To be fair, if he is innocent, he should be pleading as such, now matter what evidence the police allege to have.
FAO: Otto
When you have a minute, can you just clarify what VT's brother said about VT being in the States for work? from what I can gather, he was in the States for 6 weeks? JY & GR had only been in the flat a couple of months, so I am guessing he only would have been around them for a couple of weeks before Dec 17th? TYIA.
I do wonder at times it could have been a case of mistaken identity? was VT's GF the target?
BBMSome general comments ... after catching up on the thread.
I read in the links from this morning that VT has "legal aid". I'm guessing this means that he has very little savings. If he were to apply for bail, he would need to put something up. Is it possible that he has nothing pay for bail and therefore hasn't requested it?
It does sound like the prosecution has until the beginning of April to spell out the case against him, and then the defence has until the beginning of May to respond. Is that like the prosecution "disclosure"?
Monday, January 31st, 2011
"Nigel Lickley (corr), prosecuting for the CPS, then informed the judge of the current timetable for the Crown’s case.
He said: ”The timetable we propose is this. That the Crown will intend to serve the case papers on or before April 1.
”The defence case statement on or before April 28 and to have a plea and case management hearing in this court on May 4."
http://swns.com/jo-yeates-murder-vincent-tabak-gets-trial-date-311205.html
To be fair, if he is innocent, he should be pleading as such, now matter what evidence the police allege to have.
Front page of The Sun tomorrow
Jo's dad: We feel so sorry for McCanns.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK...wspaper_Front_Pages_Tuesday,_February_1,_2011
:silenced::silenced::silenced:
I get the scenario, but in VTs case we have no motive, he is not a rapist has a good clean record in Holland as well as in the UK, worked hard to get the PHd and good job, got a new life with lovely GF spending Christmas with her parents from 24 till 26 Dec then goes home to his family in Holland till 2 Jan, goes back to work, why kill JY, why throw it all away, his family are so shocked and love him too . I cant think of another murdered who didnt have something in their background to make them a killer if not at the least some motive
I suppose you mean no known motive. We cannot see inside his mind, and that is where motives may be hidden. The fact that he has a PhD is irrelevant. We don't know that there is nothing in his background either. Perhaps we will find out at some point.
Not sure if this was in Marcel's video ... but Vincent called a family summit [minus the children] when he was visiting at Christmas to tell them he was "under suspicion.
Well, I'm just going to wait for the trial.
I have to say October seems a thousand years away. I wonder what it seems like for VT?
Some general comments ... after catching up on the thread.
I read in the links from this morning that VT has "legal aid". I'm guessing this means that he has very little savings. If he were to apply for bail, he would need to put something up. Is it possible that he has nothing pay for bail and therefore hasn't requested it?
It does sound like the prosecution has until the beginning of April to spell out the case against him, and then the defence has until the beginning of May to respond. Is that like the prosecution "disclosure"?
"Under suspicion" seems an odd phrase to use, if it has been reported accurately. If my neighbour had been murdered and the police had asked to search my house, I'd be curious to know why, but I wouldn't assume that I was "under suspicion" (unless I'd done it, of course).
I know. At the time CJ was under arrest and didn't get released until 1st January. It would be interesting to know what day he actually called this summit. I'm wondering if it was only after CJ was released. TM's brother was proclaiming on Twitter on 31st December he was 100% sure CJ would be charged which leads me to think perhaps VT didn't call this summit until after CJ was released. I'm guessing of course but why would you announce you were under suspicion while someone else has been arrested? You'd at least wait to see what happened with the one under arrest first wouldn't you...or I would anyway.
"Under suspicion" seems an odd phrase to use, if it has been reported accurately.
It would be a complete nightmare if he was innocent. Personally, I would have to be dragged into court sceaming my innocence to everyone in the vicinity. I would not care at all about the consequences, even the Judiciary would get an ear bashing, or worse if they said anything to the contrary.
I swear, I would have to be ankle chained or I would be out of there at the first opportunity
:woohoo: