The Defence Will State Their Case

[APRIL]

To this day nobody really knows why Tabak killed Miss Yeates.  Aside from Vincent Tabak, that is"

WOW.... That deserves a WOW

OMG.... So the trial was tripe, the defence was tripe and the prosecution was tripe....

How therefore can anyone accept the story on the stand if Clegg himself didn't believe the story? Hadn't he got Dr Vincent Tabak to sign something in September 2011, according to leonora's checks...

So the apparent Sex video's were irrelevant, the porn they tried to use after the trial to bolster up said trial result, making the public feel they had indeed netted a monster..

The prostitutes etc, they claimed in the media, he had used... all irrelevant, ...

So why has the law accepted Dr Vincent Tabak's story on the stand, if there wasn't a motive for such an act...

Not only that, but the time of death has been established by Dr Vincent Tabak's tale on the stand, they have no idea, when Joanna yeates died....  Could have been anytime that weekend..

And everyone says I'm mad.....

That mad.... It's bonkers.....

Where's the Evidence!!

How, on God's earth, do you conclude that when the last sentence affirms  "To this day nobody really knows why TABAK KILLED MISS YEATES. Aside from Vincent Tabac, that is"?

[Real justice]

To this day nobody really knows why Tabak killed Miss Yeates.  Aside from Vincent Tabak, that is"

WOW.... That deserves a WOW

OMG.... So the trial was tripe, the defence was tripe and the prosecution was tripe....

How therefore can anyone accept the story on the stand if Clegg himself didn't believe the story? Hadn't he got Dr Vincent Tabak to sign something in September 2011, according to leonora's checks...

So the apparent Sex video's were irrelevant, the porn they tried to use after the trial to bolster up said trial result, making the public feel they had indeed netted a monster..

The prostitutes etc, they claimed in the media, he had used... all irrelevant, ...

So why has the law accepted Dr Vincent Tabak's story on the stand, if there wasn't a motive for such an act...

Not only that, but the time of death has been established by Dr Vincent Tabak's tale on the stand, they have no idea, when Joanna yeates died....  Could have been anytime that weekend..

And everyone says I'm mad.....

That mad.... It's bonkers.....

Where's the Evidence!!

Your asking the “HOW LONG’S A PIECE OF STRING” question, there’s only Tabak will fully know the answer, just like there’s only you who knows the answer to  why you defend a perverted killer.

[Holly Goodhead]

To this day nobody really knows why Tabak killed Miss Yeates.  Aside from Vincent Tabak, that is"

WOW.... That deserves a WOW

OMG.... So the trial was tripe, the defence was tripe and the prosecution was tripe....

How therefore can anyone accept the story on the stand if Clegg himself didn't believe the story? Hadn't he got Dr Vincent Tabak to sign something in September 2011, according to leonora's checks...

So the apparent Sex video's were irrelevant, the porn they tried to use after the trial to bolster up said trial result, making the public feel they had indeed netted a monster..

The prostitutes etc, they claimed in the media, he had used... all irrelevant, ...

So why has the law accepted Dr Vincent Tabak's story on the stand, if there wasn't a motive for such an act...

Not only that, but the time of death has been established by Dr Vincent Tabak's tale on the stand, they have no idea, when Joanna yeates died....  Could have been anytime that weekend..

And everyone says I'm mad.....

That mad.... It's bonkers.....

Where's the Evidence!!

Wow what?

Since you have such an interest in this case I would recommend that you read the book or at least the chapter dedicated to this case. 

The trial was about Tabak's manslaugther plea.  He claimed JY invited him into her flat and once inside he interpreted her actions as an invitation to make a pass at her which he did.  He claims she then started screaming and in a panic and attempt to stop her screaming he put his hands around her neck without intending to cause her any harm but to his disbelief, she died.

The only reason jurors did not get to hear about Tabak's "very extensive collection of extreme and violent pornography" and contacting prostitutes in the US is that WC QC asked the trial judge, pre-trial obviously, to exclude all this evidence and it was ruled inadmissible.  However WC QC did not succeed in excluding Tabak's internet searches as to how long a body takes to decompose and the offence of manslaughter, searches he carried out post killing pre arrest.

All concerned, including Tabak, agree he killed JY.  The trial was about whether he intended to kill JY as the prosecution claimed or whether Tabak killed JY accidentally ie manslaugher as Tabak's defence argued.  Jurors decided it was murder with intent.

[jixy]

To this day nobody really knows why Tabak killed Miss Yeates.  Aside from Vincent Tabak, that is"

WOW.... That deserves a WOW

OMG.... So the trial was tripe, the defence was tripe and the prosecution was tripe....

