocent private person as the feelings expressed by people in Bristol towards Vincent Tabak. It is not difficult to find things to like about Vincent Tabak, whereas there is nothing to like about Mr Reardon.''
Admin can you not see that Phillip and Noel are wind-up merchants??
Their thought processes are something like: ''What will annoy the other posters who are discussing the case. Erm... I know!! ..lets say that VT is innocent.''
Time passes and this does annoy many posters.
WHOO!!! brilliant!!! they think. Aren't we clever!! ''How can we annoy the other posters even more?? I know, lets say that Greg did it'' and then we can fight off any logical arguments which explain why he could not have done it with verbal nonsense and nastinesses.
It is a game to them Admin. They are delighted with themselves and amazed at your gullibility in allowing them to get away with it.

2
Eva Gietl
3 .
Philip:
"part of the evidence on which I base the inferences in my posts. The same applies to Noel's posts."
From wikipedia on INFERENCE:
"The process by which a conclusion is inferred from multiple observations is called inductive reasoning. The conclusion may be correct or incorrect, or correct to within a certain degree of accuracy, or correct in certain situations."
"An incorrect inference is known as a fallacy. Philosophers who study informal logic have compiled large lists of them, and cognitive psychologists have documented many biases in human reasoning that favor incorrect reasoning."
To me, all your inferences sound rather illogical. I think your inferences are wrong because you only have access to a very limited amount of facts, and disregard a number of facts available to you, but you reason like you use all of the facts.
Further, I think you, Philip, are strongly biased towards VT because of his PhD, and Noel is strongly biased against Greg due to his outdated view on relationships and against the police due to his experiences.

Philip Hollingbery
3 .
@Dyna V,
Mr Reardon wouldn't need to park legally, as he would be sitting in his car, so he could stop it just round the corner in Princess Victoria Street, from which there is a view of the entrance to Tesco Express. As soon as he saw her striding in the direction of Canynge Road, he would not have needed to keep her in view constantly, so he could have driven on down the one-way street and round the block to wait for her where she would not notice him in the vicinity that Noel has described. He would have chosen to overtake her close to No. 44 where she would not be quite so surprised to see him and the car.
I found this out by Googling; I feel no desire to go in person anywhere near Clifton Village, where the greedy inhabitants seem to have such enthusiasm for meting out horrible fates to decent educated people, and to be so reluctant to listen to sensible advice from outsiders.
@Joanne Rogers and sinister friend,
I live in Hamlet's Elsinore, which is a very windswept town whose citizens (unlike Bristol's) are polite and friendly towards foreigners. I can also tell you that everyone here knows that the local hawks are to be seen hovering up in the sky just where the motorway ends a few miles south of the town, whereas handsaws never hover.

3
Facebook User
3 .
@ Phillip ''Joanne Rogers and sinister friend,''
Admin why allow the above gratuitous nastiness.
he knows NOTHING of the persons in the avitar photograph of Joanne Rogers.
I would say he is sailing close to the wind of hate speech with his vicious nasty comments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

2
Dyna Victoria
3 .
Philip..Princess Victoria St is no different in that its impossible to park..especially on a friday night..full of wine bars..unless you were very fortunate..also bear in mind..he risked being seen by jo..if she as much as glanced down PV St as she passed she would have immediately noticed a Ka parked up..especially with a a pair of skis on the top!

Dyna Victoria
3 .
20 A. I think I can add that the allegation was that this
21 information was only known to the police. There was
22 information that was known to the police but it was also
23 known to others, and if you look at the article, it says
24 that police must have found a receipt or something in
25 the house. Well, we didn't find a receipt. We got that
Page 76
1 information from Joanna's boyfriend and there were
2 a number of other firms that we went to over the
3 weekend, but it was only Ikea that became the source of
4 a newspaper article. Despite what some have said, that
5 did not come from the police.
6 Q. I've been asked to put to you a line of questions
7 relating to the fact that Mr Jefferies was on police
8 bail until 4 March 2011, whereas Vincent Tabak was
9 charged on 22 January, so there's a six-week period
10 when, as it were, Mr Jefferies was out of the frame yet
11 he remained on police bail. Are you in a position to
12 address that at all, Mr Port?
13 A. In general terms. Mr Jones will address it specifically
14 and tactically, sir. But Vincent Tabak went "no
15 comment" except for a very small part of the interview,
Admin in response to your post re this article..
LEVESON ENQUIRY MARCH 27TH COLIN PORT..
http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript -of-Morning-Hearing-27-March-2012.pdf

1
Philip Hollingbery
3 .
@Eva G,
"Philip, are strongly biased towards VT because of his PhD,"
You are being personal again. It is the STATISTICS that are strongly biased AGAINST Vincent Tabak's committing murder in the circumstances that applied to this murder. There is simply no precedent for a man with a Ph.D having committed any remotely comparable crime, so the odds against it are of the order of a bilion to one.
His Ph.D is only one of a number of facts each of which points very strongly to Vincent Tabak's innocence, even without the presence of several facts each of which points very strongly to Mr Reardon as the real perpetrator. This makes the miscarriage of justice sensational, and as long as the Bristol authorities are seen to get away with it, innocent people can fear more and more of this sort of double injustice.
In the light of this level of sensation, do not understand why Vincent Tabak has not been called as a witness to the Leveson Inquiry by videolink from prison, as he is highly educated and articulate, he has been exposed to even more humiliation by the police and the media in collaboration than even Christopher Jefferies, and could undoubtedly make a huge contribution to the inquiry.

2
Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
3 .
"Admin why allow the above gratuitous nastiness."
Because nobody is paying me to spend every moment of my spare time protecting your delicate eyes from every single post you and all the Sues don't like.
If you can't effectively evaluate what you read on a free public forum, as an adult, with whatever level of education and maturity and literacy you have reached, then please for the love of god get off the internet.

1
Eva Gietl
3 .
@Philip:
Please produce these statistics that you cite so often. Also, please state the search criteria you used to search for people with a PhD having committed a similar crime? Did you look only for crimes in the UK, Europe, or where? Which kinds of documents did you research? Newspaper articles, court documents, official statistics? Hear-say?

Noel O'Gara
3 .
Dyna, What makes you think Greg had a pair of skis on the roof of his car?
Delete

1
Noel O'Gara
3 .
Eva perhaps you should reflect on the inferences of the highly paid detectives in Bristol who arrested a wholly innocent man Chris Jefferies and to date didnt have the grace to tell him they were sorry for their actions.
Can you imagine how he felt when he got back to his flat and found everything pulled apart and his most personal things taken away to be combed over by what are often just thicks who are drunk with the power of the badge.
The fact is Eva that they didnt have the slightest bit of evidence that would have incriminated him. He was targetted for a stitch up because he was home alone, had no alibi, had the key to her flat, had a car and they would have assumed that he was a sex pervert because they spend so much of their time trawling through the internet of child porn, gay porn, hard core porn and everything depraved. Is it any wonder they are delusional?
He is a very lucky man that he is not serving live today. They could have done what they did to Tabak to him and you would be the first to back them to the hilt.
Delete

2
Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
3 .
That's one of the gigantic holes in this case. Even if Tabak is guilty, or especially if he's guilty, why was Jefferies kept on bail for such an extremely long time after Tabak was CHARGED with the murder?
The Leveson Inquiry revealed that he was a suspect because of a pair of trainers with blood under his kitchen sink. Whose blood was on these shoes? If the blood was irrelevant to the case why wasn't he released? If the blood was relevant then why wasn't it admitted as evidence?
And let's not forget another giant hole, Tabak's supposed child porn. The police haven't put their money where their mouth is and charged him with this serious crime.

Jen Halo
3 .
True Admin. There are so many unanswered questions in this case. It is a pity there is no way we can get some of those answers!
As for the porn, I'm inclined to slightly discount this, and did at the time it was brought up after the trial. I suspect that many people may have such searches on their pc's, so as the police didn't pursue this after the trial, I suspect it was not as sensational as it was made out.

Polly Amers
3 .
Are some posters aware of police protocol whilst investigating claims by a would be "witness / suspect"???? From what I have read there is alot that hasnt been thought through when claiming certain people are more guilty than others.
We are not in the 1970s,80s,or 90s for that matter, phone mapping is used especially in a missing persons /murder case as norm. Questions raised and statements made to the effect that Greg could be implicated are simply without any real substance from what have I read. I merely raise the point because in this day and age of policing EVERYONE CLOSEST is a potential suspect!!!! Now he says he was in Sheffield, plenty of mobile phone masts in this beautiful city, to check his story out.
Plus you hace a secondary method of checks, and that being CCTV. On route via motorways,and in Sheffield itself. Do you not think the police would have asked which route he took the night he travelled???? or are we saying that such basic policing was ignored??? and if so what proof????
Lastly receipts, use of bank/ credit cards, eye witness statements, ....a balanced view is also a truer view. I would like to think that these things had been considered for a more realsitic view .

Philip Hollingbery
3 .
The simple answers to all of these questions would be for Sky News, the BBC and Dutch TV to interview Vincent Tabak, by videolink if necessary, to invite him to clarify his taste in porn and call girls, what it is like being a Ph.D in prison, whether he is going to appeal his sentence, and all the other sorts of things that the media like to ask famous people about. None of the general public has ever seen him in any context whatsoever except a courtroom. Considering how closely his trial was followed, and how his every gesture was pounced upon by the journalists, their lack of curiosity about him is so amazing that I suspect that national security is at stake.



2
Dyna Victoria
3 .
Noel
Greg arrived at his brothers house with his skies..a neighbour said so..since mens skies measure over 5ft long, its unlikely they fitted INSIDE the Ka..

