GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #12

[naturally suspicious]

May I ask, Deckard, what you would do if you were alone in a rented flat, where you had been for only a short time, and saw a peephole camera?

(I am here assuming you are male?)..

Whichever gender you are the discovery is still frightening...

 

[Cherwell]

OK, if it was obviously a camera I would casually let a towel fall over it so it would not record anything. If I was alone and knew it had no legitimate purpose, I might consider calling the police. What I most certainly would NOT do is confront anyone.

 

[Deckard]

Yes I am male. Quite honestly I'd be freaked out.

I am sure if the neighbour in question was 6'4" banging his door down perhaps wouldn't be number one on the list :crazy:

A widowed neighbour's house alarm went off at midnight recently and I went out full of bravado marching around outside her ground floor with all her curtains drawn and no sign of lights on. If I had met a couple of perps coming out with a knife or two the bluff might have left me!

Fortunately she came out in her dressing gown wondering what all the fuss was about. I changed the fuse in the alarm to turn the trip off and everybody got a good nights sleep.

 

[whiterum]

I would ask any ladies reading what would be your genuine reaction to finding a covert camera in your bathroom.

Would you seek to confront the neighbour immediately?

Would you immediately call your SO and demand they come home?

Some other course of action?

I would pretend I didn't see it :bath: and then calmly leave the bathroom, making sure my *advertiser censored* was in the frame. Then I would calmly call the cops so the peeping tom would be caught unawares with the goods ( or not so goods) before they could dismantle anything.

 

[whiterum]

This young university student has just ruined his life

Peeping tom Edward Macey will now be listed on the Sex Offenders Register for five years and have to carry out 150 hours of unpaid work after pleading guilty to three counts of voyeurism and one of attempted voyeurism. The 22-year-old, rigged up a camera in a bathroom cabinet in his shared house in the city and downloaded the videos onto his laptop.

http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/news/Student-placed-camera-film-friends-naked/article-2905990-detail/article.html

 

[Colombo]

I would pretend I didn't see it :bath: and then calmly leave the bathroom, making sure my *advertiser censored* was in the frame. Then I would calmly call the cops so the peeping tom would be caught unawares with the goods ( or not so goods) before they could dismantle anything.

all this spy gadget talk is great for the plot of a film

but if one is talking theories

a better one if we follow the idea that she died in the flat is....

JY disturbs someone in her flat ,

someone who has access , who thinks she wont be coming home til later if at all, who does not want to lose face , who hides a secret, who needs to silence anyone who will tell that secret
who knows he has til Sunday to get rid of the body, who has access to the rear car park area, who has access to cars, who is known and trusted in the area, who has a reason to be seen putting luggage in the car,

 

[Deckard]

all this spy gadget talk is great for the plot of a film

but if one is talking theories

a better one if we follow the idea that she died in the flat is....

JY disturbs someone in her flat ,

someone who has access , who thinks she wont be coming home til later if at all, who does not want to lose face , who hides a secret, who needs to silence anyone who will tell that secret
who knows he has til Sunday to get rid of the body, who has access to the rear car park area, who has access to cars, who is known and trusted in the area, who has a reason to be seen putting luggage in the car,

This is one of the main things that went through my head after I first saw CJ interviewed. The only problem I had was the timeline.

The guy with the keys has 9-5 Monday to Friday to play dress-up in Flat 2 to his heart's content. What was he looking for, the extra danger of someone interrupting him? That doesn't make sense imo.

The fact VT's bread and butter was using technology far in advance of wireless cameras shouldn't be so easily discounted. These cases started cropping up in the papers years ago when voyeurs were using VHS recorders in shared attics to record their neighbours in bed!

As whiterum has shown the data can be collected on a laptop nowadays from anywhere. VT had done his thesis on wireless tracking of individuals I believe. The police by all accounts were tearing up the floor boards at 44 Canynge Rd. Maybe they weren't only looking for an interim deposition location?

The whole premise for the covert camera was JY would need a reason to go around to a neighbour she really did not know. Why would she leave her cider partially drunk? What interrupted her? What would have annoyed her to that degree?

From the very sketchy reports of students and friends who knew VT well he was quiet and studious. Didn't do pubs or clubs. He doesn't come across as any sort of lothario to me. Someone who would approach JY on her turf to make an advance, not having talked to her before. If you are a voyeur you have control and contact on your terms with the added buzz of doing something forbidden.

