The Defence Will State Their Case

[mrswah]

Indeed.... But did they get the right man?? And it will never be challenged if no-one speaks of it!!

I agree.

I think I have said all that I have to say regarding this case, and I am glad we have this thread, so that people can read it and make up their own minds. After all, the case is probably largely forgotten now.

I doubt the verdict will ever be challenged though----not unless Vincent Tabak challenges it, or somebody else admits to killing Joanna, or admits to knowing who did.

[justsaying]

So let me get this right. Tabak is innocent because;

1. Him and the victim are secret agents;
2. The jury and the police were actors during the trial;
3. They used a body double to enter a guilty plea for manslaughter;
4. Photo's were photoshopped and the victim may have been pregnant;
5. It was a stitch up to cover for the real perpetrator who was probably her partner;
6. His defence team were really working with the prosecution;
7. Tabak probably doesn't exist;

This cannot be serious surely?

I read somewhere that the DNA was a billion to one match in this case? I assume the reason he pleaded guilty to manslaughter was because he knew there was sufficient evidence to link him to the crime and he tried to play down his culpability but this was rejected by the jury? His defence team did their best with the bad case they were given considering the fact he had already pleaded guilty to manslaughter and hiding the victims body. The defence could hardly paint him in a good light to the jury on that basis. The theories and speculation set out on this thread are too farfetched to even consider being true. He was properly convicted IMO.

[jixy]

  justsaying. That seems to be a very concise summing up of the info we have been given here so far.

[justsaying]

justsaying. That seems to be a very concise summing up of the info we have been given here so far.

  Jixy. It would seem so, certainly nothing convincing to even touch upon him being innocent.

[mrswah]

Jixy. It would seem so, certainly nothing convincing to even touch upon him being innocent.

You obviously haven't read too much of the thread then!

[justsaying]

I actually wasted my whole day yesterday laughing, sorry I mean reading it.

[Baz]

Well we can all agree that we are all beyond impressed by just how much time Nine has put into this. She gives dedication new meaning.

We may never agree but I respect the effort.

[[...]]

I actually wasted my whole day yesterday laughing, sorry I mean reading it.

Glad I at least amuse justsaying.. Wouldn't be so bad if this wasn't funny..  I understand if you haven't managed to read the whole thread on this subject, and maybe understand why some of the scenario's and conclusions I have come to, come from....

CJ.. perfect example... A man whom i want answers from... a man whom i just don't want to believe was in it for the money... But when I read tweets like this, i can only then come to one conclusion..

Jules Stenson
‏
 
@julesstenson

Chris Jefferies vilification was appalling. But wonder if he will mention £60k he wanted from the NOTW to tell his story?

10:39 AM - 28 Nov 2011

Jules Stenson, was an Editor for The News of The World... Interesting, him making said tweet, to be honest, NOTW stopped in July 2011 according to wiki..

Amid a public backlash and the withdrawal of advertising, News International announced the closure of the newspaper on 7 July 2011

It ceased publication on the 10th July 2011.. 19 days before the tabloids were taken to court for contempt...

So is this man telling us the truth about CJ??  By 10th July 2011  the papers had been taken to court, that was on the 29th July 2011, when the attorney General states that CJ is wholly innocent because Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty, when he hasn't had a trial yet, his trial doesn't take place until October 2011.. Any plea that apparently had taken place could be withdrawn... (imo) Making a plea without any evidence to say how this Murder had taken place at that time seems preposterous to me, Dr Vincent Tabak hadn't told anyone how this murder had occurred at this time, so why did Clegg even allow his client make such a plea??

If CJ was courting the media for his story to be told before Dr Vincent Tabak had had his trial, is this the reason that CJ wasn't a witness? And if that was the case why hasn't anyone said anything??

I find it quite disturbing to be honest , if what Jules Stenson states is true... Self Interest is the name of the game... CJ, could never be a witness if he was ready to sell his soul to the devil, and we do not know when the NOTW had wanted his story? It could even be before Dr Vincent Tabak appeared at The Old Bailey... We just don't know..

CJ had no intention to take the stand at the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak if this tweet is accurate... (imo) and me saying that he's been busy courting the media is therefore true... (imo)

One would imagine that the trial was more important really.. A trial about his tenant being murdered, but obviously that cannot be the case (imo)

CJ wanting payment from NOTW to tell his story, that is incredible, think about that for a moment...

He is an incredibly well educated man, a man who had solicitors at the ready, a man who's solicitors surely should have instructed him, not to solicit any publicity before the trial....  A man whom could have been called as a witness at the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak... And should have been called as a witness at the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak...

A man whom had heard/saw people at the gate.... Did Clegg not Interview CJ? i find the idea that CJ is touting for money before a trial has taken place disturbing... he could and should have been a valuable witness, but did his actions preclude him from the trial??

So.. I think my conclusions are correct if the tweet is accurate, and CJ is a self interested man, who cares more about himself than attending a trial as a witness for the prosecution or the defence at the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak.. He cares more about himself (imo) than The Murder of Joanna Yeates...