Eva Gietl
3 .
@Noel:
A bit before JY went missing, a little boy went missing in Germany. A similar media frenzy started in Germany, the police was under immense pressure. They had x appeals to the public etc. After 4 months, a suspect was apprehended and charged. He admitted to killing the boy and led the police to the body.
What came out after he was charged, was the fact that in those 4 months several men had been arrested under the suspicion of having abducted and probably killed the boy. But because the police didn't inform the media, no-one ever knew about it, even after they were released due to a lack of evidence. Their names and reputations are still unknown to the public, and therefore intact.
There is of course a different amount of evidence that needs to be produced to arrest someone than to charge them. The problem is not so much that the police suspect and arrest someone innocent, but that the media plaster their names and faces over all the front pages even before a charge has been brought.
@Philip:
Incidentally, this man who has been arrested and charged for the murder of the little boy, who admitted the crime and led the police to the body, has never shown aggressive behaviour before. He had such a good relationship to his ex-wife that she testified as one of his character witnesses in court. She and his current wife reported him to be a good father and to having had/ having a normal and active sex life with him. No-one ever would have suspected him of such a crime, and yet he admitted to having had sadistic fantasies about children. You just can't see what is going on in other people.

Dyna Victoria
3 .
Re DIGITAL SURVEILLANCE..
"Together this data creates a very effective profile of my life: who I called, where I worked, where I lived and what I got up to.
My phone calls, messages and internet browsing has been recorded to the second. My location to within a few hundred metres.
Browsing the data for only a few minutes is enough to acquaint you with my daily routine. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9182991/Digital-surveillance-what-my-phone-records-say-about-me.html

Noel O'Gara
3 .
can you provide a link for that Dyna. That might be hearsay. If his car did have the skis on the roof it would be easily identifiable on cctv along the motorway but I think 5 foot skis would fit into a Ka quite easily.
One wonders why they bothered to get a statement from the brother if they could have proved that he was in Sheffield at the times by independent means such as phone masts, cctv etc. I suspect that the brother's alibi was the only alibi taken as the technical checks of phone masts and cctv is time consuming and costly and they would need one or two really tech savvy cops to conduct those kind of searches. Its not the stuff the ordinary bobby can do.
Greg was a suspect in a missing persons case and the level of priority would not have been as intense until her body was found a week later. By then he had everybody convinced she had been abducted for ransom and he played the media with crocodile tears. A few days later the landlord was arrested proving that Greg was not a suspect.
I think they only got the statement from the brother and he had no inkling of what happened to Jo when he covered for Greg. Greg probably asked him to say he got there at 9.0pm when they were skiing on Sunday. He would have made up a cock and bull story to excuse that, not revealing that there was any problem back in Bristol. Once the brother told the lie he had to stick to it.
Delete

1
Eva Gietl
3 .
@Noel:
"Greg was a suspect in a missing persons case and the level of priority would not have been as intense until her body was found a week later."
Not true. The police started searching houses and flats in Clifton for any space that could be used to hide a body the day after JY was reported missing.

1
Charlotte Eveson
3 .
Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case 2 hours ago
"Admin why allow the above gratuitous nastiness."
Because nobody is paying me to spend every moment of my spare time protecting your delicate eyes from every single post you and all the Sues don't like.
If you can't effectively evaluate what you read on a free public forum, as an adult, with whatever level of education and maturity and literacy you have reached, then please for the love of god get off the internet."
I see , so its the lack of payment , true perhaps if it were a job you would have to be more fair and consistent in your policing

1
Charlotte Eveson
3 .
Admin
"That's one of the gigantic holes in this case. Even if Tabak is guilty, or especially if he's guilty, why was Jefferies kept on bail for such an extremely long time after Tabak was CHARGED with the murder?"
A hole .? The police quite clearly explained why
VT did not give any sort of version of events until September , no comment was pretty much all they got for fear of incriminating himself further , they did not release CJ because they still were not 100% sure he was not involved


Updated 3 . by the author.

Dyna Victoria
3 .
@Noel
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/222649/Joanna-Yeates-boyfriend-s-torment-over-visit-to-newborn-nieces-Joanna-Yeates-boyfriend-s-torment-over-visit-to-newborn-nieces-Joanna-Yeates-boyfriend-s-torment-over-visit-to-newborn-nieces-Joanna-Yeates-boyfriend-s-torment-over-visit-to-newborn-nieces-Joanna-Yeates-boyfriend-s-torment-over-visit-to-newborn-nieces

1
Philip Hollingbery
3 .
@Eva G,
You have produced this killer who confessed to killing a little boy on this forum before. I take it that he did not have a Ph.D - that makes a big difference. You also mention that evidence of his previous good character was producted in court. Why should that have been done if he had confessed? One of the sensational features of Vincent Tabak's trial was that his own defence counsel suppressed all possible evidence of an irreproachable good character and deceitfully told the jury that there was nothing to like about his client. And the journalists did not raise an eyebrow.
@Charlotte,
You and DCI Phil Jones keep on maliciously reiterating that Vincent Tabak replied "No comment" to the police's questions as if he were an awkward bugger who deserved his fate. I wish you would not post as if you think the rest of us are stupid. The way many of his innocent actions and remarks made at the time were subsequently twisted and turned against him in court show that Patrick Crossman would have been negligent if he had not instructed his client to reply like this to most of the questions put to him. If I repeatedly asked you where you got what I consider to be your cynical view of sex from, you would find it hard to remain as neutral in your replies as Vincent Tabak did when repeatedly asked to supply details of how he committed a crime of which he was innocent. The fact that you mention September at all proves that Vincent Tabak was tortured into signing his enhanced statement and never to tell - that is the penalty of his being sent to Long Lartin Prison instead of being allowed bail.


Updated 3 . by the author.

2
Facebook User
3 .
@ Dyna ''Re DIGITAL SURVEILLANCE..'' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9182991/Digital-surveillance-what-my-phone-records-say-about-me.html
great post and link which proves conclusivley that Greg was in Sheffield.
@ Noel ''technical checks of phone masts and cctv is time consuming and costly and they would need one or two really tech savvy cops to conduct those kind of searches. Its not the stuff the ordinary bobby can do.''
Noel what makes you think that because a thing is time consuming or costly that it is therefore unlikely to be done. It may seem difficult or time consuming to you, but why should it be any kind of problem for the expertsin this field [the so called tech savvy cops] who check these things day in day out. I imagine they could check it out fully and unequivocally in 20 minutes using appropriate programmes and access to the mast computers. Even if it took all afternoon, what is the deal about thinking that it wouldn't be done? I don't understand why you say this.
incidentally replacing the discs and brake pads on my car seems to me to be time consuming and is costly but it was done once the mechanic who services the car said that the pads were worn and that both the discs and the pads were in need of changing together at the same time. I didnt think to myself ''Oh it is time consuming and costly to have my brakes done. I will not bother getting it done.'' It turned out that the job was done within 70 minutes by the skilled mechanic. It was no problem whatsoever to him
in other words it was vital to have the brakes done.
It was also vital to check out fully that Greg was where he said he was. The detailed records of the checks are not in the public domain and were obviously not part of the trial because Greg was not on trial.


Updated 3 . by the author.

2
Eva Gietl
3 .
@Mike:
"Noel what makes you think that because a thing is time consuming or costly that it is therefore unlikely to be done."
Especially since all the DNA and other lab anlyses are even more time consuming and costly.
@Philip:
"I take it that he did not have a Ph.D - that makes a big difference."
But he had three children and a well-paying career- why would he throw all that away?
He got a university degree (I think a Master's degree) and years of building his career. Since you like also to refer to VT's nieces and nephews, you cannot disregard what 3 kids mean to a caring father.

1
Philip Hollingbery
3 .
@Eva,
You keep on trying to persuade me in effect that I might one day observe a solitary handsaw hovering like a hawk. On the basis of what you have told us about the German boy-killer who confessed, I don't believe your story. If you are so willing to believe that a person with an exemplary character would suddenly do something utterly out of character without any motive nor explanation, then you would be a fool ever to venture into an airliner, a train, a bus or a car. Since you report that this killer's wife testified to his good character in court, I would imagine that his trial was sensational and that counsel made some effort to ascertain the circumstances of the crime. Among the strong indicators that Vincent Tabak is innocent are the many giveaway actions by the judicial authorities AND the failure of the media to question them.
For instance: If Mr Clegg had really wanted to convince the jury that his client did not intend to kill Joanna Yeates, he would have siezed the opportunity to question Shrikant Sharma intensively about the accused's character, professional skills and personality. It would be very surprising if he got the answer that Vincent Tabak was deceitful and manipulative.
By the way, one of the reasons I keep mentioning the young nieces and nephews is because no one else did. That in itself is very telling. It suggests that because Vincent Tabak is a foreigner, he is not a complete human being, and so not nearly as interesting to the media as if his nephew and nieces lived in Wotton Bassett. In fact, the lack of media interest in what sort of person this infamous Vincent Tabak is demonstrates that he was an innocent man just waiting to be stitched up.


Updated 3 . by the author.

2
Charlotte Eveson
3 .
Phillip
I'm not talking as if I think others are stupid , this information was in the public domain , admin put forward a "hole" and I put forward information to fill it just because the answer does not fit with you "theories" does not mean I am presuming anyone is stupid
Also
"The fact that you mention September at all proves that Vincent Tabak was tortured into signing his enhanced statement and never to tell - that is the penalty of his being sent to Long Lartin Prison instead of being allowed bail."
You and I know this PROVES nothing , what it INDICATES to me is he kept his cards very close to his chest to try and save his skin , not giving anything away until the last minute

2
Charlotte Eveson
3 .
Post about the poster not the post:
Malicious
A cynical view of sex
I find it quite amusing that each time a poster speaks of your personal comments towards them you compose a post containing more veiled personal comments cleverly disguised as you "subtle and supposedly intelligent posting style"
Just as a sort of reminder IMO that you can get away with it.
It is no wonder poster get banned as they become more and more frustrated.
Luckily I have the patience of a saint and of course the moral high ground .
It's windy up here today , oh look there is one of Joannes Hawks


Updated 3 . by the author.


