Sorry for long post....
Nine, if you also take into account that the trial was not about finding out who killed the victim then you will realise why they did not need to call certain witnesses. The trial was about culpability, not whether he killed her or not, which was not disputed by him nor ever has been. I find it really strange that people are arguing his innocence when he is not arguing it himself, no appeal, nothing to suggest he is fighting the conviction. And also ask yourself why all these professional people would collude to convict an ordinary member of the public just to protect another ordinary member of the public, it does not make sense that they would do any of what has been suggested in this thread, which I have read by the way.
Let me just start by saying, that the trial appears to be one sided, the information that we are aware of was from the prosecution or the media..
As the public we were aware of whom had said what surrounding this trial... Rebecca Scott and her videoed interview on the 12th January 2011.. Greg Reardon and the neighbours helping him start his car...
Now if I look at Greg a little more closely for that aspect of what took place, what we know through media reports and what was said at trial, differ slightly...
We are aware that it apparently was Peter Stanley and Christopher Jefferies who aided Greg Reardon in jump starting the KA that was Joanna Yeates which he had borrowed... Yet at trial it doesn't name who assisted him.. It just says neighbours.. But we the public believe that it is Peter Stanley and Christopher Jefferies , because of the reports..
This then makes me question the Prosecution and the Defence...
Is this a case of disclosure problems?? And if so, what does it say about both the Prosecution and the Defence?
The 1300 page document is a good example, disclosed to the Defence at trial, a document where the defence surely hadn't enough time to read it's contents and cross reference said contents or challenge said contents... A document that apparently had the emails and text messages etc of the 4 people who lived in the basement flats at 44, Canygne Road..
We are aware of some of the contents of this document, but NOT all!
What I have been trying to do is to show where I believe that The Defence didn't do everything for their client, and cast him in an unfavourable light to the jury... Where the defence challenged nothing and did nothing to support their client...(imo)
And also where the prosecution failed... allowing the case to be presented, that wasn't a true version of events....
Disclosure is key to this case... And the failings of the Prosecution and the Defence in this case are obvious...
Firstly, I understand that the Defence cannot use what is basically hearsay that has been reported in the media.. The fact that we know Christopher Jefferies saw 2/3 people at the gate on the 17th December 2010 at around 9:00pm.. which was reported by Sky News on the 30th December 2010, when CJ was accosted at the gate of 44, Canygne Road.. CJ also tells the Leveson of what he heard/saw on the evening of the 17th December 2010..
We all know this... I have mentioned this on numerous occasions and could not understand why he was never called...
But then I go back to disclosure... And if the Prosecution did not disclose this fact to the Defence, then this could not be used at trial... (obviously)... But it doesn't stop the public questioning why CJ, hasn't said anything since...
Peter Stanley, another person we are aware the Police spoke to, we see him leaving 42, Canygne Road on the 31st December 2010 with DC Jon Hook.. Peter Stanley drives himself to the Police Station I believe and Jon Hook gets into Peter Stanleys car, as the media photograph the exercise and they are both seen driving away..
Kingdon... whom lived behind Joanna Yeates whom heard a scream of 'Help Me" mid morning on the 18th December 2010
James Crozier and James Alexander.. The Ikea men, who delivered Furniture to Joanna Yeates Flat on the 9th November 2010, who could have told us what the Flat was like and how they managed to gain access that day... Was Joanna Yeates home for instance, or did they get a key? Did CJ, let them in?? Or was it Greg that was at home to receive the furniture?? Was there any obstructions they needed to negotiate.. eg: surfboard..
Tanja Morson, the most obvious person you would have expected to be at trial... The live in girlfriend of Dr Vincent Tabak... The person who knew him more than anyone in this country... The person who could confirm or deny Dr Vincent Tabak's movements on the weekend of the 17th December 2010 to the 19th December 2010.. Who only spoke to the Police on the day that Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested... meaning that The Defence didn't independently take a statement from her... And the prosecution disclosed NOTHING about Tanja Morson other than the said texts, which hadn't been confirmed by her independently...
Mr and Mrs Yeates, who witnessed as much as Greg Reardon did when they arrived at 44, Canygne Road on Monday 20th December 2010 in the early hours of the morning....
Dr Kelly Sheridan a fibre analysis expert who we have since discovered by her own writings that she tested an Ikea duvet.. this wasn't presented at trial..
The Sobbing Girl....... whom apparently was one of the reason that Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested...
