The Defence Will State Their Case

[[...]]

Theories and Ideas....


CJ's second witness statement.... The fact that he may have seen or heard 2-3 people at the gate on the 17th December 2010, was one of the reasons that the Police had an interest in him....

But I couldn't understand why the Police may have a similar interest in Dr Vincent Tabak...  Why would The Police contact him when he was away in Cambridge?? I believe DC Karen Thomas called him whilst he and Tanja were visiting her parents over Christmas...

What statements to the Police did Dr Vincent Tabak make??  I was looking at the FOI request that N. Osey made asking if she could see any statements that Dr Vincent Tabak signed, and to cut a long story short the request was denied...

Dr Vincent Tabak has said little to nothing as far as we are aware, DC Karen Thomas tells us it was when she was in Holland that Dr Vincent Tabak's over interest in forensics was the reason the alarm bells started to ring....

But that cannot be the case.... Ann Reddrop states that it was late December 2010 that the Police had gone to seek advise and I believe it is from that time forward they began to Investigate Dr Vincent Tabak....

But what had it been before, to have DC Karen Thomas needing to contact Dr Vincent Tabak whilst he was away in Cambridge? There had to be something of importance that she felt the need to contact him again... He is a neighbour just like the rest of the people who live in that house, they were not contacted so many times.... The Police do not shift from that house, so what was found in and around that house?

The Police are wanting us to believe that because of a phone call about a car changing position, they wasted money to fly out to Holland to ask Dr Vincent Tabak about this incident.... When in reality I believe they could and should have waited on his return.... There has to be more to that interview in Holland than meets the eye...

I keep going back to DCI Phil Jones and his comment he made about Dr Vincent Tabak and saying that Dr Vincent Tabak wouldn't answer questions about CJ, and would only comment on an issue surrounding a mobile phone....

That in itself is an odd comment to make..... Why would a mobile phone be of such great importance??

Did Dr Vincent Tabak find a mobile phone?? Did he find it, did he use it?? Did Joanna Yeates have a secondary phone?? a works phone maybe??

There has to be a reason why DC Karen Thomas felt the need to contact Dr Vincent Tabak on the 23rd December 2010, I think it was, to speak to him.... He has had to divulge or suggest something for them to want to keep questioning him....

Dr Vincent Tabak has used the main gate and the little gate, either exit could have had something lying on the ground...

Did he find a phone and hand it into Police? Was it the blackberry everyone keeps hinting at...  Because we have not been told which type of phone anybody owns...

DC Karen Thomas needs a jolly good reason to phone him when he's in Cambridge, he's just a neighbour, who had said he didn't see anything... So what was of such great importance DC Karen Thomas is keen to keep Dr Vincent Tabak in her sights, days before the Holland interview??

Dr Vincent Tabak didn't know Joanna Yeates had never met Joanna Yeates had never seen Joanna Yeates.... He isn't a viable suspect at this point....

Clegg says that Dr Vincent Tabak lied and lied to the Police, if he made a No Comment statements as DCI Jones tells us, and only answers questions surrounding a mobile phone, then it has to be the mobile phone he is lying about... It stands to reason....

And the only reason I could think a mobile phone would be important, is that it belonged to Joanna Yeates...

There has to be something that only the Police know.... There has to be something they held back....

There was a Police Officer who apparently went around to Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat on the early hours of Monday 20th December 2010 to ask Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson if they had seen their neighbour....  It could be at this point that Dr Vincent Tabak tells them he found a phone.... Even gives them said phone.....

Now my reasoning comes from the fact that Greg Reardon didn't ring Rebecca Scott or Darragh Bellew as far as I know on the Sunday 19th December 2010... Now if there was only one of her phones in her coat pocket, maybe that didn't reveal whom she had called...

Rebecca Scott first learnt of Joanna Yeates disappearance when the Police contacted her at about 4:00am, I believe she notices a missed message... So which phone was in Joanna Yeates coat pocket??  Her work phone or her personal phone??

Greg Rings, Mr and Mrs Yeates, his mother we have been lead to believe, CJ and the Police....  What about the people she text?? What about anyone else she may have rung or anyone who may have rung her??

He would have CJ's number in his own phone, and Mr and Mrs Yeates, he could well have had Rebecca Scotts number, but if the phone in the pocket was one of two phones, then that phone might not have revealed whom she had last spoken too....

