The Defence Will State Their Case

[[...]]

Defence Counsel, Mr William Clegg, QC’s opening speech:
 ‘If Jo Yeates had stayed for just one more drink she would be alive today. If Vincent
Tabak had gone to Asda as he had planned that same time, he would not be in the dock
today.
She turned on the oven to bake.
She phoned several male friends and told how she was bored.
She texted Samuel Ashcroft:
“Where are you this fine eve?”
His reply was “Home- sorry”.
She then texted Peter: “Where are you?”
Peter replied “On my way to a wedding. Where are you?”
She replied: “At home- on my todd”.
She texted a third male friend.

This is from Clegg's opening speech.......

She phoned several male friends and told how she was bored.

Who did Joanna Yeates phone ????? 

According to Clegg she phoned several Male friends... And I do not think that is a mistake on Clegg's part... So who did Joanna Yeates phone????

Not only does Clegg talk of the people Joanna Yeates phoned that evening but also... In The Judge Rinder program.. DCI Phil Jones confirms that Joanna Yeates made Phone calls... as in plural, on her way home.. Now we only know of the phone call to Rebecca Scott... So where have they put the evidence of these 'Other Phone calls"???


DCI Phil Jones at: 18:01

And what was identified on the phone were people that she rang, during her journey on her way home, over the next half an hour, so there was some friends ,of hers, so clearly we made contact with them,To see whether she'd been with them after those telephone calls, if they had any information as to her whereabouts...

There is clearly evidence in this case that was omitted from trial... The only thing that keeps coming back to me is that  these people didn't appear in court... And the only reason for that would be she cannot have spoken to them..

DCI Phil Jones says people she Rang...... He doesn't say talked too..... So were there a string of phone calls from Joanna Yeates phones that didn't go anywhere?? Because as I have already said,... If these people had picked up the phone and talked to Joanna Yeates... They too would have been stood up in court... Or an account of their conversations would be part of the evidence as the text messages were...

But they were not... And no account was given....Which leads me to believe the phone calls were numbers rung and then the phone was put down... It's the only obvious conclusion to make....


http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4htq8y

[[...]]

When they say that the last person to see Joanna Yeates alive was The Priest???  How do we know that is true?

Normally you would have a last confirmed sighting... wouldn't you????

Father Henwood says he talked to a woman matching Joanna Yeates description, he could not be certain that it was Joanna Yeates, but I think they needed him at trial....  They needed someone to vaguely say that they saw Joanna Yeates that night, and so therefore he would be the last person to see, her....

Realistically The last person to see Joanna Yeates that evening that can be verified, is the guy standing next to her at the self service till in Tesco's.. He is there for all to see... and I am sure the police would have followed up who he was...

By jumping straight to Father Henwood, and avoiding the person who served her in "Bargain Booze or the man who was at the till next to Joanna Yeates in Tesco's.. We have avoided putting a proper time and date to anything....

The man in Tesco's ...should have noticed her stood next to him... especially as the CCTV footage has been played time and time again... Who's to say he didn't ring the Police and say something??? He even looks at Joanna Yeates as she goes to pay for her pizza....

Do The Police not normally say The Last Confirmed Sighting?? Well Father Henwoods sighting is not Confirmed

We have Robin Paine, forgetting that she served Joanna Yeates, and The Police telling her that Joanna Yeates came in there... The only way they'd know that is if they had a receipt, or someone else told them..

''I don't remember serving her and it was the Friday night before Christmas, between 8pm and 9pm and it is very, very busy,'' Ms Paine said.
''It was the night before all the students went home for Christmas and it was non-stop all night serving people.

Police confirm body is that of Joanna Yeates 26 Dec 2010
''I spoke to the detectives and I said I didn't remember serving her. They came and took away the CCTV because they said she had been in here.
''The police think she bought a small bottle of cider - I just don't remember.''
Ms Paine added: ''It's awful really, and unimaginable that someone can just disappear like that. It's really upsetting and I feel very very sorry for the family.''

.

So we are left with the man in Tesco's... who has never confirmed or denied that he saw Joanna Yeates purchasing a Pizza that evening...

So who is The man in Tesco's... Because I believe he is the last person who saw Joanna Yeates alive, other than the person who killed her.... (imo)


And another thing that has just sprung to mind... When they do the reconstruction of Joanna yeates in Tesco's... The man that was stood next to Joanna Yeates in the Tesco's CCTV Footage... Is strangely Missing!!!! How can "THAT" be a reconstruction"??

So what is it about "That Man In Tesco"s???????? Who is the man in Tesco's???? And why wasn't he at trial??

Edit Just added image of reconstruction.....

Double Edit... If Robin Paine doesn't remember serving Joanna Yeates, how can she know what time she was in Bargain Booze buying cider ?????

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8228350/Joanna-Yeates-murder-architect-stopped-at-shop-to-buy-alcohol-on-night-she-disappeared.html

[attachment deleted by admin]

[[...]]

3:47 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Defence asks why the use of the broom handle to attach the straps to move #Joannayeates' body was not in statement.
ReplyRetweetFavorite 

3:48 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney said he is confident the broom handle did not cause any injury #Joannayeates #Vincenttabak

At The Trial I cannot find where Dr Carey says he actually examined Joanna Yeates body... There was a Dr White

2:52 PM - 14 Oct 2011Twitter
juliareidsky
@juliareidsky
Dr Delaney did further examination on 31 Dec and observed another on Jan 17 by Dr White #Vincenttabak #Joannayeates

I was looking about Dr Carey and went back to these tweets....  Why didn't Dr White come to trial???
Did Dr Carey just look at the photographs of Joanna Yeates... What was the date of his examination???

Those first tweets I have done... Dr Delaney does a swerve... He doesn't answer the question....