2
Charlotte Eveson
3 .
Post about the post not the poster
"I find it quite amusing that each time a poster speaks of your personal comments towards poster you compose a post containing more veiled personal comments cleverly disguised as you "subtle and supposedly intelligent posting style"
Thought it might be ok though as it was in retaliation and admin has not received her pay cheque this month ;-)

3
Polly Amers
3 .
Noel why is it time comsuming for the police to check phone records, CCTV, receipts etc?? This was a missing persons / murder enquiry. Why you dismiss this, is beyond me and quite closed minded. I appreciate you have your views yet you write as if you where there. Its not rocket science to appreciate that the police would have gone into everyones alibis with a fine tooth comb, especially after 24 hours, and the fact that her parents knew she wouldnt have run away.
Then you go on and say the brother covered for him. Again summasing, and with nothing to back your claim up. My question is if this is the case where have you got this information from and could you please put a link up for us to see!

2
Eva Gietl
3 .
@Philip:
You haven't answered my question about the STATISTICS (your capitals) that you like to mention regarding PhDs and murders.

1
Philip Hollingbery
2 .
@Eva G,
"You haven't answered my question about the STATISTICS ..."
- No that is because it was trolling on your part. If something has a diminishingly small probability so as to be totally unlikely, and it is obviously so, then trying to produce evidence is futile. It does not matter whether it is a billion to one against or a million to one against. What is much more relevant is the motives and characters of those who assert that it nevertheless happened like that, in the face of all commonsense.
...
The state of the flat shows conclusively that the perpetrator had to be Reardon and his testimony shows him seeking to incriminate Tabak. But only a Bristol jury would have believed that nonsense. If it had been Tabak or anyone else than they would never have removed the pizza and the body but not the mobile telephone and other stuff. Reardon was the ONLY suspect who could logically have left things like that. Unless of course he was set up by a lover to make it look as if Reardon did it. But if he had been set up, there is no way he would have waited 4½ hours to call the police - after having had no contact with Jo all weekend, despite several attempts - on the contrary he would have been on the phone to them like lightning. Therefore the police cannot have checked all those mobile masts for Reardon's telephone, regardless of whether it is easy or difficult. Therefore the police have some reason to shield Reardon. Well, we know that already, because they did not start warning women to stay indoors until after Chris Jefferies was released. That means they knew that Jo Yeates's killer did not pose any extra threat to the women of Bristol unless they knew him very well. It is interesting that the only posters who want to discuss this are those who occupy the high ground where the Ph.D haters hang out. Apart from Dyna V, that is, who has been doing a spot of winding up lately from the windy heights (?in Dubai).
I mean, how could the neighbour know they were GREG REARDON's skis on the roof and not Helen Reardon's skis? It would be simpler for him to borrow a pair of skis from her, put them on the roof of the Ka, and transport them to the ski slopes near Sheffield for the day. I don't suppose Jo even had a fitting on the car for skis.


Updated 2 . by the author.

1
Sue Graham
2 .
Admin,
"Because nobody is paying me to spend every moment of my spare time protecting your delicate eyes from every single post you and all the Sues don't like. "
You have asked me to remain civil therefore l suggest you do the same! For future ref, I will address Philip's comments in exactly the same disdain manner in which he serves them. I can't go wrong that way! Now that i've stopped "foaming at the mouth" of course!
Polly,
"Then you go on and say the brother covered for him. Again summasing, and with nothing to back your claim up. My question is if this is the case where have you got this information from and could you please put a link up for us to see!"
I'm really looking forward to reading through the info on that link. Please hurry Noel!!

1
Noel O'Gara
2 .
Mike has an inflated view of the ability of policemen. Dream on Mike. They eliminated Sutcliffe twelve times and they still got the wrong man.
When they had to attend the Leveson enquiry they had to come up with a reason why they held Chris Jefferies under police suspicion until March.
Who could call them liars when they said they found a blood stained shoe in his flat? Even if we were to believe them they could have tested the dna of the alleged blood within a day or two. If it was not Jo's blood then it was CJ's or a friend of his. It might have some credibility if they had found it before they arrested him.
But poor Chris Jefferies was held under a cloud of suspicion for more than two months by the A and S police who were pretending to the world that they were solving a major murder case.
If they found a copy of Mayfair or a discarded condom or a dirty pair of underpants they could make allegations about anything and try to suggest the most nefarious possible reasons for them.
Polly, havent you heard of brotherly love? Why would the police look to the brother and his wife if they had such high tech proof of his wherabouts? That high tech stuff is all part of their hype. Its like that billion to one dna lie.
Delete

2
Sue Graham
2 .
Noel,
"Polly, havent you heard of brotherly love? Why would the police look to the brother and his wife if they had such high tech proof of his wherabouts? That high tech stuff is all part of their hype. Its like that billion to one dna lie."
So you don't have a link then Noel? I'm disappointed, was so looking forward to reading something that actually backed up your claims, for the first time.
"If they found a copy of Mayfair or a discarded condom or a dirty pair of underpants they could make allegations about anything and try to suggest the most nefarious possible reasons for them. "
Mmmmmm Lovely!!

Sue Graham
2 .
Philip,
"The state of the flat shows conclusively that the perpetrator had to be Reardon and his testimony shows him seeking to incriminate Tabak."
Not true Philip, and l think you'll find it was Tabak that tried to incriminate the LL. Don't you remember he admitted this in court?
I can check through the tweets if you'd like?

2
Polly Amers
2 .
Noel, as a little sister myself I can say I have heard of brotherly love, but what you fail to disclose is Greg stayed at his brothers house - come on just think about it for one second. Any copper worth their badge would have wanted a statement from the brother and his wife, after all this is where he said he was. Please Noel you havent answered my question, just responded with a paragraph about Sutcliffe. But this isnt about Sutcliffe and policing has changed since then.
Im not sure the reasons as to why you paint all police as currupt, and to be honest im not really interested, but from what I have read over many threads it does seem that this line of thought runs through most of your posts. Why????
You have raised some valid points, but your argument fails bigtime mainly due to your ommitance of facts. So can I ask you again for any links to what you have said in your earlier posts.

1
Polly Amers
2 .
Can I just add all this talk about torture - is it a joke??? A very extreme view if believed, and again any link to value the claim if serious?????

1
Eva Gietl
2 .
@Philip:
" No that is because it was trolling on your part. If something has a diminishingly small probability so as to be totally unlikely, and it is obviously so, then trying to produce evidence is futile. "
But it is not obvious to anyone but you. And how do you know the probability without any source? Conjecture again, not fact.

Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
2 .
Charlotte, I don't get what you're rabbiting on about.
Philip, with all the money and resources thrown at this case, I'm pretty sure that Greg was eliminated correctly from the investigation. But I think I understand your frustration and that of many - people need to understand how he was eliminated, and perhaps this has more to do with police communication with the public than anything else.
I'm intrigued by your references to Greg's father's connection to the police?

1
Eva Gietl
2 .
@Admin:
"people need to understand how he was eliminated, and perhaps this has more to do with police communication with the public than anything else"
I think the problem with this is that innocent people have the right for their privacy. As long as they are suspects, the police is required to pry and investigate, but as soon as they are eliminated as suspects, their right to privacy does supersede the public's right to be informed. And the media and some parts of the public don't accept this.

1
Philip Hollingbery
2 .
@Eva G,
"But it is not obvious to anyone but you."
OK, you don't like the word trolling, so how about the broken record? On the contrary, the difference between a Ph.D and a murderer is obvious to anyone except, apparently, people from the Bristol area. The personal qualities needed to gain a Ph.D like Vincent Tabak's are high intelligence, industriousness and high motivation. They are about as far removed as you can imagine from the massive personal deficiencies that have to be present for someone to commit a senseless act of murder against a victim they did not know. There is indeed no point in my canvassing this question among people around here where I live who have never heard of this sensational murder case, because the very question would lead them to believe that I must have a screw loose and cannot tell the difference between a hawk and a hacksaw.
@Charlotte,
This is not the first time you have used the insidious expression "saving his own skin" about Vincent Tabak. You really do hate don't you? If there is one thing about that young man it is the depth to him. He is anything but skin-deep. He worked for a Ph.D and was head-hunted to Bath, remember? You have to emphasize his skin because you are part of Amanda Hirst's team, or you aspire to be, and her job was to make sure that the media, the public and the jury never looked beneath the skin but were brainwashed to regard Vincent Tabak as a cipher, an empty zombie who mindlessly murdered Joanna Yeates. It was a brilliant propaganda coup for those who like that sort of thing, and I can only say I despise people in Bristol because they fell for the deceit and manipulation and still haven't seen through it. I am still waiting for some decent person from Bristol to come on this forum and prove that they are not all just thinking of their own skins.
@Admin,
The police started dismissing Reardon as a suspect even before most people noticed it, and that suggests to me that he was already somebody who knew he could get away with murder. His relationship to his elderly father in turn suggests that the latter may be the one who can pull strings, so either he is himself a retired fairly senior cop or else he knows something about the Chief Constable that would be very damaging if it got out. When you have so many factors that point at Reardon as the perpetrator and so many posters here trying to make excuses for him, then it is time not to worry too much about any alibi that the mobile masts might be presumed to have provided him with. Nor, Dyna, the smaller details of where he may or may not have positioned his car.




Joanna Yeates - discussion of the case
2 .
True Eva.
The police released limited information, but very limited. If I recall there was one vague statement about credit card and petrol information en route to Sheffield.
So therein lies a tacit acknowledgement of the public's need to know that the number one suspect had been eliminated.
I don't think that in this high-profile case this need-to-know has been satisfied.