Another reason I believe she possibly had two phones, Mr and Mrs Yeates did not call Rebecca Scott either... Now they know Rebecca Scott and they know that their daughter and her are good friends... And I am more than sure they would have rung her if the phone that was left behind had details of a call made to Rebecca Scott on the evening of the 17th December 2010... Mrs Yeates had found the receipt, she tells us this on video.... which makes me positive, if she had known that the last phone call made on that evening she would have immediately called Rebecca Scott to ask her if Joanna Yeates had said anything about going anywhere....

This might also explain why the phone had battery life still left in it of it wasn't used at all... no incoming calls to speak of no messages to run the phone battery life down...

Did the Yeates ring Rebecca Scott anyway?? To ask them if they had heard anything from Joanna Yeates?? Is that why Rebecca Scott knew immediately that when the Police had tried to contact her, that something was wrong...

She phoned me on the Friday ... erm.. I travelled home for Christmas on the Sunday..(gulp).. Erm... It was about 4 O'clock in the morning I woke up. Erm.. (licks lips) And saw that there was a message, on my phone from the police... Er... Informing me that she had gone missing...

Er... Obviously they'd seen on the phone that she'd phoned me. And.. obviously wanted me to get in touch... Erm....  I immediately sort of panicked and phoned Jo...

And Greg... Greg answered the phone....  I knew something was wrong... er I think, we all did.
Erm.. (pause)(licks lips) As soon as I found out her possessions were in the flat, you know , that was it.. I  knew that hadn't left the house of her own intention.

Which phone did Rebecca Scott ring?? The house phone, Joanna Yeates phone or a secondary phone of Joanna Yeates??

If the Police are contacting her to tell her that Joanna Yeates is Missing, then it has to be the phone that is of importance....

The Police are not gonna ring her and say your best friend is Missing and we know that you were the last person to speak to her, they are not going to reveal what they know to a person they may need to interview...

It is Rebecca Scott telling us that the Police had seen on Joanna Yeates phone that she had rung her... So why didn't Greg see it or Mr and Mrs Yeates??

There is always something Missing... In this case... And it has been a case of everything Missing.... You just have to look at the staged flat to realise that.....

So was Dr Vincent Tabak in possession of a mobile phone that wasn't his?? Had someone given it to him and asked him to pass it to her seeing as he lived in the same building.....

The Police don't just do an inquiry around one building unless they believe a crime has been committed... And they were very slow to gather evidence of any significance....  Took them over a week to retrieve the footage from The Hop House Pub....

One more thing... There was more in CJ's second witness statement other than who he may have seen/heard at the gate.... That was only part of it.... Did Dr Vincent Tabak tell CJ about this mobile phone business that DCI Phil Jones speaks of??? Just like CJ had told the neighbours about seeing someone at the gate?? Now if the mobile phone is the crux of the case, because it appears to be of too great an importance, then is this the reason that CJ didn't take the stand!!!

We have all been busy, chasing CJ's second witness statement.... And I believe that Leonora is CORRECT.... !!!!

It is the most vital piece of evidence that we need to see at present... The contents must be mind blowing for it not to have been used at trial....!!(imo)

[[...]]

Some points of Interest.....  I may have an answer to a couple of questions....

Applicable to all barristers

301. A barrister must have regard to paragraph 104 and must not:

(a) engage in conduct whether in pursuit of his profession or otherwise which is:

(i) dishonest or otherwise discreditable to a barrister;

(ii) prejudicial to the administration of justice; or

(iii) likely to diminish public confidence in the legal profession or the administration of justice or otherwise bring the legal profession into disrepute;

(b)  engage directly or indirectly in any occupation if his association with that occupation may adversely affect the reputation of the Bar or in the case of a practising barrister prejudice his ability to attend properly to his practice.

Applicable to practising barristers

302. A barrister has an overriding duty to the Court to act with independence in the interests of justice: he must assist the Court in the administration of justice and must not deceive or knowingly or recklessly mislead the Court.