Defence asks why the use of the broom handle to attach the straps to move #Joannayeates' body was not in statement.

I missed it before.. I thought photo's... But they are actually Missing from "The Statement" of Dr Delaneys... So were Broom Handles actually ever used??? Because I don't think they were....

Andrew Mott mentions The Broom Handles... But When Dr Delaney comes to the stand.... Clegg doesn't push him about the omission of The Broom handles from his statement....



What significance are these Broom handles ???

And does anyone know where it says the date that Dr Carey performed his examination of Joanna yeates ???


I have found this...

A post mortem examination was carried out last week on behalf of Vincent Tabak by a pathologist, Bristol Crown Court was told.

Michael Fitton QC, representing Tabak, told the preliminary hearing that Dr Nat Carey conducted the examination last Wednesday.

The Article is dated 31st January 2011... So last Wednesday would be 26th January 2011

Dr Vincent Tabak was Charged on Saturday 22nd January 2011... He doesn't appear in court until Monday the 24th January 2011... And by Wednesday Dr Carey is performing an examination on his behalf????

Dr Vincent Tabak hasn't even had chance to apply for bail...... No evidence has been collected to speak of.... So why on earth is Dr Carey performing an examination on Joanna Yeates as soon as the 26th January 2011??

"With his consent we have consented to the release of the body of the deceased," Mr Fitton told the court.

Why would Dr Vincent Tabak give consent to allow Joanna Yeates body released before he has even had time to work out whether he is on his arse or his elbow????? You would think he'd be asking for bail first!!!!

The weirder thing is this article.... On The Sunday 23rd January 2011....

Sunday 23 January 2011 14.33 GMT

The father of Joanna Yeates said today that her family was focusing on her funeral after a neighbour of the 25-year-old landscape architect was charged with her murder.

How can David Yeates even be talking about this before he even knew whether Dr Vincent Tabak would consent to Joanna yeates body being released , and he hadn't even heard of Dr Carey by this point I would imagine....

The time of the Article is 14:33pm... Dr Vincent Tabak was charged less than 24 hours prior.... How can they be talking funerals???

They don't know until Dr Vincent Tabak has arrived at court whether or not the evidence the Police have is strong enough... And with the rubbish they appear to have had it was not......

Had Paul Cook arrived as Dr Vincent Tabak's Lawyer at this point?? Or did he still have the duty solicitor...??
And another point... Why would Dr Vincent Tabak consent to anything when all he did was make "NO COMMENT!!!!

It's a 2 No Trump hand that they are playing there (imo)



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/joanna-yeates-body-released-to-family-2199445.html

http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Vincent_Tabak_Trial2

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jan/23/joanna-yeates-vincent-tabak-funeral

[[...]]

This does mean that one really hasn’t got a real clue as to when Tabak went into
Joanna’s flat except that it was between the time he went to Asda and the time he texted
his girlfriend, say, between 9.00 pm and 11.00 pm.
 Were you to conclude that the couple heard Joanna’s screams and not the scream that Mr
Sweet heard; if the Laymans and Sweet‘s evidence were to be dismissed, it would tie in
with the scientific evidence.
One thing is certain. Joanna Yeates was killed between 21.00 and 21.30 pm on Friday 17
December 2010.

The quote is from Clegg's opening statement.....  And what is it saying??

This does mean that one really hasn’t got a real clue as to when Tabak went into
Joanna’s flat except that it was between the time he went to Asda and the time he texted
his girlfriend, say, between 9.00 pm and 11.00 pm.

So according to Clegg's opening statement... Dr Vincent Tabak went to ASDA first....

And why so vague with the time ??? I thought Dr Vincent Tabak texted Tanja when he was at ASDA's?? To create his alibi apparently....

Clegg cannot be getting basic's like this incorrect.... (imo)

More importantly..... why does he know what time Joanna yeates died between???

One thing is certain. Joanna Yeates was killed between 21.00 and 21.30 pm on Friday 17
December 2010.

So he knows for certain the time of Joanna Yeates death.. Yet he has forgotten that his client was in his Flat till 9:29pm..

Defence Counsel: Can you look at item where you sent message to Tanja ‘missing you’
Can you remember if you sent it before you decided to go to Asda.
Recapping- you come off the Internet at 7.37pm (our entry 47) & remain in your flat until
9.29pm (our entry 88).

What evidence does Clegg know or has Clegg seen that proves that Joanna Yeates died between 9:00pm and 9:30pm on Friday 17th December 2010??

It's a very bold claim to be made by a DEFENCE Lawyer, who apparently is trying to protect his client.... Yet he fails to emphasis to the Jury that his client was in his Flat until 9:29pm on Friday 17th December 2010, so could not have possibly committed this crime !!!

Come on Clegg is the master that Defended Barry George and War Criminals.... Yet he can't see past his own statement to the Jury.. That Clearly gives his own client an alibi....!!

That trial is off!!! Something just like the "TIME CAPSULE" doesn't add up....(imo)

Edit...

This does mean that one really hasn’t got a real clue as to when Tabak went into
Joanna’s flat

The sentence about Dr Vincent Tabak going into Joanna Yeates Flat..... That probably is a true statement... But not in the context that Clegg is implying... Dr Vincent Tabak may have been inside Flat 1 before... Who's to know??? Other people had lived there before Joanna Yeates and Greg... who's to say he wasn't friendly with them?????


http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf

[[...]]

Continuing from the above post of mine...

This does mean that one really hasn’t got a real clue as to when Tabak went into
Joanna’s flat except that it was between the time he went to Asda and the time he texted
his girlfriend, say, between 9.00 pm and 11.00 pm.
 Were you to conclude that the couple heard Joanna’s screams and not the scream that Mr
Sweet heard; if the Laymans and Sweet‘s evidence were to be dismissed, it would tie in
with the scientific evidence.
One thing is certain. Joanna Yeates was killed between 21.00 and 21.30 pm on Friday 17
December 2010.