How therefore can anyone accept the story on the stand if Clegg himself didn't believe the story? Hadn't he got Dr Vincent Tabak to sign something in September 2011, according to leonora's checks...

So the apparent Sex video's were irrelevant, the porn they tried to use after the trial to bolster up said trial result, making the public feel they had indeed netted a monster..

The prostitutes etc, they claimed in the media, he had used... all irrelevant, ...

So why has the law accepted Dr Vincent Tabak's story on the stand, if there wasn't a motive for such an act...

Not only that, but the time of death has been established by Dr Vincent Tabak's tale on the stand, they have no idea, when Joanna yeates died....  Could have been anytime that weekend..

And everyone says I'm mad.....

That mad.... It's bonkers.....

Where's the Evidence!!

all irrelevant to someone who insists on calling him Dr Vincent Tabak the placid dutch man. It is all very relevant to explaining what a type of person can take a young woman's life so easily

[mrswah]

Actually, the term "placid" came from DCI Phil Jones-----in the Judge Rinder programme, I think (although I'm writing this in a hurry, so could be wrong)

I have read the chapter in "Under the Wig" and have posted about it previously.  IF we are to believe what Mr Clegg says (and he makes some inaccurate statements in his account), he genuinely believed that  manslaughter  was credible.  He doesn't go with the "sex" motive.


"The prosecution maintained that he had strangled her for sexual gratification, but this was purely theoretical. There was nothing in his past to indicate any predilection for that sort of conduct. He had no criminal record at all."


P 246 "Under the Wig"

[jixy]

Actually, the term "placid" came from DCI Phil Jones-----in the Judge Rinder programme, I think (although I'm writing this in a hurry, so could be wrong)

And over used on this forum as a reference to Tabak and his innocence! We no more have confirmation that he was ever in fact 'placid' than his lack of previous criminal record enables us to say that he didnt commit the crime for any kind of sexual gratification.

People have many faces and obviously despite the lack of a record he liked to look at porn. That DOES NOT match the face he presented at work etc but then why would it?

People keep their dark side hidden doesnt mean it isnt there.

In a very short time he killed an innocent woman, his preferences came to light afterwards and they are as real as the crime of taking a life

Not to mention when you are sat in a Police interview fighting for you own life, hoping and praying you can get away with manslaughter and not murder, you are hardly going to present yourself ranting and raving are you!

[Real justice]

Actually, the term "placid" came from DCI Phil Jones-----in the Judge Rinder programme, I think (although I'm writing this in a hurry, so could be wrong)

I have read the chapter in "Under the Wig" and have posted about it previously.  IF we are to believe what Mr Clegg says (and he makes some inaccurate statements in his account), he genuinely believed that  manslaughter  was credible.  He doesn't go with the "sex" motive.


"The prosecution maintained that he had strangled her for sexual gratification, but this was purely theoretical. There was nothing in his past to indicate any predilection for that sort of conduct. He had no criminal record at all."


P 246 "Under the Wig"

Nothing in his past, he used to watch snuff videos, if you think that’s normal, ask Nathan Mathews what he watched before killing poor Becky Watts, ask Jamie Reynolds what he watched before killing poor Georgia Williams, ask Mark Bridger what he watched before killing poor little April Jones, ask Stuart Hazel what he watched before killing poor Tia Sharp.
Most disturbingly, in all the cases mentioned, there is an undeniable similarity between the videos viewed by the offenders and their crimes.  However Liberal you want to be, people who watch these banned videos pose a serious risk not only to our society, but to the poor victims forced into this slavery.

[Holly Goodhead]

Actually, the term "placid" came from DCI Phil Jones-----in the Judge Rinder programme, I think (although I'm writing this in a hurry, so could be wrong)

I have read the chapter in "Under the Wig" and have posted about it previously.  IF we are to believe what Mr Clegg says (and he makes some inaccurate statements in his account), he genuinely believed that  manslaughter  was credible.  He doesn't go with the "sex" motive.


"The prosecution maintained that he had strangled her for sexual gratification, but this was purely theoretical. There was nothing in his past to indicate any predilection for that sort of conduct. He had no criminal record at all."


P 246 "Under the Wig"

What aspects of his account do you believe to be inaccurate?

