GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #15

[Neurotripsy]

The other day I had a look at the CCTV pictures of him in ASDA to see if he was wearing gloves. I concluded that he was. (If I am wrong and have misread the image, someone here will tell me, I hope.)

He seems to have a nervous tic of wiping his face so you can see his hands clearly, in the ASDA footage they're definitely bare: [video=youtube;NvxLNSq0Dvo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvxLNSq0Dvo[/video]

 

[bijoux]

Seems NL is trying to stir up some sexual innuendo. Many of us has thought sexual motive from the get go, which brings me to my own questions: does VT experience sexual dysfunction, has he ever been suspected or charged with a sexual offense, erm...does TM have any tales to tell, or does the lost sock have a whisper or two?
*lucky for VT there no evidence of sexual assault*

 

[Frodo]

So if he really loved TM why come on to JY?

IMO I believe the text could also be interpreted as also being sarcastic.

I find that odd for a person of sound mind.

I know we can assume that some men would try it on after ten minutes, but a man in a long term relationship who had previously never had a girlfriend? Hardly cocky lethario material is he? Another example of the facts not matching up to the picture he paints.

 

[kINGFISHER]

He seems to have a nervous tic of wiping his face so you can see his hands clearly, in the ASDA footage they're definitely bare: [Video]

Subconsciously trying to hide his face maybe, knowing the camera is there.

 

[Neurotripsy]

Seems NL is trying to stir up some sexual innuendo. Many of us has thought sexual motive from the get go, which brings me to my own questions: does VT experience sexual dysfunction, has he ever been suspected or charged with a sexual offense, erm...does TM have any tales to tell, or does the lost sock have a whisper or two?
*lucky for VT there no evidence of sexual assault*

I don't see why he would've Googled for sexual assault unless he had actually done something and wanted to check if it "counted" as assault...

 

[Sammyme]

Possibly another lie because did they or did they not find his prints in her flat?

If they didn't find any prints, he probably methodically cleaned up, which does not show that he was particularly 'shocked' and 'couldn't remember', 'couldn't think', as he is claiming.

There's a lot we don't know about what they did find in the flat. We know carpets were taken away for instance but not whether they found anything on them. Similarly with the door. The prosecution must have formed some sort of picture of what happened that night and where the attack, struggle and killing is most likely to have taken place in the flat. Maybe more clues as to that will emerge during the cross examination.

Of course, Greg was there in the meanwhile and touched things, picked up things, tidying up as we went about the flat looking for clues as to where Joanna went and what she might have been wearing. So that muddied things re the condition of the flat. But still, I would have thought Greg would have been grilled about it and able to describe it in detail to the prosecution.

 

[FiestyFairy]

Many believe that VT was in Waitrose . The footage has been shown to the jury and withdrawn from the public.
His account of events don't add up .
He said that had not gone out until after nine o'clock yet that cctv in Waitrose 8.10 pm shows a different picture .
If he can lie about this he can lie about anything.

Just maybe this evidence will be used by the defence and if the jury has seen this coverage and more convincing images on CCTV then I don't see how they can dismiss it.

There is NO prosecution evidence he was in Waitrose

 

[Luna15]

Tabak said he thought he left his flat 'within minutes' after sending Miss Morson a text message at 9.25pm saying: 'Missing you loads. It's boring here without you. Vxx'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bak-apologises-Jos-parents.html#ixzz1bKBzqZHU

so his timeline has her screaming after the witnesses had heard two screams... why is he making the timeline later?

the more I discect what he is claiming - the more I firmly believe he was in the flat 'snooping'

 

[Sammyme]

He seems to have a nervous tic of wiping his face so you can see his hands clearly, in the ASDA footage they're definitely bare: [Video]

I agree with you that when he is at the shop entrance / exit, his hands are clearly bare - also puts up a bare hand in the shop. Not sure now where I saw something that made me think of gloves. Possibly an image at about 29 to 30 seconds which I saw as what appeared to be gloved hands.

 

[masekwm]

Luna - The later time is with body.

 

[masekwm]

I don't see why he would've Googled for sexual assault unless he had actually done something and wanted to check if it "counted" as assault...

Possibly to find out if trying it on was counted in the legal definition of what he read in the media.

 

[Luna15]

Luna - The later time is with body.

I think I am right in saying that he say's he decided to go to Asda and left shortly after he sent TM the text

SWNS: Tabak can't say when he left to go to Asda. Thinks he sent a text telling Tanja he was "bored" at 9.25 before he left

It was on his way to Asda that the 'incident' happened.... perhaps others can confirm I am not losing the plot

 

[bos]

Luna - The later time is with body.