Were you to conclude that the couple heard Joanna’s screams and not the scream that Mr
Sweet heard; if the Laymans and Sweet‘s evidence were to be dismissed, it would tie in
with the scientific evidence.

Lovely paragraph from Clegg... he is a Master of disguise .....

Harry Walker, who lived behind Yeates's flat, said he heard a scream at about 8.30pm.

The Lehmans:

Two witness, Zoe and Flo Lehman, who had been to a party in Canynge Road that night, told the court they had heard two piercing screams coming from number 44.
They said the cries, sometime before 8.49pm on December 17, sounded like they came from a woman in distress.

Now Clegg's carefully crafted statement.....

If the Laymans and Sweet‘s evidence were to be dismissed, it would tie in
with the scientific evidence

Yes indeed it would Mr Clegg...... Dismiss the screams... And it would support the scientific evidence...
Because the scientific evidence does not support Joanna Yeates being attacked before 9:00pm..... Remember he did say...

One thing is certain. Joanna Yeates was killed between 21.00 and 21.30 pm on Friday 17
December 2010.

So the screams again where a distraction......

But looking for the Lehmans I did come across this .....

The couple had left home at 8.35pm and went to buy a bottle of wine from the Bargain Booze off-licence before heading to the party. He said that, after they opened the gate of No 53 and walked down the path, they heard two screams.

Did they actually see Joanna Yeates on that evening???? It may seem an odd question, But I have always wondered why they looked so distressed when they left the trial at Bristol Crown court... I couldn't understand why it would effect them so much , If all they did was witness a random scream that could be anyone....

But watching the video.. Zoe Lehman especially looks distressed....  Did the actually see Joanna Yeates that evening?? It's feasible seeing as they were at Bargain Booze, that they did actually cross paths with Joanna Yeates ..

Did the Lehmans actually know Joanna Yeates ???  We have to remember how this has been presented to us... So nothing is what it seems ...

It is always possible that Joanna Yeates got a lift from the Lehmans.... As I say.... anything is possible in this case ....

But I just found Zoe Lehmans reaction interesting... Looked quite emotional for someone with no connection to Joanna yeates... Yes.. It's an appalling tragedy... But I am making observations .... And I don't get that from Rebecca Scotts face... Infact I can't find video of Rebecca Scott leaving the court... But The lehmans are there... and I believe there has to be more to it than them hearing screams to be focusing in on them leaving the court after they gave evidence....(imo)


https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/13/tabak-friends-police-joanna-yeates

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048622/Vincent-Tabak-trial-Pictures-Joanna-Yeates-drinking-night-died.html

http://stories.swns.com/news/vincent-tabak-guilty-of-murdering-joanna-yeates-21407/

http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/vincent-tabak-trial-continues-zoe-and-florian-lehman-news-footage/656463068

[[...]]

This timeline I did of the phone calls that Greg made on the Sunday/Monday 19th-20th December 2010...I'll link the post..

(1): Darragh Bewell Midnight

(2): CJ 12:30

(3): Mr and Mrs Yeates Around Midnight

(4): Rebecca Scott before 4:00am

(5): The Police 1:00 am Monday Morning..

(6): Police Call Darragh Bewell at 3:00am

Now in the Sally Ramage papers.. I have just seen this ..

2.13. As Miss Yeates was not at home when he returned, giving evidence in court in
October 2011, he said that he waited but when she did not arrive back after midnight, he
telephoned his mother, her friends, her mother and later, the police. He reported Miss
Yeates as a missing person to Avon and Somerset police. He made the ‘missing person’
report at 1:00 hours on Monday morning, 20 December 2010.

So more times to fit in....

He has rung his "Mother" first then her friends, her mother and later the Police..

So... Her Friends I take that to mean "His" Mothers friends!! It cannot be Joanna Yeates friends because he didn't ring Darragh Bewell till Midnight and he rang The Yeates before he rang Darragh Bewell...

Why did he ring his mother and her friends first????  Eh.... thats weird...

He's worried his girlfriend is missing.... And he rings his mum and her friends before Joanna Yeates Mum and Joanna Yeates friends....

Thats even before he has rung CJ... To ask CJ if he has seen Joanna Yeates at all that evening...

So he arrives home at 8:00pm... he rings Joanna Yeates phone at 9:00pm ... Is worried and then rings his mum????

Why would his mum know where Joanna Yeates was ??? Why would "Her Friends" know where Joanna Yeates was ??

Why weren't these people brought to court?? This is beyond odd to me...

I'm trying to figure the timeline here... I thought it was once he found her bag on the table that he really started to panic... Which if I remember correctly, that was about 11:00pm... because it used to confuse me how he hadn't noticed it for 3 hours... In that tiny Flat....

But .....

he said that he waited but when she did not arrive back after midnight, he
telephoned his mother, her friends, her mother and later,

Now things are not adding up in my book.....  Because the Yeates said...

The mobile phone went... quite near midnight and Greg's name flashed up on it, which i thought was unusual, and erm.. Then he said is Jo with you? And we said why would she be with us?? And then he said that all her belongings are here, her purse her keys and things like that.

So he has to have called his mother well before midnight.....

But he also says, that he waited for Joanna Yeates return after Midnight.... You can't have it all ways....

How many phone calls did Greg Reardon make before he rang Joanna Yeates parents or her friends???? Lets say far arguments sake that he rang two of his mothers friends and his mother also....

What time were these calls made at??? They should be between 11:00pm and 12:00am if finding the rucksack has anything to go by...

But why would he ring his mother before Joanna Yeates mother ????? so we now have a time line change....