[Nicholas]

Actually, the term "placid" came from DCI Phil Jones-----in the Judge Rinder programme, I think (although I'm writing this in a hurry, so could be wrong)

I have read the chapter in "Under the Wig" and have posted about it previously.  IF we are to believe what Mr Clegg says (and he makes some inaccurate statements in his account), he genuinely believed that  manslaughter  was credible.  He doesn't go with the "sex" motive.


"The prosecution maintained that he had strangled her for sexual gratification, but this was purely theoretical. There was nothing in his past to indicate any predilection for that sort of conduct. He had no criminal record at all."


P 246 "Under the Wig"

William Clegg QC also made inaccurate statements in the Barry George case.

[mrswah]

What aspects of his account do you believe to be inaccurate?

Minor things, for example, he says that the police found "two bottles of cider in the flat, one of which had been partially drunk".  They didnt:  it was Greg Reardon who found the partially drunk bottle, and who (by his own admission) finished it.

"By the time Mr Reardon returned to their flat on 19th December, he was already worried".   

"Detectives spoke to several witnesses, including the local vicar, who said that they had seen Miss Yeates walking home alone."   As far as I am aware, the priest was the only witness who said he had seen Joanna walking home, and, since he did not know her, he can't have been absolutely sure it was her.


So, nothing particularly vital, just answering your question!

[mrswah]

Nothing in his past, he used to watch snuff videos, if you think that’s normal, ask Nathan Mathews what he watched before killing poor Becky Watts, ask Jamie Reynolds what he watched before killing poor Georgia Williams, ask Mark Bridger what he watched before killing poor little April Jones, ask Stuart Hazel what he watched before killing poor Tia Sharp.
Most disturbingly, in all the cases mentioned, there is an undeniable similarity between the videos viewed by the offenders and their crimes.  However Liberal you want to be, people who watch these banned videos pose a serious risk not only to our society, but to the poor victims forced into this slavery.

Was merely quoting from "Under the Wig" !!

[[...]]

Greg Reardon, uses the name Greg Beardon on Facebook.. Looking at Darragh's Friends list, he is not listed, yet they obviously converse on facebook... Theses posts from 31st January 2011, show they do converse..

Darragh Harry Bellew:
31 January 2011 ·
Wolf People in the Cooler Bristol, Feb 14th. Rock and Roll here we come

Replies;

Greg Beardon:
Sounds pretty good. My mate Cronky might be up for it too, although were both going to the NME tour the day after.

Greg Beardon:
Ha just noticed the day... Might just be you and me!

Darragh Harry Bellew: they are supposed to be amazing live. i defo want to see them

31st January 2011, Joanna Yeates has not been buried yet, her family and her boyfriend, have not had the chance to say good bye and mourn the life that was Joanna Yeates.

Interesting to see Greg's reaction to Darragh's offer of a night/day out at a gig..

Sounds pretty good. My mate Cronky might be up for it too, although were both going to the NME tour the day after.

He sounds upbeat, and as we can see he's busy on the 15th February 2011 also because he and his mate have a NME tour to go to on that date..

Greg Beardon Ha just noticed the day... Might just be you and me!

Again jovial Greg is joking about the date that Darragh has given for the gig in Bristol, that being the 14th February 2011.. Greg doesn't fail to notice the date and Jokes about it being just he and Darragh, as Valentines day couple do their own thing....

Ironic?? Is he having a giggle...
You have no idea what is going on at this moment in time.. Where the Police are with the investigation, whether or not another autopsy will take place, when and where your girlfriend will be buried....

He appears to have got over that rather quickly, gigs booked up , but it obviously hasn't phased him.. He appears to be quite a jolly little chappie..(imo)

How did he know that time would be clear to go to a gig or two?  That preparations would not be needed around that time?

Joanna Yeates as we were told in the media, was buried on the 11th February 2011..

It has been said that I am insensitive...
Yes people grieve in different ways, But I find it strange, that on a public forum Greg should be happy to joke about being able to go to a gig or two, with his mates, and finds it ok to joke about valentines day...

Yes, we know he is single at that time, due to the murder of his girlfriend... But that appears not to bother him..(imo)

Why would you write that on a public forum? Did he not believe anyone would see it?