Any other friends of Joanna Yeates who made statements, were not presented at trial...
No-one from the building of 44, Canygne Road were witness's at trial not unless you count the useless defence statement from Geoffrey Hardyman that was read to the court, were he speaks of Joanna Yeates cat and has nothing whatsoever to do with Dr Vincent Tabak..... Hardly a defence statement!
No neighbours who could tell us about that evening of 17th December 2010 were at trial....
DS Mark Saunders and his CCTV of Friday the 17th December 2010, showing people milling about and cars up and down were missing from trial....
Jack Carrington, the manager of The Hope and Anchor, who saw Joanna Yeates and her boyfriend on Friday 17th December 2010... who could confirm or deny whether the person with Joanna Yeates on that day was indeed Greg Reardon!
There are many more people I could add , but I am just showing the basics....
No physical evidence that was removed from either flat presented at trial...
No Finger print evidence...
No blood evidence from either flat...
No evidence of body fluids at either Flat or Longwood Lane or in the car of Dr Vincent Tabak....
Literally the trial consisted of an apparent confession to Manslaughter and witness statements that were read to the jury from witness's that didn't appear at the trial themselves... And a few expert witness's who were not robustly cross examined, and didn't go to prove that it was indeed Dr Vincent Tabak who killed Joanna Yeates...
Here are a list of witness who gave statements, but didn't appear at court...
* Nurse Ruth Booth Pearson (examined Dr Vincent Tabak when he was arrested )
* Daniel Birch ( Dog walker who found Joanna Yeates)
* Samuel Huscroft (Friend Joanna Yeates ) (text received from Joanna Yeates )
* Mathew Wood (Chris Yeates Friend... Joanna Yeates (text Received from Joanna Yeates )
* Sarah Maddox (At Dinner Party Dr Vincent Tabak attended )
* PC Steve Archer ( Was there when Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested )
* Mathew Phillips (Heard a shreik... was at party on Canygne Road )
* Louise Althrope (Attended Party with Dr Vincent Tabak)
* Geofrey Hardyman (Tenant of 44 Canygne Road )
* Elizabeth Chandler ( Office Manager at BDP)
* Shrikart Sharma ( Dr Vincent Tabak's Boss )
* Glen O'Hare ( Hosted Part Dr Vincent Tabak attended ).
* Anneleise Jackson, (PC... Greg's Phone Call statement )
* Peter Lindsell ( Friends of Joanna Yeates .. at Bristol Mead Station ( Text received from Joanna Yeates )
* Andrew Lillie (Attended a Dinner Party with Dr Vincent Tabak )
* Linda Marland (Attended Party Dr Vincent Tabak attended ) (party was in a bar in Bristol)
* Micheal Breen... (BDP Employee)
* PC Martin Faithful
So I can understand from a legal stand point that maybe this is why the idea that Joanna Yeates was killed by Dr Vincent Tabak appears to be the case... Because legally we have a plea to Manslaughter and nothing to counteract said plea that had apparently had taken place at The Old Bailey in May 2011..
We have no witness's or statements at trial to say any different... We could have had... But obviously, the information was never disclosed by the prosecution and or The Defence, didn't look into it robustly enough to see whether or not their client was actually guilty...
It almost reminds me of America.. where a plea deal is often the way forward to put a case to bed and the defence do not have the resources or the ability to fight for their client... Where to save their clients life, first and foremost is top of the agenda, as the death penalty is on the table... And where the defence tells the client that the evidence supports them committing said crime....
Well... this isn't America.. no death penalty here... The legal aid system was paying for this case, so what did the legal aid system give??
In my opinion, the defence did little to nothing to find out what happened on the weekend of the 17th December 2010 to the 19th December 2010 in regards to their client.... It appears to me it was a slam dunk case in their eyes and they didn't investigate further... It appears to me that they only used what the prosecution gave them as evidence and we do not know what evidence the Police or The Prosecution failed to disclose....
So on the surface, it may be conceived that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates and was guilty of at least the charge of manslaughter... But if we only know part of the evidence and we do not know the whole picture, how can we convict someone of partial evidence? Knowing what we know now.... Know that the CCTV presented at trial had no time stamp to put Dr Vincent Tabak in Asda at the time stated... Knowing that there were many many witness's who could and should have given evidence at this trial....