303. A barrister:

(a) must promote and protect fearlessly and by all proper and lawful means the lay client's best interests and do so without regard to his own interests or to any consequences to himself or to any other person (including any colleague, professional client or other intermediary or another barrister, the barrister's employer or any Authorised  Body of which the barrister may be an owner or manager);

(b) owes his primary duty as between the lay client and any other person to the lay client and must not permit any other person to limit his discretion as to how the interests of the lay client can best be served;

(c) when supplying legal services funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Community Legal Service or the Criminal Defence Service owes his primary duty to the lay client subject only to compliance with paragraph 304.

304. A barrister who supplies legal services funded by the Legal Services Commission as part of the Community Legal Service or the Criminal Defence Service must in connection with the supply of such services comply with any duty imposed on him by or under the Access to Justice Act 1999 or any regulations or code in effect under that Act and in particular with the duties set out in Annex E.

305.1.  A barrister must not, in his professional practice, discriminate unlawfully against, victimise or harass any other person on the grounds of race, colour, ethnic or national origin, nationality, citizenship, sex, gender re-assignment, sexual orientation, marital or civil partnership status, disability, age, religion or belief or pregnancy and maternity.

305.2. Deleted from 1st October 2005.

306. A barrister is individually and personally responsible for his own  conduct and for his professional work: he must exercise his own  personal judgement in all his professional activities.
 
307. A barrister must not:

(a) permit his absolute independence integrity and freedom from external pressures to be compromised;

(b) do anything (for example accept a present) in such circumstances as may lead to any inference that his independence may be compromised;

(c) compromise his professional standards in order to please his client the Court or a third party, including any mediator ;

(d) give a commission or present (save for small promotional items ) or lend any money for any professional purpose to or (save as a remuneration in accordance with the provisions of this Code) accept any money by way of loan or otherwise from any client or any person entitled to instruct him as an intermediary;

(e) make any payment (other than a payment for advertising or publicity permitted by this Code or in the case of a self-employed barrister remuneration paid to any clerk or other employee or staff of his chambers) to any person for the purpose of procuring professional instructions;

Provided that nothing in paragraph 307(d) or (e) shall prevent a barrister from paying a reasonable fee or fees required by an alternative dispute resolution body that appoints or recommends persons to provide mediation, arbitration or adjudication services, or from entering into a reasonable fee-sharing arrangement required by such a body, if the payment or arrangement is of a kind similar to that made by other persons who provide such services through the body;

(f) Deleted from 26th March 2010.

https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/regulatory-requirements/the-old-code-of-conduct/the-old-code-of-conduct/part-iii-fundamental-principles/

[[...]]

Finally I believe I now have an answer to the silence..... I know understand I believe why no-one will speak.....


Firstly The Media....  It is possible that there is a gagging order in place, they cannot speak of it, they won't speak of it and they haven't spoken of it..... They may for all intense and purposes spill the same spiel as if it happened yesterday, but they cannot (imo) form an opinion or express and opinion, without falling foul of any restraining type order that gags The media from taking any other line on this case.....

From my above post.....

ii) prejudicial to the administration of justice; or

(iii) likely to diminish public confidence in the legal profession or the administration of justice or otherwise bring the legal profession into disrepute;

(b)  engage directly or indirectly in any occupation if his association with that occupation may adversely affect the reputation of the Bar or in the case of a practising barrister prejudice his ability to attend properly to his practice.

The Lawyers can't say anything either because it may be prejudicial to The Justice System!!!

I am slow sometimes... I hadn't really thought that one through.... But again it makes sense.....

You see I have had plenty to say on Clegg, a man who (imo) is not fit for purpose.... But thats my opinion...
There are many reasons, I find him difficult to put in a nutshell... he almost braggs as to what he has or hasn't done....

The interview with Fiona Bruce for instance.... Where he was happy to tell us he believed that the man that had killed Jasmine Bisset, was the man who must have killed Racheal Nickell....

Ordinarily you wouldn't think it a problem, but  the trouble for me is he was representing Colin Stagg at the time he made those remarks about napper, then he ends up representing napper....

Conflict of interests or what!! (imo)

No-one in The Justice System is going to public tell us what a crap lawyer someone is... no-one is going to tell the public, if something untoward has taken place.... These chats are for behind closed doors....

And they tell us Justice is open and transparent.....    Must be only when there's a "Z" in the month..

I have sent myself bonkers, I have questioned my own self, I had thought that it must be something I was Missing.... And it was....


DO NOT BRING THE JUDICIARY INTO DISREPUTE.....

