They are pointless and based on a very misguided belief that Tabak is innocent. They make uncomfortable reading too.
Luckily he didnt have to spend many wasted years in prison for the crime but we dont need a character assassination either.
Jixy, All I am doing is trying to understand what happened and whether anything new comes forth from what anyone may say today...
I haven't been able to understand why The Sun was in contempt of court, how and what they may have written could prejudice a trial....
There have been many of the publications from the time that have been removed, the facebook forum was also removed and I couldn't understand why...
There has to be something that has been with held for it to be able to go to court and what I read and what was stated at The Leveson about the media vilification, I am at a loss as to why the fuss was made, as that doesn't appear significant enough...
You all know that I have used reports from the media and twitter from the time, plus video's from interviews anyone has given and not forgetting the Leveson....
I look at archives of what the papers wrote and If I find something say from twitter or a forum, I try to find the article that their information has come from... Because as i keep saying... And some have pointed out I have had weird and wonderful ideas....
I have tried to understand, with what appears to me to be smoke and mirrors to confuse and distract everyone the reason for this....
I keep trying to go back to the beginning... Go back through the old facebook forum, and what was so concerning about it..... Because I do not know....
In the Leveson... and I have quoted from it many times, Colin Port says that CJ saw people at the gate, where as In the Leveson CJ says he heard people at the gate....
Now there must be a written statement somewhere that confirms this.... And no-one at The Leveson appears to have picked this up.... Or it's been brushed under the carpet...
So I can use the Leveson, to bolster my argument one way or another, I can have an opinion on a person by their actions, I can question, what was written 7 nearly 8 years ago.... But it's whether I believe what the papers state or whether I believe what the information on a forum states is accurate...
I will give you an example: This is from The facebook forum...
Gym.... 3 posts. Created at 03:19 on 04 January
Dyna Victoria
Workout probeExclusive by GARY O'SHEA
COPS have quizzed staff at a gym where Jo Yeates suspect Chris Jefferies trained to further rule him out of their inquiry.
They wanted to assess his strength and fitness after friends of the former teacher expressed doubts over whether the 65-year-old was strong enough to overcome Jo or lift her body.
Jefferies quit his membership of the Spirit House gym in Filton, Bristol, a few weeks ago
I hadn't thought of the implications this post would have had at the time, and I cannot find any supporting media stories, but it must have come from somewhere.... I do not know for a fact if Gary O'Shea had written said article about the gym or not, but if he had that would be explosive in itself, that would be something which had someone gone to court on said charges, would have been prejudicial I believe... Because it contradicts the evidence given at The Leveson that on the night in question CJ was at the gym....
Therefore one could then conclude , that the reason the Police flew out to Holland to ask about a car changing position, now has a different complexion upon it. An urgency one might say.... But the Police in my mind could still have waited fro Dr Vincent Tabak to return to England
But I cannot find the source from where the poster on the forum had got their information, so i cannot support said posters claims.... This is why I alway quote and link as much information as possible to support my arguments.... Makes my posts long , but one can see where I have obtained the information i refer to in my posts..... Therefore my opinion is based on what I have sourced through the different publications and video etc... I cannot say that what the poster posted was of importance and that was the reason the discussion was closed down.... Because there could have been other pieces of information in the journal about Joanna yeates, but some of the posts have been deleted, so i cannot say which piece of information would have been of significance, and why the forum discussion was taken down.....
So if i am not to have an opinion on these matter that is fair enough, but what I find is that everyone has an opinion based upon the information they may read in the newspapers.. The Newspapers are apparently supposed to inform the public of these events in the world...
So i would agree in part that some of my information may be incorrect , if the media or poster had been leading people astray... But I should be able to rely on The Leveson and any interviews anyone had given to camera... And therefore question what i have seen on said video's where people have brought to my attention, information i was not aware of at the time of trial...
Take The Yeates for instance.... David states that when he arrived at Joanna yeates flat that she had organised the clothes washing...
(54) * She's taken the opportunity to tidy things up... For starters she had organised the washing, you know Clothes
washing and erm... washing up the stuff in the kitchen, things were nice and tidy..
This information doesn't come to trial... These words are from David Yeates own lips... I can use the information confidently, because there is video evidence to support this claims from David Yeates..
This is the only time that Joanna Yeates was doing something different other than what had been stated at trial....
Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't mention the clothes washing, at trial.... Greg Reardon doesn't mention the clothes washing at trial... The images of a flat that is clean and tidy when the jury visit, contradicts what David Yeates has told us since the trial...
I was asked why I wanted The Yeates on the stand, I wasn't trying to be unfeeling, I understand that it would be a traumatic experience for them... But with the interviews they have given since and the information they have divulged, you can hopefully understand my reasoning for this....
If there had been a struggle in the kitchen or around that flat, then maybe the clothes piles were in disarray, Knowing about the washing even being there was a surprise to me... It was an important piece of information, Information a jury should have been made aware of (imo).. The only noticeable items that are mentioned in Dr Vincent Tabak's tale on the stand, is... The oven , The TV and the coat stand....
Now one may think they removed the TV for finger prints, the oven was built in so could maybe that was why they didn't remove that, even though they could have... And the coat stand is in the hall.... And that being in the hall in the images surprises me because if Dr Vincent Tabak had put his coat on it, I would have expected it to have been removed for forensic testing like everything else... But thats my opinion...
So I come back to David Yeates statement about the washing pile and question why Dr Vincent Tabak didn't mention said washing?? It is about the only piece of what one may call evidence that was never mentioned in the papers as far as I am aware....
So the post by the facebook forum user may be inaccurate, there is no supporting evidence , that i can find for this... So I am not saying that CJ told an untruth... Because it could simply be gossip on a forum for all I know...
But I do still question the new information about the clothes washing.... This in itself is explosive (imo) because it paints a different picture, the jury cannot have been informed of the full facts, I believe... unless they saw other images than the ones we know about...
Think about it... Clothes... piles.... kitchen..... Fight possibly took place in kitchen... So where is the blood on these clothes?? Has the scene been staged?? I don't know... I am not saying it was staged just questioning the possibility...
I may put two and two together and make five... One needs to then ask why the clothes washing was never mentioned at trial?? Never mind she had put the oven on to bake.... She obviously going from what David Yeates states was about to do the washing.... If she herself had organised said clothes washing....
And is this what David and Theresa Yeates means by what was left behind?? Was it the pile of washing that made then believe their daughter had been abducted.... It's a possibility...
Thinking about the washing in closer detail, Do people still put their clothes in piles to wash?? They did when I was a child when they used a twin tub... Piles of washing on the floor, sorted ready to be washed, and choosing in which order...
But with an automatic washer, I am presuming, one may put the clothes in a pile, put a wash on and return the rest of clothes into basket, whilst the wash happens,... One doesn't physically have to be involved in the was in the same way as when using a twin tub....
So was it usual for Joanna Yeates to put her clothes washing into piles, because she was doing her clothes washing, or did she just pull out the darks for instance and wash them first... Or was she not that careful and she shoved anything into the wash at the same time....
It's detail... detail that would explain how Joanna Yeates behaved when it came to routine tasks.... The other possibility, was that a wash had been done... She had actually got a wash on.... Now if someone was staging the scene, the combination of clothes that may have been in the washing machine, could tell someone a great deal...
Because if she was the type of person that seperated her washing and did darks and lights on different washes, then we find inside the machine a combination of whites darks and delicate fabrics, then this would indicate that someone had staged the flat.... And if the washing had been seperated into darks and lights and Joanna Yeates just shoved a wash on without consideration, that too would indicate that the flat had been staged...
So the importance of the statement that David Yeates gives on video is huge... (imo) It could indicate that someone spent a great deal of time inside said flat making the scene look like Joanna yeates was doing normal activities on said evening, but not knowing her habits they could have left the clue, by trying to make it look like she had been preparing to wash her clothes....
I keep being asked why I got involved with this case.. And I have said... I was on the original facebook forum and it wasn't a group as we know today... I followed the case and was surprised by the lack of evidence that came to trial, I was surprised by the witness's I had expected to be at trial and weren't and I was amazed by the defence attitude to their own client.... These reason had me questioning whether the story that was told on the stand was true and accurate... Because from what I remembered, and flashes of information, it didn't ring true...
So I looked for myself what information I could find about this case and cross referenced what had been said in the media and what had been said on video... And found even more discrepancies and more questions about the case....
