The Defence Will State Their Case

[Leonora]

Well that last sentence is rather self-defeating isn't it.
...

No it is not. I don't recall anyone who could state with confidence (either on the Facebook forum, or anywhere else) the date(s) when the "bad character evidence" was discussed in court. I don't believe anyone except "insiders" (including the journalists) actually know. The very fact that we don't know is itself of some significance. I am not prepared to speculate, except without very good grounds - and there ARE very good grounds for believing that a part of the discussion took place at the plea hearing, five months before the trial.

[Leonora]

Personally, I cannot believe Vincent was "in collusion" with anyone to ensure a guilty verdict. I think he had long given up all hope by then, and was merely going through the motions, having been worn down by months in custody and relentless questioning-----and goodness knows what else.

Unless, of course, he was guilty, and genuinely remorseful------then he might well have felt he deserved a guilty verdict

I'm sorry mrswah, but you are posting with your good heart rather than your sound mind. If Vincent had ceased to function, as you suggest, then you may be sure that his family and his employer would have intervened to get an independent lawyer to replace Messrs Kelcey & Clegg. There is no doubt that the defence lawyers were in full control of their own actions, and in collusion with the judge and the prosecution. They did this in open court for everyone to hear. Unless the Tabaks were satisfied with these lawyers' extraordinary behaviour, they would have had the most solid grounds for sacking them. Therefore it is indisputable that the defendant and his famliy too had agreed to this collusion.

[[...]]

The big question which you, Baz, or any other person who (ignoring the massive evidence to the contrary) faithfully believes in the authenticity of the trial and the verdict, has to answer is: HOW were the police able to eliminate Greg Reardon as a suspect within three days of his 999 call? Nine days were to pass before Vincent Tabak became a suspect, according to the testimony of the officer who interviewed him in the Netherlands. During those nine days, the police wrongly arrested the landlord, but whatever else he may have done, we can be confident that Chris Jefferies did not kill Joanna Yeates.

I concede that the police knew things that we do not know, will never know, nor cannot even claim the right to know. But in those nine days, however much they knew, they cannot possibly have known enough to eliminate Greg with confidence. So why did they do so publicly? Were they lying in order to lure someone else into a false sense of security? The absence of even a false retrospective excuse for their curious behaviour is really very incriminating, both for Greg himself and the police. I too would like to eliminate Greg, but I cannot do so, even in my own mind, as long as both you and the police treat the public with so little respect. As I say, even a phoney excuse is to be preferred to the deafening silence.

You say nine days I say less..... Evidence proves that they were busy setting up the stage for Dr Vincent Tabak within days as the footage outside his residence shows, this footage was within days of Joanna Yeates been reported missing as the snow will indicate....

So why did they Zero in on Dr Vincent Tabak, before they had Eliminated Greg Reardon????

The only other option is someone else lived in Flat 2 as we know it.... Or it was Joanna Yeates ....

Dr Vincent Tabak cannot have brought any attention to himself at this time.... Was it his Flat... why did the media take footage of it at that time ?????

http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/joanna-yeates-murder-trial-defendant-vincent-tabak-gives-news-footage/656385638

[Leonora]

You say nine days I say less..... Evidence proves that they were busy setting up the stage for Dr Vincent Tabak within days as the footage outside his residence shows, this footage was within days of Joanna Yeates been reported missing as the snow will indicate....

Oh for goodness sake, Nine...Again - DO pay attention please. With your meticulous analysis you have been able to work this out, some six years after the trial. But the nine days is what we all thought we knew BEFORE Ann Reddrop made her remarks outside the court. There are about three people in this world who respect your research, and about 3 billion who are convinced that Vincent Tabak is guilty as charged. The police are never going to explain the huge number of anomalies that you have revealed by minute analysis of every pixel. I for one would be satisfied if they published the full text of the landlord's 2nd witness statement.

[[...]]

Oh for goodness sake, Nine...Again - DO pay attention please. With your meticulous analysis you have been able to work this out, some six years after the trial. But the nine days is what we all thought we knew BEFORE Ann Reddrop made her remarks outside the court. There are about three people in this world who respect your research, and about 3 billion who are convinced that Vincent Tabak is guilty as charged. The police are never going to explain the huge number of anomalies that you have revealed by minute analysis of every pixel. I for one would be satisfied if they published the full text of the landlord's 2nd witness statement.

I for two would be happier with someone looking at the evidence and a re-trial taking place... some proper evidence gathering and a defence Council who knows how to defend his client....

Or better still throw out this tainted conviction and actually start looking for the real killer......

I believe he is still out there....  And he knows he is..... !!!

[[...]]

Who else was in Tesco's at the time Joanna Yeates visited the store ???  We assume she went in alone, maybe she did maybe she didn't...