So they didn't.... They made a mockery of it instead, and right in front of our eyes.... Well, we believe they know better... They can make us doubt our own abilities....

So I will say again... I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent... The only way he is guilty is if he would bring the judiciary into disrepute, was that why he appeared at the Old Bailey?? To keep hushed up what took place.... Or was he the scapegoat, and he took the blame for someone else who was in the judiciary??

Everyone has been pointing to this trial being a sham trial.... The media with all of their photo images and news clips, they didn't tell us anything, but a picture tells a thousand words..... And a video even more....

I believe that it was a deliberate act on their part..... silenced by something I do not know.....  So are Joanna Yeates parents grieving even more knowing that the real killer has gotten away....  i still feel that they know something else.... But they too may have been silenced, maybe that was the reason they too went to the Old Bailey... i do not know....

But what can we do about this miscarriage of Justice I believe has taken place???  What can we do without the media being able to speak of it or lawyers being able to say anything either????

I do not know.... It's almost like coming full circle.... Knowing that what I have always believed was Dr Vincent Tabak didn't have a fair trial and was not represented as robustly as council could have done (imo).. we are forever silenced... And a Placid Dutchman may be languishing in prison as we speak....

And that is not the worst of it.... A killer has been left to roam the street of this nation, and anywhere abroad, to maybe continue attacking woman at will... Knowing that in this country.... no-one will touch him with a barge pole...

But that is just my opinion.... !!!!

I will go back to why I started posting about Dr Vincent Tabak, and I would say it was because, I felt he was unfairly treated... He was not represented to the best of councils ability...  The information and talks on the original facebook forum that I was apart of in the beginning had drawn me into this case.... And I have never forgotten it....

It was always with me for some reason, I couldn't understand why it didn't make sense.... But now I think I do...  And will it ever change anything??? I can't say....

But I am just an ordinary person, who just like fair.... And for Justice to be seem to be done and give the public confidence, it's time the question of Dr Vincent Tabak and Joanna yeates was brought to the public attention.... How that would be possible, is difficult for me to say.... But honesty is the best policy....

And for all my headaches, tears, laughter whilst I have been writing on here mean Justice will happen.. Then it will be worth it all... 

As I said in the beginning.... I just like fair!! It's as straight forward as that.....

[jixy]

Theories and Ideas....


CJ's second witness statement.... The fact that he may have seen or heard 2-3 people at the gate on the 17th December 2010, was one of the reasons that the Police had an interest in him....

But I couldn't understand why the Police may have a similar interest in Dr Vincent Tabak...  Why would The Police contact him when he was away in Cambridge?? I believe DC Karen Thomas called him whilst he and Tanja were visiting her parents over Christmas...

What statements to the Police did Dr Vincent Tabak make??  I was looking at the FOI request that N. Osey made asking if she could see any statements that Dr Vincent Tabak signed, and to cut a long story short the request was denied...

Dr Vincent Tabak has said little to nothing as far as we are aware, DC Karen Thomas tells us it was when she was in Holland that Dr Vincent Tabak's over interest in forensics was the reason the alarm bells started to ring....

But that cannot be the case.... Ann Reddrop states that it was late December 2010 that the Police had gone to seek advise and I believe it is from that time forward they began to Investigate Dr Vincent Tabak....

But what had it been before, to have DC Karen Thomas needing to contact Dr Vincent Tabak whilst he was away in Cambridge? There had to be something of importance that she felt the need to contact him again... He is a neighbour just like the rest of the people who live in that house, they were not contacted so many times.... The Police do not shift from that house, so what was found in and around that house?

The Police are wanting us to believe that because of a phone call about a car changing position, they wasted money to fly out to Holland to ask Dr Vincent Tabak about this incident.... When in reality I believe they could and should have waited on his return.... There has to be more to that interview in Holland than meets the eye...

I keep going back to DCI Phil Jones and his comment he made about Dr Vincent Tabak and saying that Dr Vincent Tabak wouldn't answer questions about CJ, and would only comment on an issue surrounding a mobile phone....

That in itself is an odd comment to make..... Why would a mobile phone be of such great importance??

Did Dr Vincent Tabak find a mobile phone?? Did he find it, did he use it?? Did Joanna Yeates have a secondary phone?? a works phone maybe??