(1): His Mother... Between 11:00pm and Midnight

(2): His mothers first friend between 11:00pm and Midnight

(3): His Mother second friend between 11:00pm and Midnight

(4): Darragh Bewell Midnight

(5): Mr and Mrs Yeates Around Midnight

(6): CJ 12:30

(7): Rebecca Scott before 4:00am

(8): The Police 1:00 am Monday Morning..

(9): Police Call Darragh Bewell at 3:00am

I'm only guessing that it was 2 of his mothers friends it may be more....

I know I haven't got this wrong... But it's a strange order of events, when he was supposed to be trying to locate where his girlfriend may be ....

Shouldn't he have started with CJ first...Then Rebecca Scott .... then Darragh Bewell, And any other friends that Joanna Yeates may have been in contact with over that weekend.... Before he rang his mother ?

What did his mother advise ???? Who were "her  " friends he rang.... Shouldn't we have a breakdown of Greg's phone calls at trial, to show the concern he had for his girlfriends disappearance ???

There should be a host of calls he has obviously made, yet these people didn't appear in court... only Rebecca Scott and Darragh Bewell, 

Why weren't there at least statements made and read out in court from his Mother and her friends.... CJ and anyone else who may have been rung... To show the jury Greg increasing worry??? Would have played right into the jurys hand...


I don't see why the prosecution didn't bring these calls to court... A young man concerned over his girlfriend missing and he rings his mum... That would have had an even bigger sympathy vote.... (imo)

But it doesn't get past the fact , that he rang people before he waited for Joanna Yeates to arrive home.... And he said he waited until midnight... But he cannot have done that as he rang the Yeates family before Midnight....

Oh dear.....

http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg427623#msg427623

[[...]]

 With the above post being confusing, I have observed even more strangeness in this case .....

During his weekend away, Mr Reardon told the court he had rung Jo numerous times and sent her text messages, but she did not respond.
'I rang her mobile and the landline and sent her a text (on Friday).
'I tried to contact her twice on the Saturday - at lunchtime and again in the evening. On Sunday, I rang her in the day and on the way home.

Friday... Rang Moblie, Rang Landline, sent her a text...

Saturday... Tried to contact her twice...Lunchtime and Evening

Sunday...Rang her in the day and on my way home....

What's going on...  That doesn't make sense.... As far as I was aware.. Greg had seen Joanna Yeates on Friday in the lobby at work... Left her at 5:00pm

And when he went to Sheffield he sent a text to say he had arrived....

So whats with the mobile phone call and a call to the landline on Friday night??? There shouldn't be anything wrong on the Friday Night.. he's only just left her.... about 5 hours prior...

He at this point has no need to worry.... None whatsoever....  Yet he rings her and texts her more on the Friday, when everything should be hunky dory, than Saturday and Sunday...

Joanna Yeates was hopeless with her phone.... Not being rude, she just didn't always reply.... her mother had confirmed this....

It was Greg's increasing worry that made him ring her phone again at 9:00pm on the Sunday... Now I just like to pull everything I can in this case apart... Because it hasn't made any sense from the begining...

Why if he was concerned, did he not ring her phone immediately on arriving home???

He over that weekend, has made 6 telephone calls and sent a text...  And the bulk was on Friday.... It always takes me back to Dr Vincent Tabak being charged from Thursday The 16th to Sunday the 19th December 2010...

From another article....

10.30: Around the same time Jo’s boyfriend Greg texts her saying: “Made it ok! Good traffic. Car wouldn’t start had to get neighbour to jump start. Ok now though. Did you have a good night.” Greg does not get a reply. Jo is dead.

So Greg texts when he arrives in Sheffield.... Does he ring her after he's text????  It's only 10:30pm

I'm slightly puzzled... If Joanna Yeates was out having a good time because she was on her own, she could have been in a busy pub and might not have heard her phone....

Did he ring because she didn't reply to his texts??   Or did he ring her first and text her later....

Why haven't we got a timeline for these texts and phone calls of Greg Reardons... It would put it more into context....

Did he ring to check she had got home safely from drinks with her work colleagues, for instance? And that was why he rang the landline as well as her mobile phone??? That would make sense...

So that would roughly be around 8:30pm- 9:00pm..  I say that because she apparently always left The Ram at 8:00pm on a Friday evening and would have arrived home 9:00pm at the latest...

Now unless he has stopped off at a service station I cannot imagine him ringing her at that time...

6.50pm: A neighbour helps to start Greg’s car and he leaves for Sheffield, arriving at 10.10pm.

See it can't be...  He's only an hour and forty into his Journey, so he wouldn't call her at that point... So it has to be when he arrived in Sheffield after he sent the text.....

It still doesn't make sense...  So...10:30pm he sends a text.... And we know she is useless at replying... So what does he do... ring her straight away??? Why would he ...  So you have between 10:30pm and Midnight for these two phone calls to have been made....

What makes him so anxious to contact her?? I'm not being funny... But he has just arrived in Sheffield to see his nieces for the first time and his brother , he's probably sat down chilling having a beer after his journey in the freezing weather... And Joanna Yeates could be out having a ball at this time....  Why would he ring the house phone??

He can't have rung her before 10:30pm, because he'd of mentioned it in the texts (imo)...

Then we get the next phone call on Saturday 18th December at Lunchtime..... and then in the evening.... And if he'd been really concerned when he phoned her the previous night he would have called before lunchtime...

But It says he sent text messages as in plural... So what other messages did he send???  Because we haven't seen any evidence of them.... Just the one about arriving at Sheffield...

What were the times of these other messages ??? Why are important pieces of information missing from this case?? It doesn't paint a clear picture!!

The most important timeline I would imagine in this case... Is Greg's contact with his girlfriend... and his increasing worry that he couldn't get hold of her...  But why have the Prosecution missed out all of his text messages??