You see justsaying... you either have to believe that CJ is an upstanding citizen who was wronged by the media, because this case is junk.... Or that he is a self interested individual who doesn't care about his murdered tenant or his tenant whom was on trial for her murder or the case in general, because he had decided early on that he wouldn't be a witness in this case(imo) by wanting NOTW to pay him a substantial amount of money for his story...(imo) yet he allowed the media in Flat 1 to view a flat frozen in time... A Flat that had lain empty for 10 months...

Think about that... the jury didn't need to see the staged flat... not at all, it wasn't a flat owned by Joanna Yeates... The jury could have quiet easily have seen the crime scene photo's... (imo) Did CJ gain financially from the flat being left vacant? I don't know, but I have always found it strange that he allowed this flat to stay vacant when he had decided that he was taking the Police to court... Why would he help the Police with the Flat being vacant for 10 months when he didn't take the stand at trial, to tell everyone what was in his witness statements....

CJ wasn't telling the NOTW to pi**- off was he... he didn't tell them that he might be a witness at a trial....  That what he knew about the weekend of the 17th to 19th December 2010 was more important than him gaining financially from a tabloid before a trial had taken place, which may be seen as vulgar... He was happy to tell sky he wasn't telling the media what he had witnessed, so why was he happy to tell the tabloids his story of woe??  Or was he prepared to tell them what he actually knew??

I have often wondered whether this case is about money? But again I don't know..  But the murder of Joanna Yeates seems to be secondary to everything else...

And whilst I amuse you justsaying, take some time to try and understand where i am coming from... Where i have looked at what is available and come to conclusions based on what I have found...

According to wiki... The Sun is the sister paper of NOTW...

it was transformed into a tabloid in 1984 and became the Sunday sister paper of The Sun.

This is where i question everything... 

CJ at The Leveson is complaining about 'The Sun'

I attach copies of the eight worst offending articles:

1. ’The Strange Mr Jefferies’, The Sun, 31 December
2010;

Looking at the pdf document of CJ Leveson statement, these 10 comments i believe come from the Sun..

The Sun, 31 December 2010:
1: "This is the Joanna Yeates murder suspect. Chris
Jefferies - sporting the wispy blue-rinse hairdo that
saw him branded "strange" by school pupils he
taught"

2:"WEIRD, ’strange talk, strange walk’, POSH, ’loved
culture, poetry’, LEWD, ’made sexual remarks’,
CREEPY, ’loner with blue rinse hair."

3:"Former students claimed yesterday that the bluerinse,
long-haired bachelor, who police arrested
yesterday, used to make sleazy comments and
invite them to his home. One recalled: "He was very
flamboyant. We were convinced he was gay". "You
didn’t want him to come near you. He was very
unkempt and had dirty fingernails. He was
weird... He was a stickler for discipline and very
traditional. He used to get very angry and throw
books and pens across the room. He kept repeating
words in an odd way."

4:"A second student said "He was fascinated by
making lewd sexual remarks, tt was really
disturbing".

5. "Another student told how groups of up to ten pupils
were invited to Jefferies’ home... "My parents didn’tknow I went. The conversation didn’t exactly stick to
the curriculum. He was eccentric, odd and could be
described as a loner. We thought it odd that a man
of his age didn’t have a wife and had blue-rinse
hair."

6:"Landlord Chris Jefferies knew Jo Yeates’ boyfriend
was going away for the weekend - and had a key to
the couple’s flat, neighbours said yesterday.
Jefferies even helped Greg Reardon start his
broken-down car so he could drive to stay with his
brother in Sheffield on the night Jo
Disappeared...Another neighbour said:" He had a
key and knew the boyfriend was going to be away in
Yorkshire."

7. "Mr Jefferies was also famous for his utter dislike of
sports."

8. "Neighbours looked on Jefferies as a nutty
professor."

9. "Another neighbour described Jefferies as "a
dominant character". He said: "He was unusual in
that hair was all over the place. He was very posh, a
solitary figure and very cuftured, t wouldn’t used the
word popular to describe him." Family friends of only
child Jefferies described him as "effeminate" as a
youngster."

10. "Jefferies bought a flat in the block where 25 year
old Jo lived from a paedophile who was jailed for
enticing a young boy there for sex, it emerged last
night. Fellow teacher Stephen Johnston used the
ground floor flat to groom the pupil for three years.
Jefferies bought it in 1999."

So why was CJ at The Leveson??? If according to Jules Stensons tweet on the 28th November 2011 CJ had courted NOTW and wanted paying a substantial amount for his story to be told.... But then pleads vilification at The Leveson and The Sun the NOTW sister paper has offended his sensibilities??

Ridiculous... Incredible... Worrying!

This post is based purely on the tweet that I have found.... from a former editor of NOTW...  But it seems mental that CJ was trying to sell his story to the NOTW at all, if he wanted to take the papers to court for vilifying him....


The really odd thing is that The Sun didn't say anything about CJ  wanting payment for his story when they were taken to court in July 2011.. As reported in The Guardian..