There has to be a reason why DC Karen Thomas felt the need to contact Dr Vincent Tabak on the 23rd December 2010, I think it was, to speak to him.... He has had to divulge or suggest something for them to want to keep questioning him....

Dr Vincent Tabak has used the main gate and the little gate, either exit could have had something lying on the ground...

Did he find a phone and hand it into Police? Was it the blackberry everyone keeps hinting at...  Because we have not been told which type of phone anybody owns...

DC Karen Thomas needs a jolly good reason to phone him when he's in Cambridge, he's just a neighbour, who had said he didn't see anything... So what was of such great importance DC Karen Thomas is keen to keep Dr Vincent Tabak in her sights, days before the Holland interview??

Dr Vincent Tabak didn't know Joanna Yeates had never met Joanna Yeates had never seen Joanna Yeates.... He isn't a viable suspect at this point....

Clegg says that Dr Vincent Tabak lied and lied to the Police, if he made a No Comment statements as DCI Jones tells us, and only answers questions surrounding a mobile phone, then it has to be the mobile phone he is lying about... It stands to reason....

And the only reason I could think a mobile phone would be important, is that it belonged to Joanna Yeates...

There has to be something that only the Police know.... There has to be something they held back....

There was a Police Officer who apparently went around to Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat on the early hours of Monday 20th December 2010 to ask Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson if they had seen their neighbour....  It could be at this point that Dr Vincent Tabak tells them he found a phone.... Even gives them said phone.....

Now my reasoning comes from the fact that Greg Reardon didn't ring Rebecca Scott or Darragh Bellew as far as I know on the Sunday 19th December 2010... Now if there was only one of her phones in her coat pocket, maybe that didn't reveal whom she had called...

Rebecca Scott first learnt of Joanna Yeates disappearance when the Police contacted her at about 4:00am, I believe she notices a missed message... So which phone was in Joanna Yeates coat pocket??  Her work phone or her personal phone??

Greg Rings, Mr and Mrs Yeates, his mother we have been lead to believe, CJ and the Police....  What about the people she text?? What about anyone else she may have rung or anyone who may have rung her??

He would have CJ's number in his own phone, and Mr and Mrs Yeates, he could well have had Rebecca Scotts number, but if the phone in the pocket was one of two phones, then that phone might not have revealed whom she had last spoken too....

Another reason I believe she possibly had two phones, Mr and Mrs Yeates did not call Rebecca Scott either... Now they know Rebecca Scott and they know that their daughter and her are good friends... And I am more than sure they would have rung her if the phone that was left behind had details of a call made to Rebecca Scott on the evening of the 17th December 2010... Mrs Yeates had found the receipt, she tells us this on video.... which makes me positive, if she had known that the last phone call made on that evening she would have immediately called Rebecca Scott to ask her if Joanna Yeates had said anything about going anywhere....

This might also explain why the phone had battery life still left in it of it wasn't used at all... no incoming calls to speak of no messages to run the phone battery life down...

Did the Yeates ring Rebecca Scott anyway?? To ask them if they had heard anything from Joanna Yeates?? Is that why Rebecca Scott knew immediately that when the Police had tried to contact her, that something was wrong...

Which phone did Rebecca Scott ring?? The house phone, Joanna Yeates phone or a secondary phone of Joanna Yeates??

If the Police are contacting her to tell her that Joanna Yeates is Missing, then it has to be the phone that is of importance....

The Police are not gonna ring her and say your best friend is Missing and we know that you were the last person to speak to her, they are not going to reveal what they know to a person they may need to interview...

It is Rebecca Scott telling us that the Police had seen on Joanna Yeates phone that she had rung her... So why didn't Greg see it or Mr and Mrs Yeates??

There is always something Missing... In this case... And it has been a case of everything Missing.... You just have to look at the staged flat to realise that.....

So was Dr Vincent Tabak in possession of a mobile phone that wasn't his?? Had someone given it to him and asked him to pass it to her seeing as he lived in the same building.....

The Police don't just do an inquiry around one building unless they believe a crime has been committed... And they were very slow to gather evidence of any significance....  Took them over a week to retrieve the footage from The Hop House Pub....