It would demonstrate how frantic Greg was  because of the numerous texts he had sent along with the phone calls ... But they are strangely Missing.... Why would the prosecution do that... we see more texts from Dr Vincent Tabak for that evening and weekend than we do of what should be the most important texts.. Of Greg's increasing concern..

7.15pm: Tabak sends Tanja a text from home saying “love you too” and “missing you” before she attends her Christmas party in Bristol.

9.25pm: Tabak sends his girlfriend a text saying: “It’s boring here without you. V xx” The prosecution claim that was after he killed Jo.

10.30: Tabak texts Tanja saying: “How are you. I’m at the Asda buying some crisps. was bored. Can’t wait to pick you up.”

Why haven't the prosecution shown us the text messages that Greg sent to Joanna Yeates... We get Dr Vincent Tabak's instead.... As another sympathy vote at least, The Prosecution should have entered these text messages into trial... But they don't.... we have instead The defence's timeline of the texts that Dr Vincent Tabak sent.....

Which I think came from the 1300 page document....

It's befuddling...


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-trial-countdown-84740

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050063/Vincent-Tabak-strangled-Jo-Yeates-20-seconds-stifle-scream-arm-her.html#ixzz4wmF22mp7

[[...]]

1.32am Saturday: Tabak gets a call at home from his girlfriend asking for a lift from her party. The prosecution claim that before this he was seen driving back and forth on the same road with a 45-50 minute gap which could have been to and from disposing of Jo’s body.
1.38am Tabak picks up Tanja from her party. They are filmed arm in arm, by CCTV cameras.

From the trial.....

Defence Counsel: Our Timeline 113 – your car was seen on the road and so you must
have reached your flat around 10 minutes past midnight. At 18 minutes past we can see on
the timeline, a text from you to Tanja- ‘Are you on the bus?’ Then your landline call to
Tanja. What did you do?

If Dr Vincent Tabak was seen on CCTV driving back and forth trying to dispose of Joanna Yeates body, and the only CCTV we know of, is when he is on Park Street when he goes to Collect Tanja, and that CCTV footage is from Saturday 18th December 2010... They apparently didn't have any CCTV footage of him driving aimlessly to Longwood Lane from Asda in Bedminster.....

What CCTV Footage that is 40-45 minutes long do they have ???? Because it is NOT Dr Vincent Tabak....

They have him back at home for 12:10am, on Saturday morning, and a text and landline call putting him in his Flat at 12:18am...

So 40-45 minutes prior to that he is actually where??? Somewhere between Asda and Longwood lane apparently... Well he isn't on CCTV... they would have show it to the media... The media at the time showed the image from Park Street, which is the day after... And 40-45 minutes prior would make it 11:25pm-11:30 pm on Friday the 17th December 2010....

They didn't bring this footage to court... They allowed everyone to believe that the images from Park Street was Dr Vincent Tabak driving around trying to dispose of Joanna Yeates ,when we know this not to be true....(imo)....

We know he is in Park Street or thereabout at 1:38am on Saturday, because he's is captured with Tanaja having a burger.....

On 18 Dec 2010, Tabak searched at
1.26 am- ‘BBC news’ and ‘weather forecast’
1.46 am- ‘weather forecast’
1.47 am- ‘BBC Bristol news’

The search that said it all......  As we know 1:46am and 1:47am Dr Vincent Tabak was not at home, he is captured on CCTV at 1:38am in Park Street ... Or where ever he and Tanja got their burger from... So those searches are not his ....


Who timings are these ?? I don't believe that they are anything to do with Dr Vincent Tabak apart from him obviously collecting Tanja... They can't be ....

Clegg had to get his information from somewhere... And as Dr Vincent Tabak didn't speak once he was arrested, then the only info Clegg had for him was the original statement all the neighbours made to the Police .... And that wouldn't be in any great detail.. To be honest.. Just an outline of what the weekend held for Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson.... (imo)

The whole story at trial, the timings all have to come from somewhere ... And I do not believe they got that detail from Dr Vincent Tabak... (imo) They never corroborated any of Dr Vincent Tabak's timings with Tanja Morson, because if they had, she too would have been stood up in court.... And they only used CCTV they found after they had received Dr Vincent Tabak's original statement he gave when the neighbours did, He told them about what he did that weekend... (imo)

So was this whole trial a sham?? Because I cannot think of anything, evidence wise, that had Dr Vincent Tabak's name written all over it....  And the DNA didn't do that either...

1000/1   I believe was the ratio... Well to come to that statistic, all you need to be is the same blood group... 

Experiments 1 and 2 show that DNA match statistics that target the individual suspect and that are framed as probabilities (i.e., “The probability that the suspect would match the blood drops if he were not their source is 0.1%”) are more persuasive than mathematically equivalent presentations that target a broader reference group and that are framed as frequencies (“One in 1,000 people in Houston would also match the blood drops”).

So how definitive was the DNA?????  It wasn't was it.... So we again have no evidence that Dr Vincent Tabak committed this crime apart from a tall story he told at trial... (imo)

And they appear to have failed to show the 40-45 minute CCTV footage of him driving Back and Forth, disposing of  Joanna Yeates. after his trip to Bedminster and going to Longwood Lane ..

The only footage they actually do have of Dr Vincent Tabak, is when he went to pick up Tanja at 1:38am.... (imo) And that's the footage that they give to the media as we know .....

They also fail to produce the  "Supposed" Evidence that they charged him with in the first place... we don't see any of this at trial...