CJ, could quiet possibly have seen Dr Vincent Tabak that evening, he could have seen Greg Reardon that evening... he could have seen anyone that evening, but if he is not questioned at trial on the statements he has made in public then the version of events that Dr Vincent Tabak has given can not be confirmed or denied... If peter Stanley hasn't appeared at trial, we also do not know whether he saw anything on that evening.... likewise anyone on Canygne Road on the 17th December 2010..
We have the 3 people who were in Tesco's when Joanna Yeates bought the Pizza... they could confirm or deny the time that they were there.... As the timestamp that has been added to the Tesco's CCTV isn't the original date and time stamp as we can tell...
So looking at the evidence presented purely at trial of a man stating he killed Joanna Yeates and the lack of witness's to contradict any of the evidence presented, one could say that Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty...
But I do not believe that he is guilty.... I do not believe that what we have been told is the truth... And if the evidence is missing from trial, the jury can only go on what they have been told is true, whether it is or not....
I have sent myself around the twist trying to understand this case, and maybe it is far more simple than i have made it.... My many scenarios and theories that i have tried to understand why this case makes no sense and my endless search for the truth...
But if I bring it back to basics, then the real story isn't about whether Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates... or who indeed killed Joanna Yeates... But the lack of disclosure by The Police and the Prosecution in this case... The lack of defending ones client in this case, where I wouldn't call having my client admit to Manslaughter a win!!.. Yet it is on the website of said Defence council as a trial they presented at..... (who would advertise that fact) Hardly an advertisement for the man that is know as The Master Defender... !!
The fact that anything can be presented at trial, that doesn't paint a true picture of the events that took place can put an Innocent Man away in prison for 20 + years and no-one will give a damn.... As long as you back it up later with reports in the media about strangulation porn and prostitutes, then the public will swallow it... They won't question it, because they wouldn't want to be associated with it...
But i haven't swallowed it... I have questioned it... I have questioned virtually everything about it, whether you agree or not with my methods...
Because if with the information I have seen or know can put forward what appear to be ridiculous theories or scenario's.. that just goes to prove that the evidence presented was lacking.... That all this trial consisted of was "A" version of events, without evidence to substantiate what really took place as far as Dr Vincent Tabak is concerned or Joanna Yeates...
Like I questioned CJ... I could be completely wrong on that... He might be apart of a bigger picture... But i was questioning him based on the information available.... And forming an opinion based on said information....
So maybe now we need to talk of disclosure and finally find out the truth about the case of Dr Vincent Tabak and The Murder of Joanna Yeates... And have proper justice in this country.... And not rely on evidence that supports a conviction of what I believe is an Innocent man... By omitting huge amounts of said evidence that could contradict a mans plea to "Manslaughter", based on nothing more than a story told by him on the witness stand... A story that doesn't add up... A story that is not supported by any evidence... A story I or no-one else should believe is true without proper evidence to support this fact.. And with all said witness's who could and should have been at trial, telling us their version of events for that period of time...
And until I know truthfully what everyone connected to this case knows... I will still believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent... I will still believe that our Justice System is flawed.... I will still believe that anyone could and has found themselves in Dr Vincent Tabak's position... You just have to go back a few years and know the case of Stefan Kizco to understand how disclosure in that case failed him, as the Police already knew that he was sterile and could not be the contributor of the semen... But he was incarcerated on the evidence presented at trial....
We shouldn't be ruining the lives of Innocent people.... The Prosecution and Police shouldn't be allowed to get away with not disclosing the information that they have gathered.... And in a timely manner...
There should be some penalty in law for these people who are happy to put Innocent people away, by not disclosing the evidence they have.... maybe if they went to prison for the lack of disclosure, it may change their approach to how they conduct themselves.... instead on taking early retirement by some and then getting a generous handshake as they walk out of the door....
My last question therefore has to be....What DID The Prosecution disclose to The Defence??? Because reading between the lines... Not very much... We have filled in the blanks based on what the media have told us about this case, and not what was actually presented to the defence or what was presented at trial.. (imo)
Leaving massive gaps in a case that is NOT clear cut.... A Case that really needs to be re examined fully for us to every to be able to trust The justice system again... (imo)... Because we should never be happy with a plea from anyone that is NOT supported by any evidence whatsoever!! We should never be happy to accept a case without witness's being present, and witness's we know witnessed important information such as CJ.....
We do not know the TRUE VERSION OF EVENTS.... we only know a story that a man told, a story we should NOT believe as nothing supported this story in any shape or form.... (imo)!! Leaving us with a Plea that had no substance, but was accepted by The Defence as true....
Bit worrying if you ask me...!!