Noel O'Gara
2 .
Eva the police are paid out of public taxes and we the public have a right to demand accountability and proof of matters of public concern.
What could be of more concern to the public than the Yorkshire Ripper, a man who terrorised the North of England for almost five years and the people there are to this day still too terrified to talk about it and examine the facts.
I know for a fact that the man who is the real Ripper was only visited in Ireland by the same cops who had previously eliminated Sutcliffe twelve times. They came to Ireland under duress in 1983 as an exercise in PR to answer the requests of some journalists who had read my story. How could those same cops who accepted Sutcliffe's confessions after eliminating him twelve times, now tell the British public that they had made a mistake and framed a copycat killer?
So for those reasons I dont think for one minute that the Bristol cops did all those high tech tests on phone masts and cctv cameras etc in what was a missing persons case at the time.
All that high tech stuff is possible but it is rarely needed and if it is needed it requires a technical expert to identify the signals and plot them on a map against the time. Jo's phone was with him in the car and cctv checks would require a lot of man hours to check and a lot of boring viewing of traffic that would test the patience of a saint.
Police work is laborious and terribly boring and they do perform the short cuts when they have somebody in custody and need to wrap up the case against him. or simply stitch him up good and proper. It requires a lot of lies and when you have seen as many policemen telling lies in court as I have, you might change your mind.
Having said that there are a lot of decent cops but the problem is the liars get the upper hand and reach the high places because of their record of convictions, many of them stitch ups. In England they get away with it because nobody knows their next door neighbour there, while in Ireland people are more nosey and know more neighbours, making a stitch up more difficult for liars.
Delete

Eva Gietl
2 .
@Noel:
I agree that the police is accountable to the public. But private persons who have been eliminated as suspects have the right to privacy.
@Admin:
In my opinion, the right of the individual to privacy is more important than the public's perceived need-to-know. (Of course, that changes as soon as the individual is charged with a crime: at that point it is in the interest of the public and of the individual to dispose of the privacy to see that their is a fair trial.)

1
Polly Amers
2 .
@Philip
what an earth are you going on about????? Please dont undermine anyones intelligence just because they dont have a PHD, and insinuating that posters are on Amanda Hirsts team, well Ive heard it all now. This isnt a conspiracy, from what I can see, and attacking others is a cheap shot IMO.
You talk about brainwashing and propoganda and depising people in Bristol, because they dont see what you see????? And yet again I ask "What an earth are you talking about?"
I pretty much feel that the gaps which have not been answered by police in this case have you biting at the bit, - abit like a letter missing a page.
All this talk about the highly intelligent man, who was stitiched up like a real kipper, is all well and good, but id love to read a post which has some filling in it, rather than fresh air. If you know something that your not letting on, that could free Vincent, stop posting and do the right thing and inform the police, or perhaps get the case known on Fighting Injustice page or similar,

Polly Amers
2 .
@Philip
what an earth are you going on about????? Please dont undermine anyones intelligence just because they dont have a PHD, and insinuating that posters are on Amanda Hirsts team, well Ive heard it all now. This isnt a conspiracy, from what I can see, and attacking others is a cheap shot IMO.
You talk about brainwashing and propoganda and depising people in Bristol, because they dont see what you see????? And yet again I ask "What an earth are you talking about?"
I pretty much feel that the gaps which have not been answered by police in this case have you biting at the bit, - abit like a letter missing a page.
All this talk about the highly intelligent man, who was stitiched up like a real kipper, is all well and good, but id love to read a post which has some filling in it, rather than fresh air. If you know something that your not letting on, that could free Vincent, stop posting and do the right thing and inform the police, or perhaps get the case known on Fighting Injustice page or similar,

4
Facebook User
2 .
Really when you think about it the discussion has become futile.
Greg is content in the knowledge that he is innocent as an existential fact, and that his proofs were fully scrutinised by the police thereby clearing him completely. Why would he be bothered about a couple of people on here who have shown themselves to be impotent in their attempts to implicate him.
Vincent is fully aware of the reality that he killed Joanna and is now paying for his dastardly crime. He fully understands why he has been imprisoned for a long time and will certainly not be wanting to encourage a couple of people on here who have shown themselves to be impotent [because of the sheer lack of proof or evidence] in substantiating a miscarriage of justice. VT would not want them meddling with his plight anyway, for fear of them making his plight worse for instance with an even longer tariff in the event of a retrial. He has already stated via his barrister that he does not want Noel to 'help' him.

1
Philip Hollingbery
2 .
I can just see you standing on the sloping deck of the "Titanic" reassuring each other, "Who needs lifeboats? This ship is British. The White Star Line has assured us that she is unsinkable".

3
Facebook User
2 .
I can just see you sitting in the dining room of the ''Britannic'' eating a Danish pastry and thinking I am so glad I am on the Britannic and not the Titanic.

2
Charlotte Eveson
2 .
Eva
I totally agree , a persons privacy outweighs the publics need to know . The DCI was asked outright on camera at the press conference after Jo was found is Greg a suspect or a witness , he clearly stated he was a witness, this was a week after she disappeared , plenty of time for them to check his alibi in depth , which they did.
I could understand the public wanting to know more if there was a perpetrator still at large but there isn't , VT was charged , admitted his crime and there was enough evidence to show it and he has been convicted.
The only reason people have a problem with the conviction is because we are still left not knowing the true and full version of events that night.
It's plain as the nose on anyone's face he gave a watered down version of events to SAVE HIS OWN SKIN and that's why people are left wondering.
If VT had said in court
I have been having urges for a long time to sexualy assault females
TM had gone to her party and I was angry and jealous
I thought about the girl next door , I'd seen her a few times , I watched out to see if she came back alone
She did so I grabbed my coat and gloves and went straight round
I knocked the door with a Xmas card she told me to come in while she got ours
The door was still open and she went into the bedroom to get her box of Xmas cards
I stood in hall
As she went into the bedroom I pounced restraining her
For a minute she got away and made a run through the hall knocking coat stand over
She made it to the open door and screamed
I grabbed her again on the path
She was screaming and I had to silence her
She died on the path so I took her back to my flat for fear of anyone coming to Jos flat
I went back to flat ruffled the bed and threw her earrings on bed to make it look like she had slept there the night
Now if he had said this in court perhaps we perhaps would not be left wondering , but he did not , he could not because he was trying to reduce his scentence.
The only people left wondering would be the propagandaists , the police haters and the insane perhaps?

2
Charlotte Eveson
2 .
LOL mike
Mike Garner 19 minutes ago
I can just see you sitting in the dining room of the ''Britannic'' eating a Danish pastry and thinking I am so glad I am on the Britannic and not the Titanic."
I rather envisage the Marie celeste , the reason for the crews disappearance finally explained

3
Charlotte Eveson
2 .
@Admin,
"The police started dismissing Reardon as a suspect even before most people noticed it, and that suggests to me that he was already somebody who knew he could get away with murder. His relationship to his elderly father in turn suggests that the latter may be the one who can pull strings, so either he is himself a retired fairly senior cop or else he knows something about the Chief Constable that would be very damaging if it got out. When you have so many factors that point at Reardon as the perpetrator and so many posters here trying to make excuses for him, then it is time not to worry too much about any alibi that the mobile masts might be presumed to have provided him with. Nor, Dyna, the smaller details of where he may or may not have positioned his car."
In short there is no connection


Updated 2 . by the author.

1
Dyna Victoria
2 .
@Philip
"I mean, how could the neighbour know they were GREG REARDON's skis on the roof and not Helen Reardon's skis? It would be simpler for him to borrow a pair of skis from her, put them on the roof of the Ka, and transport them to the ski slopes near Sheffield for the day. I don't suppose Jo even had a fitting on the car for skis."
Since they also owned a surfboard..kept in the hall..its more than likely imo that they did have a roof rack on the Ka..

1
Dyna Victoria
2 .
@Noel
She was being stalked by her boyfriend who knew it was the last shop on her way home and when inside then he drove on ahead knowing she was headed his way.
If this were true the Ka would have been captured on this cctv footage..
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-cctv-films-102290

Dyna Victoria
2 .
Greg reported her missing after he returned to Bristol on the Sunday.
It was understood police discounted the possibility of his involvement in her death after studying his credit card receipts at petrol stations and examining his phone records.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3321683/Did-Joanna-Yeates-know-her-killer.html

1
Sue Vendone
2 .
i cannot understand how anyone should have been eliminated at a time when the TOD had not been established


Facebook User
2 .
@ Dyna ''It was understood police discounted the possibility of his involvement in her death after studying his credit card receipts at petrol stations and examining his phone records.''
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3321683/Did-Joanna-Yeates-know-her-killer.html
Could not be stated any more clearly than this. Thanks Dyna.

1
Philip Hollingbery
2 .
The "Britannic" was sunk by a mine or a torpedo in the Mediterranean in 1916 while functioning as a hospital ship. All but thirty of those onboard survived by taking to the lifeboats, though one of these was destroyed in a collision with a rotating propellor. There is a moving albeit second-hand account of the sinking in "Testament of Youth" by Vera Brittain, who was serving as a nurse and had left the ship at Malta.

5
Facebook User
2 .
''Yesterday, while we were examining the footage, a police technician arrived at The Hophouse to remove the entire CCTV system as potential evidence.''
''They showed me their badge and said a technical support officer would come to see it. He came later on and was only here 15 minutes. He said they’d have to remove the whole system.”
“Then after her body was found a member of the police technical support unit came to collect the CCTV footage three ..''
''Det Chief Insp Phil Jones said his officers are reviewing over 100 hours of CCTV in a bid to capture the killer on film.''
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-cctv-films-102290
All examples of how they left no stone unturned.
@ Noel and Phillip : Do you honestly believe that they would skim over Greg's alibi and not thoroughly check it?
And please don't give me the line that ''Greg's father was a top policeman or, if not, he knew a policeman in the top ranks so they smoothed it all over for Greg''
What unsubstaniated nonsense is that about? It is an idea you have Phillip not a proven fact.
@ Phillip ''then it is time not to worry too much about any alibi that the mobile masts might be presumed to have provided him with''
That is right Phillip, lets not worry about proven facts in this case. The proven facts are irritating and serve only to get in the way of your zany theories.
Lets just ignore them shall we? Explain them away? Proven facts don't matter, just ignore them, so long as you can carry on accusing innocent people of crimes they did not commit, why worry about proven facts?
(it reminds of the old journalist editor's dictum to his staff: never let the truth get in the way of a good story.)