`So I can only conclude that the trial is as made up as the searches... Or if they are not made up.. they belong to someone else and not Dr Vincent Tabak .... (imo)

Edit... Why did Dr Vincent Tabak get convicted of Joanna Yeates murder, when there is no corroborating evidence to support this theory that was told as a tall tale at trial..... (imo)And why did they do this trial in the first place, because they must have known,(imo) that none of this evidence belonged to Dr Vincent Tabak... apart from his trip to pick up Tanja...(imo)

Double Edit....  Add all that to the staged flat, that is supposed to be a time capsule, that hadn't been touched since Joanna Yeates went Missing on the 17th December 2010.. And what have you got??? A man in prison for a Crime he couldn't have committed.. Because if he had, everything to do with The Joanna Yeates Murder Investigation would point to Dr Vincent Tabak, and they wouldn't have to resort to painting kitchen tiles ready for the jury visit... It's appalling, come to think of it!!!

http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-trial-countdown-84740

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1012892815916

[[...]]

Hiding in Plain sight..

At Line 171 of the prosecution chart
Tabak accessed ‘Map of Bristol’.
Again, the Prosecution repeated their show the film of the road where Joanna Yeates was
found although this could not be accessed on Map of Bristol.

 The Jewel in The Crown......
Starring me in the face for, how long???  The Fire Trucks did it, The Rope access guys, the milling of Senior Police Officers, the media all gathered at the bottom of Longwood Lane, and it being Christmas morning,made this so memorable... Now that I have come to understand, virtually ALL of the Smoke and Mirrors in this case, my approach has slightly changed.. And slowly I believe that the information that is available, will reveal the hidden truth, that is there for all to see, if we just take the time to look..

Joanna Yeates, wasn't found in Bristol,  It clearly tells us in the trial, if we read it carefully...

I think because of the appearance of The Fire Brigade, The Rope Access Guys, The Media all on Longwood lane Bristol, I had just assumed she was over the wall, and that was NOT, the spot that she was actually located in....  We,ve been fed so many details, repeatedly, everything automatically falls into place,so we don't take in the subtle changes.. And blindly keep picking the same spot....

I knew she wasn't found where they said she had been... I just didn't know where else it could be.. And the obvious conclusion was she had to be inaccessible and not on a verge were everyone frequented on a daily basis for 8 days...

Yes.. I'm not too sure if Longwood Lane Bristol is the Official Place she was found... Maybe she was put there later... But I have said before it's possible they had found her before Christmas day...

I tried to look at maps, I even tried Google Street view, And had tried without success to look over the wall, and of course you cannot access over the wall on street view... I believe that was the point... That was why she was placed and that piece of Longwood lane was chosen as her known deposit site...

Someone has carefully thought through how this would be relayed to the public... Those of us who always thought,
 that it didn't add up, continually fought, to work out her location as we knew it wasn't were they had said...

And it wasn't..... The trial document tells us.. The map I have attached tells us..... Joanna Yeates was not even found in Bristol (imo) I think they just allowed us to believe this , just as they have allowed us to believe all of the carefully crafted and staged scenes....
From the quote.....

Again, the Prosecution repeated their show the film of the road where Joanna Yeates was
found although this could not be accessed on Map of Bristol.

There in Black and white.......... Although this could not be accessed on a map of Bristol... That's because she wasn't found in Bristol was she !

The two possibilities is they were elsewhere on Christmas morning recovering Joanna Yeates... Or as I believe, they had found her before... And the media circus commenced...(IMO)


(1): Longwood Lane Bristol

(2): Longwood Lane Amersham

(3): Longwood lane Walsall

(4): Longwood lane Wellington

So we can get rid of Number 1.... 

And AH... leonora and mrswah .....will know where I am coming from on this one, Because  what I had said there is a reason for everything in this case.....  The trial papers are correct... The location of Joanna Yeates could not be accessed on a map of Bristol.... But I bet she could be located on a map of Wellington....Ib believe it's a distinct possibility....(imo) This is the location I believe Joanna Yeates was found... "Longwood Lane " Wellington" TA 21 OLX... That is why is wasn't a lie about finding her on Longwood Lane.... we just had the wrong one ....(imo)...!!!!


I have attached an image of Longwood Lane Wellington from google street view, it's a narrow lane and you would have to hid a body there... 
Everything that was said at trial was aimed at one person... To let them know they knew that this was a deliberate act...
And i can see why they believed that... But the deliberate act was not that of Dr Vincent Tabak.... It was the person whom is still free, free to do this again to some poor unsuspecting female...  And who has been shielded for years by someone with clout....

Or is it just a case now that Avon and Somerset Police are too Embarrased to hold their hands up and tell us "The Whole Truth" of what really happened to Joanna Yeates ... Because I believe you owe The Yeates Family , The Tabak Family and the general public an explanation of what you actually did in this Investigation....(imo)..

What was it that Judge Field said... "The Full Truth May Never Be Known"....  All I say to that is ... I think we are getting "Closer'!!!!!!!


And I think it is time that the public knew the WHOLE TRUTH... And free Dr Vincent Tabak.... Because he certainly didn't put Joanna Yeates on Longwood Lane in "Wellington"

Edit I have attached an image of a Roadside verge, in Longwood lane Wellington... This might not be the exact location , but it's a start.. I will look up and down Longwood Lane in Wellington, to see if I can find any more grass verges....

[attachment deleted by admin]

[[...]]

I think it is very possible that I may have misjudged DCI Phil Jones and Ann Reddrop... Because without their documentaries and statements that they made, I would not, fully have gotten to the point that I am at now....

I believe they do tell us everything we need to know..... We just have to listen..... %£&)**#

[[...]]

With my belief now that it is Longwood Lane, Wellington as the possibly Location that Joanna Yeates was found, I decided to take a virtual stroll... And walking down Longwood Lane in Wellington, I came across a Location that had a Grass Verge and a Fence.... Which then brought to mind Dr Vincent Tabak's strange answer about not being able to lift Joanna Yeates "Over The Fence".....

Defence Counsel: What did you do then?
Tabak: I tried to hide the body. I tried to put the body over the fence.