One more thing... There was more in CJ's second witness statement other than who he may have seen/heard at the gate.... That was only part of it.... Did Dr Vincent Tabak tell CJ about this mobile phone business that DCI Phil Jones speaks of??? Just like CJ had told the neighbours about seeing someone at the gate?? Now if the mobile phone is the crux of the case, because it appears to be of too great an importance, then is this the reason that CJ didn't take the stand!!!

We have all been busy, chasing CJ's second witness statement.... And I believe that Leonora is CORRECT.... !!!!

It is the most vital piece of evidence that we need to see at present... The contents must be mind blowing for it not to have been used at trial....!!(imo)

I really dont know which part to  use as a quote but I think if you read your own post back you could answer a lot of your questions

[jixy]

Finally I believe I now have an answer to the silence..... I know understand I believe why no-one will speak.....


Firstly The Media....  It is possible that there is a gagging order in place, they cannot speak of it, they won't speak of it and they haven't spoken of it..... They may for all intense and purposes spill the same spiel as if it happened yesterday, but they cannot (imo) form an opinion or express and opinion, without falling foul of any restraining type order that gags The media from taking any other line on this case.....

From my above post.....






The Lawyers can't say anything either because it may be prejudicial to The Justice System!!!

I am slow sometimes... I hadn't really thought that one through.... But again it makes sense.....

You see I have had plenty to say on Clegg, a man who (imo) is not fit for purpose.... But thats my opinion...
There are many reasons, I find him difficult to put in a nutshell... he almost braggs as to what he has or hasn't done....

The interview with Fiona Bruce for instance.... Where he was happy to tell us he believed that the man that had killed Jasmine Bisset, was the man who must have killed Racheal Nickell....

Ordinarily you wouldn't think it a problem, but  the trouble for me is he was representing Colin Stagg at the time he made those remarks about napper, then he ends up representing napper....

Conflict of interests or what!! (imo)

No-one in The Justice System is going to public tell us what a crap lawyer someone is... no-one is going to tell the public, if something untoward has taken place.... These chats are for behind closed doors....

And they tell us Justice is open and transparent.....    Must be only when there's a "Z" in the month..

I have sent myself bonkers, I have questioned my own self, I had thought that it must be something I was Missing.... And it was....


DO NOT BRING THE JUDICIARY INTO DISREPUTE.....

So they didn't.... They made a mockery of it instead, and right in front of our eyes.... Well, we believe they know better... They can make us doubt our own abilities....

So I will say again... I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent... The only way he is guilty is if he would bring the judiciary into disrepute, was that why he appeared at the Old Bailey?? To keep hushed up what took place.... Or was he the scapegoat, and he took the blame for someone else who was in the judiciary??

Everyone has been pointing to this trial being a sham trial.... The media with all of their photo images and news clips, they didn't tell us anything, but a picture tells a thousand words..... And a video even more....

I believe that it was a deliberate act on their part..... silenced by something I do not know.....  So are Joanna Yeates parents grieving even more knowing that the real killer has gotten away....  i still feel that they know something else.... But they too may have been silenced, maybe that was the reason they too went to the Old Bailey... i do not know....

But what can we do about this miscarriage of Justice I believe has taken place???  What can we do without the media being able to speak of it or lawyers being able to say anything either????

I do not know.... It's almost like coming full circle.... Knowing that what I have always believed was Dr Vincent Tabak didn't have a fair trial and was not represented as robustly as council could have done (imo).. we are forever silenced... And a Placid Dutchman may be languishing in prison as we speak....

And that is not the worst of it.... A killer has been left to roam the street of this nation, and anywhere abroad, to maybe continue attacking woman at will... Knowing that in this country.... no-one will touch him with a barge pole...

But that is just my opinion.... !!!!

I will go back to why I started posting about Dr Vincent Tabak, and I would say it was because, I felt he was unfairly treated... He was not represented to the best of councils ability...  The information and talks on the original facebook forum that I was apart of in the beginning had drawn me into this case.... And I have never forgotten it....

It was always with me for some reason, I couldn't understand why it didn't make sense.... But now I think I do...  And will it ever change anything??? I can't say....

But I am just an ordinary person, who just like fair.... And for Justice to be seem to be done and give the public confidence, it's time the question of Dr Vincent Tabak and Joanna yeates was brought to the public attention.... How that would be possible, is difficult for me to say.... But honesty is the best policy....

And for all my headaches, tears, laughter whilst I have been writing on here mean Justice will happen.. Then it will be worth it all... 