There are at least 3 people in the store...  Joanna Yeates... The man at the till and to Joanna Yeates left, there is another person at the till being served by a Tesco's employee....
 
I Believe that there are only 2 self service till in that store, as I looked at the reconstruction....

Joanna Yeates may not have had an option other than to use the self service... She may have come in there with someone.. we don't know... But what we do know is that there are 2 people unaccounted for in The Tesco's express store....  Were they ever tracked down ???

Image attached  and circled ....



[attachment deleted by admin]

[mrswah]

No it is not. I don't recall anyone who could state with confidence (either on the Facebook forum, or anywhere else) the date(s) when the "bad character evidence" was discussed in court. I don't believe anyone except "insiders" (including the journalists) actually know. The very fact that we don't know is itself of some significance. I am not prepared to speculate, except without very good grounds - and there ARE very good grounds for believing that a part of the discussion took place at the plea hearing, five months before the trial.

Leonora (and others), take a look at the following link, and please comment on what you think "Kayleigh" heard in court.  I always assumed she heard something about the "bad character evidence"------------but then, I am mrswah, and I might be wrong!!!

www.yeates-archive.livejournal.com/125700.html

[Leonora]

Leonora (and others), take a look at the following link, and please comment on what you think "Kayleigh" heard in court.  I always assumed she heard something about the "bad character evidence"------------but then, I am mrswah, and I might be wrong!!!

www.yeates-archive.livejournal.com/125700.html

Absolutely top marks for tracking this discussion and this poster "Kayleigh" down, mrswah! My immediate reaction is that threatening members of the public with prosecution for contempt of court for repeating verbally outside the court anything they heard inside the courtroom HAS TO BE a breach of the English constitution. Cases must be heard in open court unless the judge allows a hearing to be held behind closed doors. This is not uncommon, but I have never before heard of the public being admitted to a closed hearing and then threatened in this way.

I knew already that the public were not allowed to take written notes. That in itself was unprecedented. Therefore I am prepared to concede that this person Kayleigh may be telling the truth. What she heard may indeed have included the bad character evidence, and it may also have included details of Joanna Yeates's private life. I don't think we can do anything about this. Nor does it alter the conclusions we have already reached.

[[...]]

Leonora (and others), take a look at the following link, and please comment on what you think "Kayleigh" heard in court.  I always assumed she heard something about the "bad character evidence"------------but then, I am mrswah, and I might be wrong!!!

www.yeates-archive.livejournal.com/125700.html

mrswah.... with kayleigh's comments and the comments of others, it does appear that they are talking about the porn....

Kayleigh Erin Samková
I attended this morning's session and heard a couple of the points of law, all I can say is I'm amazed at some of the stuff they're keeping from the jury and it makes me wonder how much more they've held back. Very frustrating.
last Monday · Delete Post

Caroline Louise Broome
is this 'stuff' that in your opinion would act for or against VT?
last Monday · Report

Mair Gravatt
@Kayleigh - what were these couple of points of law
last Monday · Report

Kayleigh Erin Samková
@Caroline: Almost certainly against.

@Mair: Can't say or will be in contempt of court, hopefully all points of law will be made public after the trial is over (correct me if I'm wrong)?
last Monday · Delete Post

Kayleigh Erin Samková
No problem, Dyna. It's rather maddening not being able to elaborate!
last Monday · Delete Post

Mair Gravatt
OH I see - are you a journalist\/
last Monday · Report

Caroline Louise Broome
How come they don't present this to the Jury then? Is it just so he gets a fair trial?
last Monday · Report

Sarah Ryan
@Mair Its my understanding that anyone can be in contempt of court, not just journalists.

Thank you for sharing Kayleigh.
last Monday · Report

Kayleigh Erin Samková
@Mair: Nope, turned up at 6AM and got into the public gallery.

@Caroline: It's really difficult to explain why without giving details away, but the judge concluded the jury didn't "need" to hear it.

Which brings me back to... what was in the 1300 page document??  The date on the link you give is the 25th October 2011 some of the posts say a week ago... Even if you take into account the week before... The  jury still have in there possession the 1300 page document...

So you have 2 options...

(A): The Jury didn't need to hear it because it was already contained within the 1300 page document and they could read it in their delberations...

(B): The Porn never existed... It was only there for the fact that after trial they wanted to blacken Dr Vincent Tabak's character to make the public believe that he was a Nasty Man.... And his intention was sexual, everyone then could understand...

The document would be interesting to see...

Having had the 1300 page document for weeks, if there was any porn... it should have been within those pages... they obviously didn't redact the info in the document..... Did it contain references to porn, or child porn???