I wondered and still wonder why thing don't appear to add up... And David Yeates statement on video is a point in question.... He reveals new information after the trial, that we were never made aware of.... Information the Police and the killer would know, that something that you expect to be revealed at trial, putting to bed doubts someone may have, because it was information that only a few would have been privy too...
I have explained many times I am not pointing fingers... I do not know who killed Joanna Yeates... I can surmise based on the information that was in the media, but as I have stated before, if the real killer was never mentioned in the media then no-one knows anything about them....
What I have written has only ever been my opinion based on the information in the media and video that I have cross referenced.....and I have made that clear, I cannot state as fact that someone staged the flat with piles of washing, but I can state as fact that there was piles of washing, because I have video evidence to prove that David Yeates did in fact make that statement... I can come up with different scenarios as to why the washing is there or why it was never mentioned at trial, or was it the CLUE that the Police had that only them and the killer would know....
This is where my mind goes walkabouts, We have a Missing Sock.... We have Joanna yeates wearing the other Sock, but did Joanna Yeates wear 2 pairs of socks??? It was cold and most people in cold weather wear 2 pairs of socks... I think i am safe in saying that.....
But why the Missing Sock is important has to be more than it being a trophy that someone doesn't keep as a trophy and then puts it in a bin....
Lets go back a minute..... we have the Old man at the gate with a sock in his hand popping it into an evidence bag..... We know it is not the Missing Sock, but it has to be significant.... And this is where a theory can lie or come from....
If I go back to David Yeates and the pile of washing.... Was a wash put on???? A most important question.... Because it is feasible, if I believe a wash was put on, that if Joanna Yeates had two socks on each foot, and the thinner or different sock that was underneath the large grey sock was on the floor of the flat, did that other sock get put in the washing machine and the cycle for the washing machine was started.... Proving that someone made a huge mistake by trying to stage the flat, Seeing as Joanna Yeates was wearing the other sock underneath her big grey sock...
And as I write this then "Cycle" means something else.... Cycle doesn't mean bike it means washing CYCLE... Which would be only information that the Police and the killer would know....(imo)
So is what was left 'behind' her other 'sock' which possibily would have been underneath her grey sock and this other sock ended up in the washing machine, or washing pile, clearly indicating the staging of the flat ..... Killers make mistakes, they do indeed panic,I would imagine... So again I will say is The Washing Machine of Great Significance?? Did someone stage the flat, was something that Joanna Yeates was wearing when she was at the Ram Pub in the washing machine or pile of washing that David Yeates speaks of...
Because in any case there has to be something only the killer knew.... And I believe the theory i have put forward is a possibility..
One last thing on the washing... If it wasn't a sock that was either in the pile of clothes or washing machine, was it in fact Joanna Yeates plain top??
Dr Delaney talks of Joanna Yeates being found in a Flower Patterned top, suggesting that she possibily had been redressed..... She clearly has a plain top on in the Ram Pub.... It had been reported that Greg had looked through her clothes to see what she was wearing... Now if I take that statement, is Greg telling us he found the plain top she wore in the Ram either in The Washing or in the clothes pile?? But if said top was in the washing then blood should have been upon it or stains etc... Or whilst fighting for her life did someone pull over her head the plain top and it was removed from her person?? meaning no stains were upon it and it ended up in the wash pile or washing machine.... Is that the significance of her top being pulled up over her head??
Either way... The Washing has great significance (imo) And if the Jury were not made aware of this fact, and Dr Vincent Tabak was not questioned about The Washing and Greg didn't mention this washing on the stand, we have to ask why this information was kept from the jury??
Is it also possible that the Ikea duvet that Dr Kelly Sheridan has remarked on was in the washing machine or washing pile, and that is why the duvet is significant... Especially if the bed had only recently had clean linen put on it before Greg went away...
David Yeates tells us about this vital piece of evidence.... We just need to know what it's significance is.... And I can only put forward ideas as to why it is significant.....
You can pick holes in my theories, you can scoff at my suggestions.... But The Washing Pile that David Yeates speaks of on video, cannot be ignored.. It was something he witnessed, it was something he had seen and taken note of and it is something i believe that really need looking at more closely....(imo)
And statements such as this that have been made after trial only add to my many questions I have about this case..
https://yeates-archive.livejournal.com/5204.htmlhttp://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8239.msg456649#msg456649