I have attached an image of this possible location, which would go with the evidence ....(imo)....

http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf

[attachment deleted by admin]

[AerialHunter]

Slightly less probable solution than average. BUT it does raise the issue of whether or not the self serving bottom feeders moved Yeates’s body from its original point of discovery for reasons we cannot determine. In all it appears to be a red herring, if the body was moved, so what. The question is why would the judicial system be so determined and so collaborative in framing Tabak. Answer; it has to be protecting itself. The system always protects itself from its own failings and prevents exposure of its previous failings. If the system knew of the presence of a single unidentified individual that had led to the wrongful conviction of multiple crowd pleasers, then it will do anything it can to prevent its failings becoming public. End of story. They celebrate their complicity and rejoice in convincing the gullible masses. Pity the choir boys.

[[...]]

Slightly less probable solution than average. BUT it does raise the issue of whether or not the self serving bottom feeders moved Yeates’s body from its original point of discovery for reasons we cannot determine. In all it appears to be a red herring, if the body was moved, so what. The question is why would the judicial system be so determined and so collaborative in framing Tabak. Answer; it has to be protecting itself. The system always protects itself from its own failings and prevents exposure of its previous failings. If the system knew of the presence of a single unidentified individual that had led to the wrongful conviction of multiple crowd pleasers, then it will do anything it can to prevent its failings becoming public. End of story. They celebrate their complicity and rejoice in convincing the gullible masses. Pity the choir boys.

Well thanks for that AH...  My average solution will stay until I can find another possible answer as to where Joanna Yeates was....

Ranks were closed indeed.. I agree... But who decided extremely early on to implicate The Placid Dutchman???? I think the answers lie in what has been said....

[[...]]

At Line 267 of the prosecution chart
at 15.00 pm on 21 December 2010, Tabak searched the words
‘Extradition of Dutchman’
‘Jo Yeates’
At Line 271 of the prosecution chart
Tabak searched the Dutch word
‘doodslag’ (English meaning: ‘manslaughter’)

If as I believe that these are not the searches of Dr Vincent Tabak, they have to be someone else's.... There has to be some basis of truth that is hidden between the lines....

I thought that they had been invented at first to be honest, when I say that I mean once Dr Vincent Tabak was in custody... That still could be the case... But I have another thought...

If these searches belong to the person who killed Joanna Yeates , then it displays the early intension of implicating  Dr Vincent Tabak from early on in the Investigation....

I know we have heard talk that Dr Vincent Tabak was told by Joanna Yeates that she was at home alone that evening... But did anyone know that applied to Dr Vincent Tabak that evening also???

Someone would need to know that information (imo)

The date of the searches has always concerned me...  Not only that but the lack of Dutch.... We have very few Dutch references, I'll deal with this one first...

The date is the 21st December 2010 at 3:00pm, I noticed something else... which I will come back too....

"Doodslag"... That old favourite....  The word that says it all..... Now if someone is trying to stitch Dr Vincent Tabak up, it had to start early on....  Curiosity.... whatever, But someone deliberately looked up the word "Doodslag" And it wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak (imo)... It is the answer you would get if you looked up on an English google search what is the Dutch word for Manslaughter... And it would of course give you the answer of Doodslag...

So when our Perfect Pointer of Powerpoint was Pointing... she had been looking at a computer that had this information already there, But it wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak's computer (imo)...

Why would Dr Vincent Tabak be checking about understanding what the word "Doodslag" meant if he already knew ???

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work that out... But the use and staging of the searches, helped everyone believe that it indeed was the work of The Placid Dutchman...

The previous search...

At Line 258 (afternoon- at work)
Tabak performed Google searches on the words
‘manslaughter’
‘previous offenders’
‘Maximum sentence Manslaughter’
Tabak then performed a Yahoo search for the words
‘penalty for manslaughter’

When has Dr Vincent Tabak got the time to be doing all these searches at work????  And why on the 21st December would Dr Vincent Tabak be searching for "Maximum Sentence for Manslaughter"... When at this time Joanna Yeates was still a "Missing person"?? Nothing had been determined as to how she had died...

They keep saying only the killer would know this... only the killer would know that.... . And I say only the killer would not know any Dutch... But use google to help with the translation ....


So I glean from this that "The Killer"  Has got prior Offences, maybe more than a Parking Ticket, The Killer was trying to see what the likely sentence would be if he was actually arrested for this crime,

You see the searches have to be The killers..(imo) That is all I can think of... That makes sense... And I do Not go with the searches being Dr Vincent Tabak's.. I never have....

On the 21st December 2010 why would anyone want to be checking about "Manslaughter" when the cause of death hadn't been determined, couldn't be determined , because Joanna Yeates hadn't been found"....

And would stupidly use only one Dutch word "Doodslag", because anyone who knew someone who was Dutch would be aware as my Dutchie told me ..."We Dutchies google in Dutch"... Only someone who was trying to implicate the Dutchman, would throw in that one word.... Because in their mind that one word said it all..."MANSLAUGHTER"....

But they forgot... Thee Placid Dutchman didn't know English Law.... why would he ??? So to even start looking up the word "Doodslag"  Would he have needed to look up English Law first???

At Line 225 (sic)
Tabak searched using the words
‘Joanna Yeates’
‘Salt supplies in the Netherlands’

This particular search has always struck me as odd.... Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't need to know anything about "Salt Supplies in the Netherlands"... But if someone is trying to incriminate Dr Vincent Tabak, it almost sound plausible....

Why would Dr Vincent Tabak need Salt supplies in the Netherlands.. when he's apparently popped to ASDA for some Rock Salt!!!!! Maybe someone else popped to ASDA for some ~Rock Salt.... (IMO)...

Again I believe it has to be the person it really applies too, because only they would know that "Rock Salt" and the purchase of Rock Salt was of importance......