JY's intuition not to seek out confrontation may have been clouded by her alcohol intake?

The partial saliva DNA found on the chest and stomach could be sexual or resuscitation. The DNA found on the jeans would be the perp fishing out the flat 2 keys to return the boots. When the boots are eventually returned he decides to dump the burnt pizza to cover his timeline as much as possible before the investigators get involved.

 

[notsure]

I would ask any ladies reading what would be your genuine reaction to finding a covert camera in your bathroom.

Would you seek to confront the neighbour immediately?

Would you immediately call your SO and demand they come home?

Some other course of action?

Regarding that scenario with the LL entrusting "somebody" with the key, there's the possibility that that person had a duplicate key made. I wonder if they have checked with local keymakers to see if they have any record of such a thing...

Back to the peephole camera. I've really got no idea what such a thing looks like and how easy to spot. If there had been one in the flat for some time, it's surprising that neither JY or her bf spotted it before. If I suddenly noticed one, I think my reaction would be shock, a rush of adrenalin, and if made brave by some alcohol, maybe I would decide to go and confront someone. It would have to be dealt with immediately, as nobody could continue living in a place where they were being spied upon.

So, she goes round, all guns blazing (she doesn't know he's home alone), and he tries to make her calm down. This doesn't work, so he panics. It's a matter of survival for him now: his or hers.

 

[whiterum]

=Colombo;6144606]all this spy gadget talk is great for the plot of a film

You never know Colombo, she could have came home and after a few minutes entered the bathroom/bedroom. Peeping Tom knew she was alone so was sitting ready for a good show. Sees JY noticing something strange and in the process peeping tom saw her about to investigate. He has to act quickly before she realises it could be a device and calls someone. He rushes around to her door. Who is it? Its me (peeping tom) from next door, a parcel for you. Does the deed, removes the evidence. The spy gadget theory is just as plausable as any.

 

[veggiefan]

With the LL away and a vacant flat 2 VT would have had ample opportunity to choose the perfect spot for a voyeur setup.

I think one would have to ask why he'd want to spy on the girl next door, given that his friends and family have said how happy he was in his relationship of nearly two years' standing with TM (one of his Dutch friends thought they were planning to marry).

Also, bearing in mind that he shared the flat with TM, he would be running a great risk that she would spot the wiring or (as in the case of the friend of the Bath voyeur) discover the evidence on his laptop.

 

[barriem]

Back to the peephole camera. I've really got no idea what such a thing looks like and how easy to spot. If there had been one in the flat for some time, it's surprising that neither JY or her bf spotted it before. If I suddenly noticed one, I think my reaction would be shock, a rush of adrenalin, and if made brave by some alcohol, maybe I would decide to go and confront someone. It would have to be dealt with immediately, as nobody could continue living in a place where they were being spied upon.

So, she goes round, all guns blazing (she doesn't know he's home alone), and he tries to make her calm down. This doesn't work, so he panics. It's a matter of survival for him now: his or hers.

As a woman myself, my first thought at this would not be to confront the person but to ring my bf to let him know about the camera, HOWEVER under the influence of alchohol i can quite imagine myself going round there all guns blazing! so i can understand how this theory might be possible.

 

[Distant Observer]

And it wouldn't explain why her head was bashed in with a blunt instrument.

I very much doubt that a police pathologist would be able to distinguish a blow to the head from a road accident victim hitting his/her head on the road/kerb and that caused by a blunt instrument, particularly when looking just at a skull.

To me Melanie Hall's death and disappearance is clearly someone covering up a fatal road accident. I could even imagine myself in similar circumstances considering reacting in the same way. On reflection, the perpetrator probably didn't wrap the body at the scene but maybe just lifted her into his car. If anyone had seen him at around 2 in the morning he would just have said that the girl had had too much to drink. Back home he would have taken her clothing off to remove any forensic evidence from fibre transfer when he lifted her and then wrapped the body with the bin bags and rope for disposal the next night when the slip road to the motorway would be deserted.

Callous and calculating but clearly it was effective as the perpetrator has not been found.

 

[naturally suspicious]

You never know Colombo, she could have came home and after a few minutes entered the bathroom/bedroom. Peeping Tom knew she was alone so was sitting ready for a good show. Sees JY noticing something strange and in the process peeping tom saw her about to investigate. He has to act quickly before she realises it could be a device and calls someone. He rushes around to her door. Who is it? Its me (peeping tom) from next door, a parcel for you. Does the deed, removes the evidence. The spy gadget theory is just as plausable as any.

only thing about that theory is....i thought these spy devices were extremely small...cd be placed on insects...therefore not much chance of being noticed...?