Updated 2 . by the author.

1
Dyna Victoria
2 .
Earlier Mrs Reardon had spoken of when Greg called her when he arrived home.
She said: "He phoned me on Sunday and said 'I've just got home and Jo's not here'.
"At the time, I told him not to worry as she must have just nipped out. Then he said all her stuff was still there and later reported her missing."
http://www.thisisdevon.co.uk/Family-s-plea-Jo-murder/story-11708968-detail/story.html
Greg did not wait 4 hours before contacting anyone...on the advice of his mum.he waited for a while..its only when Jo hadnt returned by 9pm to watch The Appentice with him..as pre planned..that he started to really worry..

1
Noel O'Gara
2 .
Mike, you are echoing the whines of DCI Jones who extracted the confessions from a vulnerable man who was tricked every way possible.
Why is there no access to him now?
Why was he denied access to his mail that I sent to him in May?
My timing was pretty good on that one.
When Kelcey wrote to me at the direction of the judge why did he not follow it up and respond?
Kelcey is now in the rack and I will destroy any credibility he has in Bristol in the future and he cant do anything about it because he would expose his own crime of stitching up his client.
Vincent is now and has been since his arrest literally in the tower, a statistic to be sacrificed on the altar of police PR.
Delete

Facebook User
2 .
@ Dyna ''Greg did not wait 4 hours before contacting anyone...on the advice of his mum.he waited for a while..its only when Jo hadnt returned by 9pm to watch The Apprentice with him..as pre planned..that he started to really worry..''
Good link again Dyna.

3
Facebook User
2 .
I am glad I sound like DCI Jones. What a truly great policeman and detective. If I had one inch of his intuitive brilliance I would be quite satisfied. Marvelous man. One of this century's greats.
Kelcey and Hall? Marvelous, marvelous firm. Brilliant beyond belief. Superb.
Mr Clegg?? complete genius both defending and prosecuting. absolutely great at his job. He nearly got VT off with manslaughter. Great guy. Novel approach to defending is his forte.
A&SP?? Fabulous Police Force. Absolute benchmark for all other forces. Built up by excellent staff and brilliant managers. There is none finer and that is a fact. Truly superb. In fact I would go as far as to say that they are nearly on a par with my own Local Police Force here in Lancashire. It is a close call as they are both so amazingly excellent.
[I am going to be honest now, I cannot call it. Both are great.]
Stunning.

Dyna Victoria
2 .
LOL! Mike..looks like thats a conversation stopper!

1
Philip Hollingbery
2 .
If Joanna Yeates were killed in her flat, then her killer must have made two trips out of the flat - one carrying the pizza, and the other carrying the body. Why did he give higher priority to removing the pizza than to removing her keys, mobile phone, wallet, coat and bag? Since there seems to be broad agreement that her death was precipitated by her killer's observing her arrival at No. 44, and her killer went to quite a lot of trouble and took quite a risk removing the body, why did he not remove all the other objects as well, so as to make it look as if she never reached home? If he were someone living in another flat in the house, or a nearby house, this and tidying up a bit seem an obvious measure for a cool killer to take so as to avoid incrimination. If, on the other hand, he himself lived in the flat with Jo but had a willing alibi, or he was a killer who had no connection to the place, then leaving in her flat the objects she had been carrying with her would have served the purpose of helping to incriminate the residents of the other flats in the house. This also applies if Jo were killed somewhere other than in her own flat.

Facebook User
2 .
''If Joanna Yeates were killed in her flat, then Tabak must have made two trips out of the flat - one carrying the pizza, and the other carrying the body. Why did he give higher priority to removing the pizza than to removing her keys, mobile phone, wallet, coat and bag? Since there seems to be broad agreement that her death was precipitated by Tabak observing her arrival at No. 44, and he went to quite a lot of trouble and took quite a risk removing the body, why did he not remove all the other objects as well, so as to make it look as if she never reached home? If he were someone living in another flat in the house, or a nearby house, this and tidying up a bit seem an obvious measure for Tabak to take so as to avoid incrimination. If, on the other hand, he himself lived in the adjoining flat to Jo but had a willing alibi, or he was a killer who had no connection to the place, then leaving in her flat the objects she had been carrying with her would have served the purpose of helping to incriminate the residents of the other flats in the house. This also applies if Jo were killed somewhere other than in her own flat.''
Could be that Tabak did it like that yes. Some of your details may be spot on. Or maybe he did it in a different way. Who knows?
I forgot to mention I absolutely love Bristol and ALL Bristolians. Salt of the earth they are. I remember passing through the town for a couple of nights in 1980 when my friend and I hitch-hiked from John O Groats to Lands End. What lovely lovely people. [Obviously you will come across the odd one who is not very nice] but generally they are warm hearted thoughtful people with a gorgeous accent. What a great town.
And the cathedral is second to none. A finer example of a hall church in the Neo Gothic style with its stupendous rose window is difficult to imagine.

1
Facebook User
2 .
@ Phillip '' Why did he give higher priority to removing the pizza than to removing her keys, mobile phone, wallet, coat and bag?
Simple!!! Tabak had touched the pizza carton and the sock with un-gloved hands. He realised that he had made a mistake. That is why he got rid of them and was so desperately hoping that they would not be found in the bin where he had placed them as they would have his finger prints and DNA on them. Hence looking up times of waste collections for Bristol. What a relief to Tabak that they did not find the pizza carton or the sock. But, his relief was short lived as they discovered, slowly but surely, all the other reams of incriminating evidence.

1
Philip Hollingbery
2 .
Why should he touch the pizza anyway? Are you suggesting that he had some kind of pizza-hate-fetish and wanted to attack that? Do you KNOW that he touched the pizza while he was with her? Why not remove the other things too, so as to make it look as if she did not get home?

Facebook User
2 .
@ Phillip ''Are you suggesting that he had some kind of pizza-hate-fetish and wanted to attack that?''
(A) Er No.
@ Phillip ''Do you KNOW that he touched the pizza while he was with her?''
(A) Of course I do not KNOW if he touched the Pizza in the same way that you cannot KNOW anything for certain about how Tabak carried out his crime.
@ Phillip ''Why not remove the other things too, so as to make it look as if she did not get home?''
(A) Probably because he was panicking or in utter turmoil. If he had not touched the other things with un-gloved hands why remove them?
Phillip; neither you nor I can know what precisely happened that night and VT didn't fill us in with much detail at the trial. But we can be certain of one thing: Vincent Tabak was convicted of the poor girls murder and he admitted that he had done it.

1
Philip Hollingbery
2 .
"he admitted that he had done it."
- under duress, probably including torture. That is the only reason why a remand prisoner with no previous convictions nor record of violence should be sent to a prison specializing in Grade A prisoners, i.e., the most violent types. He was undoubtedly in a state of constant terror; that is why he was in the health unit and why he answered "So-so" when asked how he was by the chaplain. That is why he was also denied the regulation three visits per week until three weeks after his arrest and after he had been tricked by the chaplain.
"Probably because he was panicking or in utter turmoil."
No, he was convicted of murder, which as Eva G keeps reminding me means that he was convicted of having intended to kill Jo. The prosecution insisted that he was cool. You could see that from the way he walked into Asda and sent texts saying he was bored. A cool and intelligent killer who lived next door would definitely have removed any traces that she got back to the flat so as to avoid incriminating himself. If he were cool, he would have put the sock back on her foot, so as to prevent detectives from making a huge issue out of it.



1
Eva Gietl
2 .
@Philip:
"No, he was convicted of murder, which as Eva G keeps reminding me means that he was convicted of having intended to kill Jo."
NO! That's exactly what I am NOT saying. I am saying that, in England, it is also murder if he didn't intend to kill her, but intended to harm her. And strangling someone, even without intent to kill, means intent to harm.
Please do not misquote me!


Updated 2 . by the author.

2
Facebook User
2 .
@ Phillip ''A cool and intelligent killer who lived next door would definitely have removed any traces that she got back to the flat so as to avoid incriminating himself. If he were cool, he would have put the sock back on her foot, so as to prevent detectives from making a huge issue out of it.''
Or not.
[just a bit of advice Phillip. A&SC are monitoring this discussion page because they consider some posts are potentially defamatory. This is true and I would be very careful about going off on another ''Greg did it'' spree from now on. Just advice you understand.]
@ AS&C web page.''The comments are potentially defamatory and anyone who posts comments like these could be subject to legal action. Please remember that the courts convicted a man of Joanna Yeates murder. For those users who are unhappy with comments posted by others please raise your concerns through Facebook's report abuse function.''
https://www.facebook.com/avonandsomersetpolice?ref=ts

1
Philip Hollingbery
Yesterday
"just a bit of advice Phillip. A&SC are monitoring this discussion page"
- Ooooh, I am shaking in my pants, because I know that you do not mess with those people. But honestly, my impression is that the good cops in Bristol are far too busy doing their jobs conscientiously, while the city's real hard core of psychopathic cops are too busy watching the sort of porn confiscated from suspects' computers that would make Vincent Tabak (and me) blush, to waste their precious working hours on monitoring social networking sites like this. Whenever Noel or I have tried to suggest that certain posters on this forum have links to A&SC, our suggestions get vehemently refuted, so I think you may be hoist by your own petard.
"''The comments are potentially defamatory and anyone who posts comments like these could be subject to legal action. Please remember that the courts convicted a man of Joanna Yeates murder."
I cannot find this passage in the link you provided, but I notice that the originator was so distracted by watching porn videos that he or she forgot to hit the apostrophe key. I have made remarks on this forum about the collective morality of the people of Bristol that could, in the case of an individual, be construed as opinionated and libellous, but, in the case of Mr Reardon and his family, everything I have posted has been based on his own witness testimony, newspaper reports, and facts that can readily be ascertained in the public domain. Furthermore he and his family are covered by the Witness Protection Service, with whom I would be only to happy to go into dialogue (unless they turned out to be staffed by people like Sue Jeffries, who belongs to the category you don't mess with).
As for remembering a certain conviction, how could I forget it? I wasn't even there but the very thought of it sends shivers down my spine.

