it's only people who are really really inadequate/never-had-meaningful-relationships who take the "she rejected me now i must kill her" path.
Unless suspect has some really unusual psychology (personality-disorder is the catch-all term for people who do the inexplicable stuff)
it's so hard to see how the offence came about - would require that he had "had his eye on her" for a while , i.e. a stalking scenario

Come on then fackwits [smiley:crazy]

start the list

who said the boyfriend was guilty ?

who said the landlord was guilty ?

who said the parents were guilty ?

who said one of the above, then changed to another one of the above ?

Hope you're right Clouseau and that would be very very good policing.
Had they done that he would have been charged within hours of being arrested.
No need for extensions etc...

Lack of conclusive DNA evidence would mean that the fact the sock and pizza box were in Tabak's flat (if they indeed were) would be quite damning but not 100% as there might be several people with keys such as former tenants, landlord (not neccessarily same landlord as Jo's flat), girlfriend etc.

But police needed to nail someone with the items directly.

He might have gone in there a few times and not touched anything, just to see if he got challenged. When he thought he was OK he removed the items and dumped them somewhere without telling police (although police knew because he was being tracked).

They then have him and the items directly linked.

Noone escape the long arm of the law. Noone.

Are you sure this fella isn't Mark Webster? I reckon he did pretty well to beat the Power at Ally Pally with this hanging over him.

CCTV footage of "car" going over Clifton Bridge could be a taxi. Driver/owner supposedly interviewed early doors and elimikated as suspect.

Passenger might have been carrying a big suitcase.

Reports in NoTW that sock was used to "clean" the scene.

free the dutch one. It was the BF!!!!

On the local BBC news tonight it said the Crimewatch reconstruction film is still due to be
shown on Wednesday evening.

Are you seriously suggesting that this bloke may have got in a taxi with a massive suitcase containing a body and asked a taxi driver to drop him off, when he then proceeded to dump the body?

Yeah, I can imagine him doing a clean and jerk, veins bulging, to get the suitcase in the car/boot and the taxi driver thinking that it was completely normal.

"Going on holiday, mate?"
"Yeah"
"Where to? Europe? America?"
Just across the bridge, fancy a change of scenery for a couple of weeks"
"Give you a hand with your bag?"
"NO, FECK OFF"

Tabak - 'Dwelt,held up in rear,progress into mid div halfway,came wide,quickened to lead on line'.

Anyone know anything about car insurance?

If you lend your car to someone aren't you supposed to tell the insurance company? named driver etc?

If I was trying to move a dead body on the quiet and I didn't have a car I certainly wouldn't want to be making a fuss and giving out my name and address etc.

the suspect is someone who has built themselves a whole "professional" life , albeit in a BS discipline (people flow analysis) - and then he goes and does something that just blows all that previous hard-work and dedication out of the water?  This does'nt add up to me : every killer I've heard of has been a loser of some kind, either a full-on crazy-haired drug abuser with a history of being unable to form meaningful relationships or businessman-failure who's life is falling apart while he struggles to maintain front of normalcy
Of course, it can still be that VT did it and that he just does'nt fall into the usual categories


This is usually true, but not always. Harold Shipman springs to mind. A well respected doctor.

Very Dubious IMO if that Crimewatch thing is still going ahead with a suspect charged.

I recall they did this once before in a murder case , everyone watching knowing who had been charged , and they ended up with a woman coming forward who lived in the general area of the crime, saying she had seen the guy in the vicinty of the crime scene at a particular time. The Police took her seriously but it then became apparent that if she had been telling the truth the suspect would have an Alibi from what she said. The Police then said she must be lying (or their case would fall apart) and she was was called by the Defence.

Eventually i think she broke down in tears in the witness box and admitted she had made the whole thing up, because she 'knew' the bloke was the murderer from what she'd heard about him in the papers and wanted to make sure he was convicted . Of course she was unaware of the precise timings of the crime and so by placing him near the scene at a point where he could prove he was elsewhere almost got him off. He was guilty it turned out.

I think at best the response they will get will consist of a lot of people who vaguely knew Tabak coming forward with stuff he supposedly said to put him in a bad light.

Only sure fire conclusion i can come to after reading through this monster of a thread is that the posters "1st time poster" and "Clouseau" would both have been arrested if they'd lived in the vicinity on the traditional police procedure of "arrest the local oddball/weirdo". Talk about an unhealthy interest

So, does this guy own a car, or not? If not, he couldn't have done it.

If he drives, but doesn't own a motor, then he could hire a van. Presumably there would be a record of this, which would nail him.

No need to own a car; could have borrowed one. Maybe the recent phone call from the 'sobbing woman' was something to do with this?