At Line 267 of the prosecution chart
at 15.00 pm on 21 December 2010, Tabak searched the words
‘Extradition of Dutchman’
‘Jo Yeates

Another indication in my mind that someone was trying to implicate Dr Vincent Tabak as early as 21st December is "Extradition of Dutchman"... why would Dr Vincent Tabak be looking on an English Google engine for what happens to "Dutch Nationals"... Surely he would have looked on a Dutch website, and being a Dutch National the words "Dutchman" wouldn't even come into it.... Funnily enough he is a Dutch National!!!!!  I think this is a flaw, in the person mind, who is trying to implicate the Dutchman.... And as Dr Vincent Tabak is Dutch, he wouldn't need to emphasise the word "Dutchman"... (imo)

If Dr Vincent Tabak was going to flee he wouldn't have returned after his festive break with his family... He would have come up with various reasons not to return to England....(imo)...

So I believe that it was someone else that searched  for the Extradition of a Dutchman, in their attempt to implicate him....

Also within that comment i did notice something else that had slipped me by....

Jo Yeates

Well, well well,.... I do not believe that Joanna Yeates was referred to as Jo Yeates in the media as early as the 21st December 2010....  And that search has to be very telling indeed....

The Article I have found when her mother says her firends call her Jo... is dated 24th December 2010

Mrs Yeates, 58, said her daughter, known as Jo to her friends, had recently moved into a flat with her boyfriend and had been looking forward to a party they were holding for friends on Tuesday.

And as Dr Vincent Tabak didn't know Joanna yeates, he to wouldn't refer to her as "Jo".. (IMO)

I do not believe that there was anything in the media by the 21st December 2010 that referred to Joanna Yeates as "Jo"...

The helpfindJo wordpress didn't take shape until the 22nd December 2010... So obviously the information cannot have come from there ....

And as there is nothing from Dr Vincent Tabak's facebook account , we cannot see if he got the information from there either.... In fact I find that weird as well... Why haven't they got Dr Vincent Tabak's Facebook account, as part of this 'Trial Evidence"....????? Another piece of Evidence "Missing " from the Trial....

Therefore I believe it had to be someone who knew Joanna Yeates well enough to search for information on her disappearance using the words "Jo Yeates" and not Joanna Yeates, as I believe it was a while before, she became known to the public as "Jo"....

It has to be someone who know Joanna Yeates (imo) and I do not know How many People the Police Interviewed or checked, during there Investigations that would know Joanna yeates well enough to refer to her as simply "Jo"...

And as i know Dr vincent Tabak didn't "Know " Joanna Yeates, he would only search for her in terms that the public at large did... and put her full name into the search engine.....(imo)

Dr Vincent Tabak didn't do these searches as I have said many many times before.... maybe it was the killer who did???? (imo)..




 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1341452/Jo-Yeates-murder-Police-search-missing-architect-finds-womans-body.html#ixzz4wvHWgFEW


http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf

[attachment deleted by admin]

[[...]]

Continuing from my previous post......

Talking of things that are void from the trial... There is plenty of things that are void from the 1300 page Document....

As I have mentioned The texting between Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson, The twitter Pages of Dr Vincent Tabak and The facebook pages of Dr Vincent Tabak....
Even though it was reported that Dr Vincent Tabak had made a comment about CJ to Gunter Morson on twitter , that didn't come to trial...

Wouldn't that show he was trying to implicate CJ??

By Martin Evans and John Bingham3:31PM BST 28 Oct 2011

Tabak also began to tell friends of his certainty that the police had the right man in Mr Jefferies.
On New Year’s Eve, Gunter Morson used his Twitter account to post the message: “I am 100 per cent certain Chris Jefferies, under suspicion for the murder of Jo Yeates, will be charged with murder within the next 12 hours.”
The following day, after Mr Jefferies was released without charge, Gunter wrote: “My source is a complete idiot, and wrong.”

We knew about this tweet well before it was reported after the trial... And as Gunter Morson was never called to trial to explain what Dr Vincent Tabak meant, we too do not know of the context it was in....

Did Gunter misunderstand what Dr Vincent Tabak meant???

If CJ had that information we all were aware of, that he saw people at the gate... It is also feasible that after Dr Vincent Tabak had talked to the Police,he too was aware who CJ had seen at the little gate and therefore expected an charge within 12 hours.... But maybe he didn't mean CJ!!

Why is Dr vincent Tabak's Facebook account totally Missing from this trial??? There's nothing... But if he was keeping abreast of everything surely he would have spoken of Joanna Yeates at this time leading up to his arrest..  Again strangely void!!!

I want to know why Dr Vincent Tabak texts stopped ......

Defence Counsel: Do you and Tanja often communicate every day?
Tabak: Yes. Tanja and I constantly emailed, telephone and text several times a day
including all the time I was in Los Angeles, USA.

So we can see they always communicate daily and text several times a day......

Again these texts are void after the very early hours of Saturday 18th December after Dr Vincent tabak pick up Tanja after her party......

For a man that texts several times a day.. He stops texting after the 18th December 2010... Now we know he goes to work after he has come back from Holland... So there should be plenty , plenty text messages available for us to see between Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson during this time..... But as i have said they are strangely void!!!

Now... they shouldn't be... As I have said I am critical of everything in this case because, as a case against Dr Vincent Tabak it doesn't add up!!!

But someone else , must fit the bill.... (imo)... I do not believe that they even used Dr Vincent Tabak's laptop at trial to be honest.... How would they discern who was who's searches... Tanja's or Dr Vincent Tabak's ???  They wouldn't.. (imo)..

But they must be sure that the searches belong to someone who was responsible for Joanna Yeates death...(imo).. To be confident that the searches were theirs and theirs alone .... (imo)


http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8847771/Vincent-Tabak-carried-on-as-if-nothing-happened-after-murder-of-Joanna-Yeates.html