5
Gina Sumner
Yesterday
Phillip. I care not what some jumped up woman with an ego to massage says or thinks.
No discussion can take place when you sprout such venomous idiotic comments. Thankfully you and your ilk are rare in your thoughts about tabak not being the guilty person, no matter how you and those other deluded people try, none of you provide anything apart from ramblings...... hence why neither you, noel or the couple of women do anything apart from go around in circles kidding yourselves.... take a full page spread in the newspaper of your choice or something if you really do 'care' about a murderer..
A lot of you expressed your wishes for the murderer on his birthday.... because of him, many people today are not celebrating the birthday of a vibrant young lady.
Shame on you all

2
Charlotte Eveson
Yesterday
Exactly Gina , no thoughts for Greg or Jos family today on here , just inane , faceless theories as usual , like many people have said this week why if Phillip and Noel are so adamant there was a miscarriage of justice don't they do something about it.
It's one thing having niggling doubts or talking through the case but to write with such (potentially libellous) conviction that they have the wrong man and there has been police malpractice is another thing all together
I know if I was convinced as certain people here are and I had the time and ability to do something about it I would


Updated yesterday by the author.

2
Charlotte Eveson
Yesterday
Phillip check the link again if you can not see the police comment on the potentially libellous comments being banded about on this page , it's there alright

2
Charlotte Eveson
Yesterday
Phillip
I would not be so sure that the A&S police are too busy to look at things like this , they worked very hard on this case and if anyone has any doubt how much this meant to the DCI I should suggest they watch his speech to the press after the verdict
They knew they had their man and they wanted to do the right thing for Jo and her family and anyone who thinks otherwise is a disgrace IMO

1
Sue Graham
Yesterday
They have no care whatsoever for Jo Yeates, this is all about tabak and their quest to prove his innocence (which will never happen) and slag off the police. They have no shame, wouldn't know the meaning of it.
They can't do anything about it, because nobody in their right mind would support their theories, because that's all they are, theories and made up nonsense from porn/dirtypants obsessed men.
Liking your own comments doesn't count as a supporter!!

2
Jen Halo
Yesterday
I hope that certain people on here will now curtail their accusations. If they truly believe in VT's innocence then they should do something about it elsewhere. This forum will never get them what they want.

1
Noel O'Gara
Yesterday
Its worth repeating this Mike because pretty soon you will be wishing you didnt say it.
''I am glad I sound like DCI Jones. What a truly great policeman and detective. If I had one inch of his intuitive brilliance I would be quite satisfied. Marvelous man. One of this century's greats.
Kelcey and Hall? Marvelous, marvelous firm. Brilliant beyond belief. Superb.
Mr Clegg?? complete genius both defending and prosecuting. absolutely great at his job. He nearly got VT off with manslaughter. Great guy. Novel approach to defending is his forte.
A&SP?? Fabulous Police Force. Absolute benchmark for all other forces. Built up by excellent staff and brilliant managers. There is none finer and that is a fact. Truly superb. In fact I would go as far as to say that they are nearly on a par with my own Local Police Force here in Lancashire. It is a close call as they are both so amazingly excellent.
[I am going to be honest now, I cannot call it. Both are great.]
Stunning.''
It sure is stunning Mike and with such faith in those people it is amazing that you even bothered to argue that Tabak was guilty.
Charlotte would you please ask the A and S police force to get in touch with me about their unsolved murders. It may be that Billy Tracey, the real Yorkshire Ripper has taken up residence there since he left Ireland in 1984.
I know that if I were a cop I wouldnt like to think that b.....d was on my patch. They can get an intro by reading my website http://www.yorkshireripper.com/
Delete

3
Gina Sumner
Yesterday
Noel why not contact them yourself? why ask Charlotte? how strange.

Victoria Lynch
Yesterday
Philip Hollingbery
5 hours ago
"just a bit of advice Phillip. A&SC are monitoring this discussion page"
-' Ooooh, I am shaking in my pants, because I know that you do not mess with those people. But honestly, my impression is that the good cops in Bristol are far too busy doing their jobs conscientiously, while the city's real hard core of psychopathic cops are too busy watching the sort of porn confiscated from suspects' computers that would make Vincent Tabak (and me) blush, to waste their precious working hours on monitoring social networking sites like this. Whenever Noel or I have tried to suggest that certain posters on this forum have links to A&SC, our suggestions get vehemently refuted, so I think you may be hoist by your own petard.
"''The comments are potentially defamatory and anyone who posts comments like these could be subject to legal action. Please remember that the courts convicted a man of Joanna Yeates murder."
I cannot find this passage in the link you provided,'
Phillip dear maybe you should familiarise yourself with the new Timeline format? The post is there and you are having a laugh if you 'claim' that none of your posts have been libelous-perhaps you would like to cast your mind back to a few threads which are not only inflammatory but also upsetting for the people involved-also in several posts on this thread,you name Greg Reardon as Joanna's killer-based on nothing but your vicious thoughts-as it has been pointed out to you about a 100 times-I will repeat it-Greg was a witness-not a suspect.The fact that it does'nt worry you that most people think you have a deficiency of the temporal lobe worries me greatly-but carry on-I believe in Karma-Jo should have been enjoying her 27th Birthday but instead she is dead.

1
Philip Hollingbery
Yesterday
"Deceitful and manipulative", "strangulation fetish" and "30 illegal child porn images". These were extremely potentially defamatory comments, yet no legal action appears to be in train as a result. It is also downright silly to suggest that it is possible to get a Ph.D by being deceitful and manipulative. So no, I am not shaking in my shoes. "Please remember that the courts convicted a man" with no motive for her murder, and a very strong motive not to do anything so daft. Please remember how strongly the facts of his own testimony against Vincent Tabak support a case against Mr Reardon - who is the only person who could conceivably have had a motive for killing such a lovely girl. If her boyfriend did kill her, then "deceitful and manipulative" could equally well describe him. I endorse Admin's remarks that the public has a need to know the facts - more precisely about the steps that A & S Constabulary took that lead to his elimination as a suspect.

2
Eva Gietl
Yesterday
@Philip:
"It is also downright silly to suggest that it is possible to get a Ph.D by being deceitful and manipulative."
Who has suggested that VT got his PhD BY being deceitful and manipulative? No one as far as I could see.
It was, however, suggested that he has a PhD AND is being deceitful and manipulative.

Charlotte Eveson
Yesterday
You may not be shaking in your shoes Phillip but at least we have use of the words "potentially , if and "could" :-)


2
Charlotte Eveson
Yesterday
Eva , I agree , also Phillip people change , killers and rapists were not always born that way , people develope mental illness at all stages in their lives.
Also people hide things very well.
The situation he found himself in that day could have forced him to be deceitful and manipulative , to save his skin , maybe that wasn't his natural way , he did describe how he was not sleeping , drinking a lot and considered suicide after he killed her

1
Philip Hollingbery
Yesterday
Regardless of whether you are a nice person or an unpleasant one, you do not go into the townships after dark carrying a carpetbag full of diamonds, bullion and high-denomination banknotes. It is asking for trouble. If you have spent five years working for a Ph.D, you do NOT risk throwing away everything you have worked for by strangling an unknown girl next-door on a whim. They are both extreme cases so conspicuous for their lack of commonsense as to be unbelievable. Even a detective constable of average intelligence would have been able to work this out after interviewing the occupants of the other flats at 44 Canynge Road - and moved on to look for more likely murder suspects, such as those who new Joanna well, or those in the neighbourhood with records of violence or a reputation for sudden outbursts of temper, or whatever characterizes the brutal murderer. Instead, Amanda Hirst has used all her marketing skills to turn the least-likely suspect into someone everybody can hate.
It is therefore obvious that the police already knew who killed her (for which conclusion there is some evidence), or that the media and other police forces were making life so difficult for A&S Constabulary that a scapegoat had to be found. It is not a pretty story. Any decent crime editor should know that murderers are not infrequently exposed quite a long time after the deed is done, and sometimes as a result of sheer good luck on the part of the police. But the shear malice of the police and the CPS in this case beggars belief. The example of "Titanic" is relevant because shipping companies were forced to admit their mistakes and build safer ships. It is high time that police, lawyers and judges stopped behaving so arrogantly and also began to admit that they too can make mistakes in their professional lives like everyone else.
@Charlotte,
Prisoners who are suicidal (like Vincent Tabak) or who do commit suicide are the innocent ones. The real criminals are too selfish to consider suicide - they are those who manage to incriminate the innocent or who, if caught, exploit their prison sentences to expand their criminal networks.

Eva Gietl
Yesterday
@Philip:
"Prisoners who are suicidal (like Vincent Tabak) or who do commit suicide are the innocent ones. The real criminals are too selfish to consider suicide - they are those who manage to incriminate the innocent or who, if caught, exploit their prison sentences to expand their criminal networks"
Again: can you show any statistics or studies for this?

2
Gina Sumner
Yesterday
I don't need to know the facts phillip because I know the Police like any other public service has strict, tight concise policy and procedures in place, despite what you, noel and the other police haters and disbelievers like to venomously sprout to fit your own 'factless' wanderings. Everybody is answerable to somebody within a public service and there will be a paper trail showing the p&p adhered to.
As Charlotte has pointed out, a little turn around in your posting has been noted, thankfully you realise that living abroad does not make a difference when it comes to breaking the law online. tabak even with his flipping phd shinning out of his backside ignored the law.