As I said in the beginning.... I just like fair!! It's as straight forward as that.....

I think this is getting rather silly now

[justsaying]

I think this is getting rather silly now

I thought it couldn't get any more far fetched then I read the last few posts. Honestly, I have no words!

[justsaying]

It is the most vital piece of evidence that we need to see at present... The contents must be mind blowing for it not to have been used at trial....!!(imo)

It is more likely that CJ's statement could not offer anything in terms of whether Tabak was guilty of murder or manslaughter and that is the reason it was not used in the trial. I think this has already been explained numerous times. Some of your points are way off and suggesting he is innocent as well as placid really is absurd.

[[...]]

I couldn't understand why I could apply so many scenarios to this case.... Too many possibilities.... Why no-one questioned why we had builders doing forensics...

Maybe Dr Vincent Tabak, killed Joanna Yeates.... maybe he found out later what it was about when he plead guilty.... Or confessed as everyones says... Maybe thats why he apologises to The Yeates, because he had put paid to any investigation that might have taken place, by admitting to said crime.....

I shouldn't get to a point where I believe that Joanna Yeates may not have even existed....  But I have been there... I have been there and everywhere with this case....

So the narratives is Dr Vincent Tabak did killed Joanna Yeates or maybe not... Thats what the media say and that is what the lawyers say ( He is guilty of manslaughter).... Well they are hardly gonna tell us any different......

So is this case about the death of a woman called Joanna Yeates or did she die because she was a lure for some kind of operation??  I don't know..... I do not know who killed her and I do not know if any of the information I have gone on about is true and accurate..... 

So.. What was Operation Braid really about?? Because I cannot see it being purely a name of an operation for a Missing person....

It could still be in effect.... I don't know that either..... And I my have lost sleep over a story that was complete fabrication.... I don't know that either....

So is Dr Vincent Tabak guilty..... and if so guilty of what exactly... And why the sham trial and photoshopped images... staged flat and fire engines that were not needed to recover a body.....

I believe the media want the truth about this case exposed... that is in part is why I believe the media have taken it upon themselves to deal with this in the way they have done.....

So what am I fighting for?? The freedom of a man I know nothing of?? The ideals I have were I like fair?? I cant say... Because if I have NO COMPREHENSION  of what this case is all about, I might as well fight for the freedom of the Man In The Moon....  Because I have no knowledge of what this is all really about!!

And I still do not know whether or not I have wasted my time....

[justsaying]

To suggest her parents are part of some massive cover up really is awful.

[justsaying]

Nine, there are numerous cases where it has started out as a missing person only to end up a murder investigation. Do you not watch true crime stories on TV? Or read any books? It is totally irrelevant that it started out as a missing person investigation. The police must have known that it was out of character for the victim to just go missing and leave all her personal belongings behind, that would have caused alarm bells to ring.

[[...]]

I think this is getting rather silly now

I think it's been silly from the start.... 

I am no-one and really my opinion counts for nothing....

[[...]]

Nine, there are numerous cases where it has started out as a missing person only to end up a murder investigation. Do you not watch true crime stories on TV? Or read any books? It is totally irrelevant that it started out as a missing person investigation. The police must have known that it was out of character for the victim to just go missing and leave all her personal belonging behind, that would have caused alarm bells to ring.

The Missing Posters that the friends of Joanna Yeates originally did, that were not official Police posters, asked people to contact.. CID and mentioned "Operation Braid"

We can argue points all day long....nothing will change...

[justsaying]

The Missing Posters that the friends of Joanna Yeates originally did, that were not official Police posters, asked people to contact.. CID and mentioned "Operation Braid"

We can argue points all day long....nothing will change...

Because that is what friends and family do when they do not know what has happened to their loved one! That does not mean they won't have been suspicious regarding the way she went missing without a trace, which was probably out of character. No, nothing will change because you are barking up the wrong tree, no-one will reopen this case just because you happen to think it should be reopened. He is rightly serving his time in prison, I just
hope if/when he does get out he never ever does this kind of disgusting thing again!

[justsaying]

Where do you get the idea from that builders did the forensic work? 

[justsaying]

I might as well fight for the freedom of the Man In The Moon....

I think you would have a better chance of proving there is a man in the moon than you have proving Tabaks innocence...