I agree with Colombo in thinking that maybe Jo disturbed a person already in the flat...????

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

With the LL away and a vacant flat 2 VT would have had ample opportunity to choose the perfect spot for a voyeur setup. Perhaps behind a wardrobe in bedroom 2 of flat 1 looking into JY's bathroom. (Sketch at bottom of page for ground floor plan http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-suspect-Vincent-Tabak-split-girlfriend.html).

Wireless cameras powered by rechargeable 9V batteries only last one to two hours at most so he would need a wired setup (thin cabled low voltage would do) accessible from his side of the partition wall. These can then send a signal to a tv or pvr for recording.**

Hi Deckard!

I posted this (#257 in this thread) a couple of weeks ago. Was recently at another site. Quoting my previous post:

----------------->

Hi all - Waving a huge white flag: I've not read the entire thread. Apologies if I repeat anything.

My theory - which is complete speculation, was posted on that same blog a few days ago. Perhaps Jo found a spy-camera in either her bathroom or bedroom. Perhaps when she arrived home that evening, she took off her coat and shoes - opened the cider for a few sips, considered the pizza for dinner and either went to change or went to the loo.

Something caught her eye or her attention, she looked up and spotted the camera; she rushes to her door and VT is knocking and is there already. She opens is (clearly wouldn't know who has the camera at that stage) and his only option is to silence Jo. The pizza somehow became caught up in all of this and it had to be removed for possible DNA evidence. He had an immense reputation at stake; he's a Phd Professional at a huge global company; is from an affluent and highly respected family ... the stakes of what he was up to was way too high a gamble for him.

The attack was, perhaps and IMHO, a rush to her flat by VT, based on extreme panic and fear of discovery and to get her before she could get away. I could think of absolutely NO other reason that a confident, happy, relaxed and cheerful lass we saw on cctv ... was cut down within minutes of arriving home! What on Earth could have been so dramatic or shocking or shameful that caused this lovely young woman's life to stolen from her in virtually nano-seconds after arriving home??

Whatever the reason, it had to have been huge. Mega. A simple pass would not necessarily lead to murder. Who had the most to lose, if such spying was indeed going on? I also believe the cops have the right man - and a great deal more evidence than is out there.

With her door open and VT grabbing her immediately - it indeed may have been Jo's cries of "help me!" that were heard before he muffled her (with the pizza? Was it the nearest object to the door?).

He's a people flow monitor! He watches and studies people for a living. He'd have access to understanding how to set something like this up. With bail abandoned - perhaps his QC could tell from the outset this was way too serious an offense to even apply for bail (and the reasons would get into the public arena). The shock and shame of realizing this would come out may be the reason behind Tabak was placed on suicide watch.

Above is indeed sheer speculation, hypothesis - my opinion - and VT is innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.

Take care, y'all.

Polk -----------/ ends

I've been thinking this way for a while. On the previous site I posted links to spyware. I think he was stalking Jo - she found out - he panicked...

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

Hi veggie fan. The "nicest" of people also become murderers, rapists, *advertiser censored*-addicts, drug lords, bigamists, conmen, fraudsters, paedos, stalkers, hitmen, gangsters. There's no demographic that precludes, includes or excludes anyone. Like AIDS - all are vulnerable. Why do people have these dark corners in their minds and lives? Heaven knows - but they exist.

Look at Dennis Radar - BTK killer. He was a highly respected, long-serving elder in his church;, a compliance officer for the city; a loving father and husband who stayed in same house for decades; he "watched and cared" over his neighbours for the city! He killed men women and children.

There is definitely a great deal more evidence we don't know about. No-one gets booked on flimsy, vague and improbable evidential results. Certainly not in a murder case of this high profile. He may have simply wanted to "spy on the girl next door..." ... because he could. That simple. He's an expert in watching people - it's his career. Add engineering and architectural degrees into the mix - he's very able to set up the most intricate, pin-head sized, undetected equipment. Trust me, it's possible.

I think one would have to ask why he'd want to spy on the girl next door, given that his friends and family have said how happy he was in his relationship of nearly two years' standing with TM (one of his Dutch friends thought they were planning to marry).