2
Facebook User
Yesterday
''Why having a PhD does not automatically make you an upstanding citizen''
just a reminder of the title of this thread, Phillip, courtesy of Charlotte.
It is attracting one of the highest number of posts. Why? because it is so obviously correct, and Charlotte's examples at the beginning show that you can have 2PhDs and still be a murdering bastard.
@Phillip,
''Prisoners who are suicidal (like Vincent Tabak) or who do commit suicide are the innocent ones. The real criminals are too selfish to consider suicide - they are those who manage to incriminate the innocent or who, if caught, exploit their prison sentences to expand their criminal networks.''
What an amazingly generalised statement!!! Something else that you have just plucked out of thin air?
So, by this theory of yours Tabak is guilty because he is too selfish to commit suicide after considering doing so?
Also therefore, Harold Shipman is innocent [according to your glib 'rule'] because he DID commit suicide.

Charlotte Eveson
Yesterday
Phillip
"It is asking for trouble. If you have spent five years working for a Ph.D, you do NOT risk throwing away everything you have worked for by strangling an unknown girl next-door on a whim. They are both extreme cases so conspicuous for their lack of commonsense as to be unbelievable. "
No Philip it is not unbelievable , this applies to many things that people have worked for all their lives not only a PhD , people who have fantastic careers , families and many other fine acheivements throw their lives away in a moment of passion or anger.
How many times have we heard it said "i cant believe they did that , they have thrown everything away" , the same priciple could be applied to many people not only people with PhDs.
and this Phillip
"Even a detective constable of average intelligence would have been able to work this out after interviewing the occupants of the other flats at 44 Canynge Road - and moved on to look for more likely murder suspects"
is one of the most rediculous posts i have read on here
Can you imagine if VT was still not charged and he went on to commit a further crime and when the police were questioned at a later enquiry they said "well we did not look at him he had a PhD"
and Phillip , when i spoke of him feeling suicidal this was at the time before he was arrested not when he was in prison , i was relating it to the possibility that this was because he was finding it difficult to be manipulative and deceitful as this is not his norm
But of course you knew what i meant and twisted things to suit your own theories as is your norm


Updated yesterday by the author.

1
Gina Sumner
Yesterday
Now remember that people, Phillip the psychologist has spoken, Fred West, Gordon Park and the ever pathetic Ian Huntley who tried but not enough must have been innocent. There will be a big list of others but I'm not googling them.

1
Noel O'Gara
Yesterday
Gina, it is more strange that you seem completely unconcerned that the allegation that the Real Yorkshire Ripper might be living in Bristol right now.
That is a mindset reminiscent of the police, rather than a member of the public who would be concerned if they thought that was true.
You should think about the victims of the Ripper and what happened to them but your remarks are really indicitive of why that bastard knew that he could commit multible murders in England and get away with them and write letters to the police while doing so to implicate a disturbed maniac who turned out to be Sutcliffe.
I do believe that your average English person is far more discerning than the smugness that you display.
If the Ripper himself confronted you, you would wet yourself before your knees turned to jelly but it would be too late.
Delete

2
Gina Sumner
Yesterday
Noel, I have no need to be concerned about the Yorkshire ripper might be living in Bristol because I know where he is. You present a theory in your book/webpage but that is all it is, a theory. Stop telling me what I should think, that is very controlling and the average person whether they be English or from anywhere else in the world would be saying almost the same thing as me. The only difference would be someone from Ireland who would be saying 'Ignore the daft twat, he's mad and evil'
Stop judging me by your standards. I've got a bad back and can't get that low. :)

Charlotte Eveson
Yesterday
"Gina, it is more strange that you seem completely unconcerned that the allegation that the Real Yorkshire Ripper might be living in Bristol right now."
Not strange at all Noel

Noel O'Gara
Yesterday
It is precisely this attitude which allowed him to be so confident in his MO of murders and his treatment of the police. It is a common reaction of all victims of crime that they just cant believe it happened to them.
But it happened and I had to live with him.
Dream on Gina.
Delete

1
Eva Gietl
Yesterday
@Noel:
Have you noticed how you always write "Dream on" when you don't have any arguments?

1
Philip Hollingbery
Yesterday
Noel, I cannot imagine your real Ripper ever even contemplating suicide. As you describe him, he could deceive and manipulate himself out of any situation, and policemen were easy targets for him. The reason posters here keep on invoking the unique Dr Shipman is that he was totally unlike other serial killers, so he demonstrates nothing that is relevant to this nor any other case, and it is not surprising that he took his own life. All his victims were known to him personally and elderly, and he believed, wrongly, that he was killing them for their own good. He committed suicide because he was quite capable of feeling normal human sympathy and emotions. Psychopaths are not like that. They do not care about their victims, nor do they commit suicide. The person who killed Jo cared about her enough to strangle her. That person was not Vincent Tabak, who is demonstrably capable of normal human sympathy and emotions. It was Amanda Hirst's public relations triumph that so little of this emerged in the media, laying the foundation for the appalling hatred against him that can still be experienced today and the image of him as a monster.
@Charlotte,
Since his girlfriend did not testify, we have no means of knowing whether he really was suicidal prior to his arrest, or whether this is something invented restrospectively by the prosecution, like so much else in this case. However, it makes little difference, as he knew that the net was closing in after the Schiphol interview, and that would make any innocent man suicidal. I do appreciate your new moniker (if that is the right word).

1
Charlotte Eveson
Yesterday
"Noel, I cannot imagine your real Ripper ever even contemplating suicide"
Nice use of the word YOUR there Philip



Charlotte Eveson
Yesterday
"Noel, I cannot imagine your real Ripper ever even contemplating suicide"
Nice use of the word YOUR there Philip

1
Noel O'Gara
Yesterday
which of you had to actually live with a dangerous criminal who served 12 years as a category A criminal mostly in short stretches all over the UK, a man who had 49 convictions for serious assaults of all kinds mostly against policemen and prison officers?
I didnt know that when I engaged him. He put his best side forward to get a job with me and his appearance was impeccable.
Neither did I know that his wife had convictions in England for prostitution and that he had been diagnosed in jail as an aggressive psychopath and that the police were looking for a stocky bearded Irishman with tatoos and scars identical to him and who was seen at three murder sites in Yorkshire shortly before I hired him.
Had I known then that the British police were such a corrupt bunch I might have had a different approach to the matter once I saw the stitch up of a lunatic as the Ripper.
But I trusted them at that stage.
However I can see that its not just the police who are indifferent to claims that should alarm any decent person but a considerable proportion of the public and that is what I have come to accept.
In the meantime other innocent people will be murdered by this man and the police will open a case file and try to close it asap but who cares?
Delete

1
Gina Sumner
Yesterday
Noel, you are doing it again. Your ripper theory has nothing to do with Joanna's murder.
It has only been because admin gave you the platform to go on and on about something totally unrelated that you get even more worked up. Time to go start your own page about YOUR THEORY.
I accepted a long time ago that you have problems with real facts especially after reading so many entries in Irish papers and online forums about the things you have done....

1
Philip Hollingbery
Yesterday
"Nice use of the word YOUR there Philip"
He was Noel's employee.
"if VT was still not charged and he went on to commit a further crime "
There is no reason to suppose he committed this crime, so not reason to expect him to commit any further crimes. You are leading in the direction of locking all men up just in case they might commit a crime.
@Gina,
"pathetic Ian Huntley" - you mean pathetic because he did not have a higher education? His conviction was probably a miscarriage of justice, as he had no motive for killing the children, and his plea of manslaughter was even more obviously coerced than was Vincent Tabak's.

Gina Sumner
Yesterday
No Phillip, his nor anybody else's education comes into it for me. I say pathetic because that is what he is, another murderer who took the innocent lives of two lovely little souls.
I pity you.

1
Philip Hollingbery
Yesterday
"Titanic" Gina, "Titanic". For every unsound murder conviction that you insist is unsinkable, despite the obvious inadequacy of the lifeboats, there is a killer still at large who will probably take yet more innocent souls.

Joanne Rogers
Yesterday
Phillip
"The Titanic..." how apt...as this page is going down too

Gina Sumner
Yesterday
Don;t be so silly. You are doing that dramatic thing again, there are lots of killers who will take innocent lives in the future however tabak is locked up so for the foreseeable future, he won't.

2
Facebook User

@ Noel ''I didnt know that when I engaged him. He put his best side forward to get a job with me and his appearance was impeccable.
Neither did I know that his wife had convictions in England for prostitution and that he had been diagnosed in jail as an aggressive psychopath''
In future Noel please get references before you employ someone.
I have a distinct feeling that this man you think is the real Ripper is now aged nearly 80 and will be fairly harmless now.

Dyna Victoria

For Philip.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...tencing-798916
The recent sentencing of a murderer in Scotland .. First time televised.
And I couldn't help but notice that the judge is garbed in a Templars-inspired robe...
Are there any particular links between Scotland's judiciary and wider establishment and the Templars?

1
Dyna Victoria

On 30 December, Tabak and Morson watched a television news report of the arrest of Joanna Yeates's landlord, the former public school teacher Christopher Jefferies, over the killing... he contacted Avon and Somerset police and suggested the landlord had been out and about in his car on the night of Yeates's death
and,indeed he had, by his own admission he said that he was parking his car at 9pm that evening...he also stated that he did not hear any screams at that time..
Cj had been somewhere, and had in fact moved his car....
I would suggest therefore that Vt was telling the truth and was not trying to implicate CJ..

2
Noel O'Gara

there you are Dyna. Thats exactly as I had been suggesting to the group.
The way DCI Jones and his fellow conspirators to frame an innocent man put a sinister interpretation on that civic spirited act of Tabak's.
Gina, You Charlotte and Mike mirror that mindset of closed minds that I had to confront for thirty years when trying to interest the British and indeed the Irish police that the most dangerous murderer ever in Britain was still a free man.
They all ducked it in one way or another.
From Leeds to London and from Ipswich to Bristol they are all trained in the same school and once they put on that uniform they become zombies with the closed minds that you display so well.
I hope readers can now see the wall of silence that confronted me. It was spiced with innuendo and of course the madness card was always to hand when they were beaten on the evidence.
http://www.yorkshireripper.com/category/the-yorkshire-ripper-headlines/
Delete

1
Gina Sumner

Noel if you had a shred of REAL evidence in either this case or the other one that you have a theory about then I'd be one of the first to help you however after reading your website and your posts here, that is not the case, no REAL evidence.
An accusation of having a closed mind from you is extremely laughable.

2
Joanne Rogers
Yesterday
For God sake why dont you lot give it a rest.... VT admitted trying to stitch CJ up in court and appologised to TM in court for involving her by getting her to make the call.

1
Noel O'Gara

Gina I hope you realise that there a lot of good cops too and your id on this site is as traceable as mine despite your dummy pic. We are all accountable for our actions and indeed our words too and yours are recorded for future reference.
Such arrogance as you display could only come from somebody who has a lot to lose when Tabak is revealed to be an innocent man and the police who protected the real killer are exposed.
Bristol has its fair share of decent cops and you better believe that and look over your shoulder.
Delete


1
Philip Hollingbery

@Dyna V,
"The recent sentencing of a murderer in Scotland .. First time televised."
Being a judge does not automatically make you an upstanding citizen. Give me a Ph.D any day in place of 20 judges.
I was not able to open the link you posted, but I found a photo of the Scottish judge in his Knights Templar-inspired robes. I won't speculate about the soundness of this particular verdict, but the inference harmonizes with my negative feelings about the medieval ways of judges in the light of Mr Justice Field's remarks. The Knights Templar's zenith was their victory over the Turks under the great siege of Malta in 1565, but by the time Napoleon showed up on their island in 1798 they had become so dissolute and incompetent that he drove them away. It seems that some of them have found their way to Scotland, where they doubtless revel in delivering withering remarks about the deceitful manipulation carried out by the prisoner.

Facebook User
Yesterday
@ Noel ''Gina, You Charlotte and Mike mirror that mindset of closed minds that I had to confront for thirty years when trying to interest the British and indeed the Irish police that the most dangerous murderer ever in Britain was still a free man''
I have said, a bit like Gina, that I would be very keen to expose a real miscarriage of justice if there were evidence for it and not just ideas that pop into your and Phillip's head which are then coverted into quasi 'happenings.' [we are then subjected to nastiness from Phillip when we don't agree that these 'happenings' occurred. And the reason we do not agree that they occurred because there is no evidence that they did.]
He reasons that a person with a PhD would not throw away all the hard work over five years by killing someone.
Therefore to Phillip it cannot have happened. Completely ridiculous reasoning.




Sue Graham

Lol have you ever heard anything as laughable as this.........
Noel O'Gara,
"We are all accountable for our actions and indeed our words too and yours are recorded for future reference."
"Bristol has its fair share of decent cops and you better believe that and look over your shoulder."
After spending many months slandering the police at every given opportunity (and there's been plenty) many months of listening to the drone of "the police are bent, incompetent, liars" many months of accusations made towards an innocent man and his family. Throwing wild accusations at anyone that challenges him of being in the police.
And Noel O'Gara, tells someone else to "look over your shoulder"

1
Gina Sumner

"Gina I hope you realise that there a lot of good cops too and your id on this site is as traceable as mine despite your dummy pic. We are all accountable for our actions and indeed our words too and yours are recorded for future reference.
Such arrogance as you display could only come from somebody who has a lot to lose when Tabak is revealed to be an innocent man and the police who protected the real killer are exposed.
Bristol has its fair share of decent cops and you better believe that and look over your shoulder."
Noel, why do you say its a dummy photo? Why infer that I have said there are any bad police, I haven't, that is your bag.....
So right about the decent police in Bristol... thankfully all the police who worked on the Murder of Joanna Yeates fall right into that catergory... nice of you to acknowledge that.

Sue Graham

"So right about the decent police in Bristol... thankfully all the police who worked on the Murder of Joanna Yeates fall right into that catergory... nice of you to acknowledge that."
Well said Gina!!

2
Noel O'Gara

the problem for the decent police of Bristol was that when Colin Port gave DCI Jones the nod to stitch up Tabak, they had to keep their mouths shut regardless of what they thought or knew.
You can now rely on the jury and the conviction to prove that he murdered Jo, but that was after you fed the jury on lies and Tabak was turned into a zombie who cooperated with the bent brigade to see any glimmer of freedom in future.
Great stuff Gina. You deserve a medal too.
Delete

Gina Sumner

*take a bow* thanks Noel

1
Philip Hollingbery

@Joanne R,
"For God sake why dont you lot give it a rest.... VT admitted trying to stitch CJ up in court and appologised to TM in court for involving her by getting her to make the call."
After the trial, Vincent's family told a reporter that he was terrified of being beaten up in prison. You do not need to take his word for it. Long Lartin contains a concentration of very violent criminals, some of them lifers who have nothing to lose by beating up or killing an unpopular inmate. It would take only a word or two (about e.g. child porno) in the right quarters from a manipulative prison chaplain to put into effect the wishes expressed by Mr & Mrs Yeates and put Vincent Tabak in fear of his life. In such a situation most people would confess to anything, and certainly to change their plea from not guilty to manslaughter if they believed it would get them out of the reaches of those thugs as fast as possible. Your belief and theirs in Vincent's guilt rests primarily on admissions he made under these conditions. Think about it.
It suited the prosecution to accept that Vincent Tabak did not know Joanna Yeates, as he claimed. That would have made him an even more brutal killer if he were in fact the perpetrator. It has recently emerged that evidence was presented in court about Jo's private life to which we on this forum are not party. If this evidence showed that they did in fact know each other (e.g. through their architectural work, as was hinted in a newspaper article when he was first arrested), and indeed that she and her boyfriend moved to 44 Canynge Road specifically so that she could be near her lover, then this opens up a raft of scenarios rather different from those we have been arguing about.
This state of affairs would still make Reardon the No. 1 suspect, and the people of Bristol seek to make Vincent the scaegoat out of respect for Joanna's blameless reputation. However, it could be that both men were in it together; or that her boyfriend was the perpetrator, and the neighbour dumped the body out of fear of being incriminated; or Vincent killed her because she had decided to dump him that very evening.
Here in Denmark the police make no secret of always seeking a motive for a killing, so it has always worried me that no one in this case seemed much interested in the motive.

Gina Sumner

Doing it again, phillip, adding yourr own mind wanderings which have NO facts. Thought you might have learned by now that nobody with any sense listens to rubbish like that. Have a nice day .:)

1
Facebook User

Phillip that is exactly the type of post I never ever want to read again. You appear to know nothing about prisons. You imagine what it may be like. You are wrong.
Thank God we won't have to read such tripe anymore.

Dyna Victoria

I think its common knowledge that any inmate accused of child pornography has a rough time in prison..
Christine Cartwright, the wife of jailed Bafta-winner Chris Langham, reports that prison bullies in HMP Elmley where Langham is serving a 10-month sentence for viewing child pornography are making his life hell: "He's been verbally abused, taunted continuously, had missiles thrown at him and his cell flooded out by other prisoners,"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/sep/25/unjustpunishment

Facebook User

Pretty old link Dyna
All prisons have a wing which is solely for those who may be victimised by other prisoners. Not just sex offenders, but anyone who may be prone to bullying.

Dyna Victoria

So, these inmates have to be isolated to protect them from the others...says it all, doesnt it?

Gina Sumner

What do you want for them dyna?
btw - don't tell me, tell the millions of children in this world whose lives are affected because of sexual predators, not all of them though because many take their own lives...



Dyna Victoria

@Gina
I was not generalising..please keep on topic
Re Philip
"After the trial, Vincent's family told a reporter that he was terrified of being beaten up in prison. You do not need to take his word for it. Long Lartin contains a concentration of very violent criminals, some of them lifers who have nothing to lose by beating up or killing an unpopular inmate. It would take only a word or two (about e.g. child porno) in the right quarters from a manipulative prison chaplain to put into effect the wishes expressed by Mr & Mrs Yeates and put Vincent Tabak in fear of his life"

Lynne Kindon

Sorry Dyna, but VT should have thought about this before he took Joanna's life....prison is not a bed of roses.

Dyna Victoria

@Lynne
the reference is to the child pornography allegedly found on Vts computer..the inference is that since Vt could not be executed then at least his life would be made a living hell because of the child porn allegations..this was some way the police felt might help satisfy Jos parents, who declared that they wished the death penalty was still in force.

Dyna Victoria

@Mike
\Is this more recent for you..
Pedophile Disemboweled in UK Prison
Published by Spencer Hawken on October 3, 2011 in Europe
Read more: http://newsflavor.com/world/europe/pedophile-disemboweled-in-uk-prison/#ixzz1sgiwSq9Q

Gina Sumner

dyna
So, these inmates have to be isolated to protect them from the others...says it all, doesnt it?
not generalising , questioning your want for these inmates and I'll stay as much on topic as you do sweetie.




Facebook User

Phillip here is a disturbing but telling link to a youtube video about a top cancer Dr with a PhD who threw his livelihood and virtually everything else away over something which you would not have expected him to do. But he did it as the video shows.
You would not have expected Tabak to throw away his life either but he did.
the common denominator in both is perverted sex. Both got what they deserved.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYArtdX2Kv0

Noel O'Gara

the police are well aware of the violence and murders that take place in prisons up and down the country.
They have to investigate every one of them as criminal incidents so they know what happens. Many prison suicides you read about are hushed up murders.
Who was being manipulative when the police informed the media that Tabak had child porn on his computer?
It was calculated to put Tabak's life in permanent danger as long as he lived because they are hoping that he will never make it to 40. If he were murdered in jail, then they will have gotten away with their crime.
As it is, nobody on the outside knows where he is. But be sure that the inmates are fed the news reports about his child porn.
Edit|Delete

This last page was posted on 21st April 2012 before the facebook discussion was terminated because the authorities threatened legal sanctions against the administrator.

BACK TO VINCENT TABAK WEBPAGE