Or was it just a trick like all the other tricks the Prosecution used, in this trial ??? Another worrying trend that is mentioned

Anne Isherwood
@Debra Yes. Points of law are only discussed between the briefs and the Judges.
last Monday · Report

Debra Ann Clements
'Kayleigh Erin Samková
I attended this morning's session and heard a couple of the points of law, all I can say is I'm amazed at some of the stuff they're keeping from the jury and it makes me wonder how much more they've held back. Very frustrating'.

I have to say that after reading the above post by Kayleigh I was somewhat perplexed, and that my immediate thoughts were that was not how I remember it, but you have now confirmed what I recall, and is why I posted my intial comment.
last Monday · Report

Is it normal for points of law to be discussed when the public and journalists are present????



http://yeates-archive.livejournal.com/125700.html

[[...]]

further down on the page...

Anne Isherwood
@Kayleigh Interesting if this was done in full hearing but it was during the defence so must have been something that the defence wanted to include that would be deemed helpful to Tabak as the prosecution case was rested.
last Tuesday ·

I can look at this in different ways... either it was something else completely... which I do not imagine it was at this point ....

Or It was Clegg who wanted the information divulged.... Because they are under the illusion that Clegg wanted to help his client... But as we know ... he only helped to bury him.....!! (imo)

Alternatively it was to stop the Defence, being able to use Good Character Evidence ???



http://yeates-archive.livejournal.com/125700.html

[[...]]

Catergory A+ DCI Phil Jones at The Leveson....

As an SIO i have led numerous Homicide investigations within a diverse range
of circumstances and communities, These investigations have varied in
complexity and have ranged from Category A+ murders such as the Joanna
Yeates investigation where the offender is unknown and there is a high level of
media interest and public concern, to Category C murders

Never really picked up on this before ....

Level4

This is aimed at the Principal Investigating Officer or Officer in Overall Command of the Investigation of critical, complex, protracted or linked serious crime (Catergory A+) or review of others crime. Accreditation at this level is still being developed nationally

From the police manual..

Category A+
A homicide or other major investigation where public concern and the associated
response to media intervention is such that normal staffing levels are not adequate
to keep pace with the investigation.

Catergory A+ For complex or linked crimes.....

Where was the evidence for this at trial?? We need to remember that DCI Phil Jones is speaking to the leveson after the trial has finished... He doesn't need to mention this fact... He does along with the trainer...

Both speaking volumes about this case.... both pointing to someone other than Dr Vincent Tabak...

Where have Avon and Somerset established that this was a complex crime or that it was a linked crime ???  They obviously have in their possession information to the fact that this crime is very different from what we have been lead to believe...

What information has Avon and Somerset Police have that proves that this investigation was nothing to do with Dr Vincent Tabak...

What have they been hiding?????




https://www.north-wales.police.uk/media/342121/professionalising-the-investigation-programme-pip-policy.pdf

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122182731/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-DCI-Phillip-Jones.pdf

[[...]]

Witness's and the Media

An SIO should consider advising each witness in writing of the danger of
jeopardising future proceedings if they discuss their evidence with a journalist, either
on promise of payment or not.

This is why I do not understand how much information was given to the media by all those witness's....

(1):Rebecca Scott, talking about Joanna Yeates coat being left in her flat as early as the 22nd December 2010..

(2):The information that CJ saw people on the path..

(3):The information that Greg had help with his car

(4):The showing of Dr Vincent Tabaks flat in December

(5): Peter Stanley being filmed at his residence

(6): Neighbours talking of hearing screams

(7): Police doing forensics at Peter Stanleys

(8): Immediately saying Greg is NOT a Suspect ... he's a Witness, when they couldn't afford CJ the same grace, but
       leave CJ until March 2011 for people to make their own minds up..

We had many many stories in the media early in this investigation from neighbours and friends, telling us details we should never have known...

Why were we allowed to find this information out so early on??


http://library.college.police.uk/docs/APPREF/murder-investigation-manual-redacted.pdf

[John]

Reminder to all posters:

Far too many posts are still being removed having fallen foul of the off-topic rule.  Please ensure that your comments are relevant when posting.

Despite my previous warnings, some of the posts on this thread are far too long and repetitive. From now on, any such posts will be removed.

Moderator please note!

[mrswah]

Reminder to all posters:

Far too many posts are still being removed having fallen foul of the off-topic rule.  Please ensure that your comments are relevant when posting.

Despite my previous warnings, some of the posts on this thread are far too long and repetitive. From now on, any such posts will be removed.

Moderator please note!

Moderator has noted!

If any poster wishes to discuss similarities between this case and others, please begin a new topic for this. Thank you.

[[...]]

Why was a Missing persons Inquiry given an Operational name ??

What qualifies for an operational name???

Why was The Joanna Yeates case given The Operational name of Operation Braid when she was just a Missing Person...??

I was under the impression that Operational names were for more complex crimes and multiple persons etc...

Could someone explain why an Investigation is given an Operational name please...