 

[whiterum]

Check this out. It seems that if you use the Public Loo, in Asda, Starbucks, or anywhere, you could find yourself being the star feature on some shady internet site. After reading this I'm holding it in until I get home.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Voyeurism-Number-Arrested-And-Charged-Doubles-In-Four-Years-Since-Sexual-Offences-Act-2004/Article/201001215517264?lpos=UK_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_7

 

[notsure]

Your scenario sounds convincing, PolkSaladAnnie, and explains the tricky problem of the motive. However, as you say in your post, VT had a huge reputation at stake. He couldn't take the risk of the LL or JY or GR finding such a device. If they did, it would be obvious who put it there.

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

Hi whiterum, indeed - if you remove the possibilities - you'll get probabilities. I've been posting this voyeurism theory at another site since early Feb. Was shot down in flames - however one or two posters agreed with me.

I later ventured that if the pizza was not used (in the struggle), then it would have been removed as forensics would have been able to tell "how long it had sat out" for.

Jo's sock may have been used as a glove to wipe away perp's DNA evidence and fingerprints - and then destroyed; never to be found. Discovering only Greg and Jo's fingerprints would have indicated the perp "cleaned up" - and left the flat in the same state as when Greg departed. That :state" may have been as Jo was planning to cook and clean up that weekend.

When Jo's parents saw "the state" of the flat - that "state" may have been clearly evident that no tidying was done since Friday night, no washing, no other items of Jo's clothes was missing (so she hadn't changed at all) - bringing the time-line confidence to Friday evening after the cctv footage and before Matt Williams sms response that he was at a Christmas Party.

Her mobile was scrutinized (we know this as Rebecca received an sms from police). All greg's unanswered calls would have been listed (his cell phone checked his alibi out - he was ruled out completely; is not a witness).

Jo discovered something atrociously shocking - she was silenced. Perhaps he thought with Jo alive - he would be behind bars, lost reputation, girlfriend, job, career, family shame, etc etc. He may have considered if he could get rid of jo "forever" - he at least stood a small chance. With Jo alive - NO CHANCE at all.

He's been moved 3 times; put on suicide watch ... bail abandoned. Why? Recall Ian Huntley? Exactly same events happened to him after his arrest. A&S interest peaked with:

Deceptive witness testimony and unsubstantiated alibi (by both of the accused).

 

[veggiefan]

Hi veggie fan. The "nicest" of people also become murderers ...

That is true, but I'm looking at the balance of probabilities. The majority of first-time murderers have a criminal record (most often for violence). Of the 32% who don't, there are often indicators in their past (such as Dennis Radar's propensity for torturing animals as a child) which were not thought significant at the time.

However, I agree that there are a minority of cases where a murder occurs "out of the blue", often as the result of a jealous rage. Again, on the balance of probabilities, I don't think VT's colleagues have suggested that he would fly into a rage, but of course it is possible.

No-one gets booked on flimsy, vague and improbable evidential results. Certainly not in a murder case of this high profile.

I'm afraid they do, hence the fact that in 60% of all serious crimes, the jury acquits the accused person. And, of course, out of the minority who are found guilty, some are later found to have been wrongly convicted.

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

Hi again, veggie!

Your scenario sounds convincing, PolkSaladAnnie, and explains the tricky problem of the motive. However, as you say in your post, VT had a huge reputation at stake. He couldn't take the risk of the LL or JY or GR finding such a device. If they did, it would be obvious who put it there.

I certainly believe the intention was for this never to be discovered; Jo may have discovered it by fluke ... perhaps he set it up for that weekend only? I also believe his actions toward Jo would be construed as "tampering with a witness" - hence held because if, if, the A&S police believe he could kill one witness - what might he do to others?

So, their message that women are "not safe" was directed at Tabak - unnerving him - letting HIM know ... THEY know ... what he's capable of.

He sat before the judge like a deer caught in the headlights: sombre, pale, scruffy - no objection whatsoever to his innocence. Quietly answered "yes, that is correct".. I'd scream my lungs out! To say "he's a nice lad - he wouldn't do that" is moot, in my book. Observing characteristics and reality is far more conclusive in my book - than clutching at whimsical "some one else did it" theories. There is no way British Justice go to these lengths due to clumsy evidence. Judges and magistrates wouldn't have it.

The above is my opinion ... he's innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.