31st January 2011 that is:

* 17th December 2010 = 46 days from Missing

* 20th December 2010 = 43 days from reporting his girlfriend Missing

* 25th December 2010 = 38 days from being found dead

* 28th December 2010 = 35 days = Day Police announce Joanna yeates was Murdered

* 29th December 2010 = 34 days The day it was in the press that Greg was a Witness and not a suspect

* 30th December 2010 = 31 days CJ arrested

* 1st January 2011 = 30 days CJ released on bail

* 4th January 2011 = 29 days  Facebook advert

* 5th January 2011 = 28 days Missing sock appeal

* 18th January 2010 = 13 days parents appeal for the killer

* 20th January 2011 = 11 days Dr Vincent Tabak arrested

* 22nd January 2011 = 9 days Dr Vincent Tabak charged

* 25 January 2010 = 6 day Dr Vincent Tabak appears in court

* 31 January 2011 = 0 days Dr Vincent Tabak preliminary hearing

Nothing on this date is really set in stone, a day when I would not expect a boyfriend to be jolly sorting out his social life on a public forum..

In 46 days from his girlfriend being Missing to a being found dead, a high profile case, and Greg appears unbothered, he appears he has not got a care in the world, he appears jolly....

Not one word about his girlfriend Joanna Yeates...

[[...]]

All the charity events at that time... Greg did many Charity events, so did darragh..

Darragh Harry Bellew
24 August 2011 ·
Ladies and gentlemen. Myself and the lads listed above will be partaking in the brisol half marathon and we are running for a very just cause. www.missingpeople.org.uk.

Please click on the links in this message to find out more about the great work these people do.

Please visit www.missingpeople.org.uk

Many thanks to all x

Darragh Harry Bellew
24 August 2011 ·
Here is the link again just incase you missed it.
JUSTGIVING.COM
Nick, Rob, Gav, Darragh, Greg, Greg, Pete and Elliott get tired for charity

Darragh Harry Bellew
24 August 2011 ·
Here is the link again just incase you missed it.
JUSTGIVING.COM
Nick, Rob, Gav, Darragh, Greg, Greg, Pete and Elliott get tired for charity
Please visit www.missingpeople.org.uk


THANK YOU!

https://www.justgiving.com/fundraising/greg-reardon?fbclid=IwAR3ChOyYo7-2lbmbPAvdx-zLTQ7M-X1Yx4yCK3baUwTFjYgG56z5JcF7YhY

Greg Reardon
M GBR
BIB
15752

MIKM
TIME RUN
2:22:51
PACE MIN/MI
10:54

https://www.athlinks.com/event/34543/results/Event/164649/Course/226043/Bib/15752

The odd thing is the date of birth... Well I think it's the date of birth

1st January 1970 ?

That date appears on his finishers certificate.. image attached

So an extremely fit young man, who may be older than we have been told, I cannot say, but an impressive time in that half marathon..

Shame they didn't give Joanna Yeates a little mention....

Obviously Darragh and Greg are good friends, doing events together and attending gigs etc... 

That's my problem really... I think an independent person at The Ram on Friday 17th December 2010 appearing at the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak in October 2011, would have been a better proposition (imo).

There are many people at The table in The Ram on the 17th December 2010, so many whom could have been at trial... But we just have Darragh Bellew as a witness for what Joanna Yeates did that evening,... So I suppose in reality he was the last person to see her, seeing as the vicar who wouldn't have known Joanna Yeates cannot be relied upon for his witness testimony..

My next problem, is the communication between Darragh and Greg.. Witness's or potential witness's talking to each other.. We can see they both communicated from these facebook posts,...

Wouldn't it have been better if an independent witness came to trial whom had seen Joanna Yeates at The Ram that evening, rather than a friend of her boyfriends.

Just a thought..

[Real justice]

I'm surprised at his time, looking at his Marathon pictures he doesn't look that fit..  Or dressed for the event, but, what do I know..

https://www.marathon-photos.com/scripts/photo.py?template=MPX2&event=Sports/CPUK/2011/Bristol%20Half%20Marathon&photo=CLJT0345&bib=15752

So here we have Billy, pretending he only finds things by accident, poor me I’m Confused.com, when all along he has an agenda.  He’s snooping at Facebook pages of the innocent, he’s searching for every scrap of information about poor Joanna’s friends.  For what?


This is what Billy keeps saying

“I just find this things by accident, I am unsure of all of this that is al”.

Everytime He’s outed, he plays the victim, poor me, I’m confused, I don’t know what’s real ect

 

[Caroline]

So here we have Billy, pretending he only finds things by accident, poor me I’m Confused.com, when all along he has an agenda.  He’s snooping at Facebook pages of the innocent, he’s searching for every scrap of information about poor Joanna’s friends.  For what?


This is what Billy keeps saying

“I just find this things by accident, I am unsure of all of this that is al”.

Everytime He’s outed, he plays the victim, poor me, I’m confused, I don’t know what’s real ect

 

There are also certain insinuations in Billy's posts that I find uncomfortable!