No, he puts the time he originally left his flat to go to Asda(before becoming waylaid) at 9.25pm

ETA I agree with Luna

 

[veggiefan]

Tabak said he thought he left his flat 'within minutes' after sending Miss Morson a text message at 9.25pm saying: 'Missing you loads. It's boring here without you. Vxx'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bak-apologises-Jos-parents.html#ixzz1bKBzqZHU

so his timeline has her screaming after the witnesses had heard two screams... why is he making the timeline later?

The defence have already called into question the timeline proposed by the prosecution, and they dispute that the screams heard are relevant to this case.

the more I discect what he is claiming - the more I firmly believe he was in the flat 'snooping'

You need proof, though ... just a "belief" is no good in court. :innocent:

 

[masekwm]

Oh, sorry correct 9.25, just re read the timeline.

 

[SynthSparkles]

@kirstygardner

Tabak is being shown a picture of the narrow kitchen where he says Jo Yeates was killed. asked where in the room he was. Can't remember.

He says it definitely all happened in the kitchen. Pros asks if they struggled in the bedroom where her earrings were found. No

Tabak is being shown a picture of Jo's injured nose. He doesn't know if he caused injuries. Doesnt know if he caused chin bruises

@jonkay01

He "can't remember" where he was standing in the kitchen when he went to kiss her or where he held her throat.

Tabak holds his hands out - to show the jury how he covered Jo Yeates's mouth and neck.

Tabak denies he attacked Jo in her bedroom. He said it was all in the kitchen - "that is where I made my move, my pass"

Vincent Tabak is now being shown graphic images of injuries to Jo's body. He "doesn't know" if he caused the injuries he is shown.

There is a TV screen on the witness stand in front of Vincent Tabak. He appears distressed as he is shown the images of injuries.

 

[Luna15]

The defence have already called into question the timeline proposed by the prosecution, and they dispute that the screams heard are relevant to this case.



You need proof, though ... just a "belief" is no good in court. :innocent:

but they seem to be going for the 'sexual' intention - what 'proof' have they got of that? ... the only thing I can think that will really work in their favour for that is his incriminating internet searches...

anybody have any ideas as to why they want the incident happening later?

 

[Neurotripsy]

rupertevelyn

Lickely was there any struggling in the bedroom. No says VT

VT being shown some of the injuries on Jo's body

Pros says you caused that abrasion to that young woman's face 'i dunno' says VT

you caused those injuires Mr Tabak as part of this incident? 'i dunno'

those marks beneath her chin caused by you VT? 'i dunno'. you do know says lickley qc

these are all injuires caused in life Mr Tabak and they were caused by you? 'i dunno'

there was a struggle Vincent Tabak was there not? 'i can't remember' can't remember or won't? 'can't remember'

VT saying he's trying to visualise what happened. Been asked if he's trying to shut it out of his mind. replies 'i dunno'

are those the marks made by your fingertips on the back of her neck? 'i dunno'

there's no doubt you wanted to hurt her? 'i didn't want to hurt her, didn't want her to die, didn't want to cause any harm'

mark on wrist caused by you? 'i dunno'

 

[SynthSparkles]

@kirstygardner

He is shown a bruise by her eyebrow and graze marks. Doesn't know what caused them. There was a struggle? Can't remember.

Standing in the witness box staring at all the images Tabak repeatedly says he doesn't know how they happened.


@rupertevelyn

there was a struggle Vincent Tabak was there not? 'i can't remember' can't remember or won't? 'can't remember'

VT saying he's trying to visualise what happened. Been asked if he's trying to shut it out of his mind. replies 'i dunno'

are those the marks made by your fingertips on the back of her neck? 'i dunno'

there's no doubt you wanted to hurt her? 'i didn't want to hurt her, didn't want her to die, didn't want to cause any harm'

mark on wrist caused by you? 'i dunno'



@jonkay01

He is shown bruises and abrasions - but he repeatedly says he "can't remember" what happened..

VT has covered his mouth and is breathing deeply as he is shown more images. He answers "I don't know" again and again.

But he insists he "did not intend to hurt" Jo.

 

[kINGFISHER]

There is NO prosecution evidence he was in Waitrose

So if as many of us believe Tabak was there, why no prosecution evidence on this. Because the prosecution are not adding this as evidence, does this mean he was not there. There are too many events on this website that we are all disputing that don't tally up to the statements, many things omitted and lies as many of us think. So I have no doubt that this information could just as well have been omitted. It will be down to the jury and others to know if Tabak was there or not. The image is too convincing for it not to be him imo, so yes why is this evidence not being used and if so why is he lying about not going out before nine o'clock .There may well be other footage of him that we don't know about.