The Daily Mirror has been fined £50,000 and the Sun £18,000 for contempt of court for articles published about a suspect arrested on suspicion of murdering Joanna Yeates.

So is the tweet true... Because i do not understand why The Sun didn't breath a word of what CJ had requested as payment from NOTW for his side of the story.....


Which then has me concluding that there is far more to the Murder of Joanna Yeates than we know... And we the public have been treated as fools....

"Justsaying".. can you not see why I constantly have problems with this case, and why I say nothing adds up...  Why would the Sun be happy to be taken to court or be part of The Leveson in regards to CJ... If there was nothing more to this case than a Placid Dutchman, suddenly deciding for no reason to strangle his next door neighbour he had never meet?? The Sun being compliant as to be sued and also appear at the Inquiry of the century? An Inquiry that should have had a second part, but seems that will never happen...

Which always brings me back to who did CJ see at the gate on Friday 17th December 2010??  Because everything in the media's power appears to have been done other than name the Murderer of Joanna Yeates....

This brings me back to CJ is either a self interested man... Or he is part of something much bigger, I do not know... But again nothing makes sense... Again I chase ghosts... Again I get nowhere...

IF Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't exist as I have suggested, then many people know this... That would be why CJ could get away with what he has said... (imo) He obviously knows something that someone wants to keep quiet... He obviously saw someone, who doesn't want identifying..(imo) ... Enough so that so much has been allowed to happen without anyone questioning it....

Justaying.. I just put together what I find, which cannot be ignored (imo).. And if you find my posts amusing, so be it... But It will not change what has taken place in this case... It will not change what is available to view by anyone on the Internet... Anyone can put two and two together and come to their own conclusions, you don't have to listen to me... And you don't have to read my posts...

Whether 10th July 2011 is the correct date the NOTW ceased or not is irrelevant really... More to the point is why The Sun didn't say anything when they where taken to court for contempt, when the person whom felt vilified was happy to be paid a substantial amount for his story... I am surprised The Sun didn't say anything to be honest, but for some reason they too are happy to go along with this charade, I just don't understand why!!

Just one more thing to add... From CJ's Leveson statement..

I do not read newspapers regularly but, when I do, I take
The Guardian, the Financial Times and obcasionally The
Independent. The interview I gave to Brian Cathcart is the
first and only interview I have given for the purposes of a
newspaper article. This was a difficult decision for me but
I chose to give the interview because I wanted to have my
side of the story heard and I was confident that the
Financial Times would report it responsibly

Difficult decision? That cannot be accurate if Jules Stensons tweet is correct....

Did CJ forget to tell the Leveson that the NOTW had wanted an Interview with him, and he wanted £60,000 for the privlege??

Doesn't this now make anyone question what CJ told the Leveson, because it appears he has been caught in an untruth if the tweet is accurate and it is actually the real Jules Stenson ... maybe Colin Port telling us CJ had seen people at The Gate is correct, and CJ's memory failed him... Whatever has been stated at the Leveson, needs to be questioned and Jules Stenson can confirm or deny, when CJ asked for 60k for an interview to put that in context... (imo)



https://twitter.com/julesstenson/status/141103936491896832

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_of_the_World

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122175126/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jul/29/sun-daily-mirror-guilty-contempt

[attachment deleted by admin]

[justsaying]

I agree 10 out of 10 for effort, but the conspiracy theories surrounding this case are ridiculous.

The probable reason it could be said that Tabak was guilty before his trial had taken place is that he had already admitted to killing the victim. The fact the confession could be retracted doesn't mean anything, considering it was already public knowledge that he had made the confession anyway. And, whether he retracted the confession or not, the jury would have still been told that he had admitted manslaughter.

Maybe CJ wasn't a witness because there was nothing of material importance that he could bring to the trial? It wouldn't have been his decision regarding him being a witness during the trial, if the CPS thought that he should have been then he would have been summonsed to appear whether he liked it or not. The story he was trying to sell was more than likely about himself and the way he had been treated rather than something linked to the murder case. There is absolutely no reason why he should have been a witness at the trial.

I am sorry nine, but you have used newspaper reports to gather all this info and are then confused as to why things do not add up. Well that is probably because there is very little consistency in news reports. If you go and look at a case of a person whom you think is guilty, using just newspaper reports, then you will find that more or less the same discrepancies will arise. There is nothing in your tediously long post to suggest Tabak is innocent, even if CJ was intending to financially gain from what happened to him does not prove that Tabak is innocent or that CJ should have been a witness during the trial.  With all due respect, I agree with Jixy, you're looking for things that aren't there.

[justsaying]

Also nine, he was not a "placid Dutchman". He admitted to killing the victim, it is disgusting to call him such a thing. Please think of his victim, he was hardly placid when he murdered her and tried to cover his tracks.

[[...]]

Also nine, he was not a "placid Dutchman". He admitted to killing the victim, it is disgusting to call him such a thing. Please think of his victim, he was hardly placid when he murdered her and tried to cover his tracks.

I was not the first to call him "Placid"... It was DCI Phil Jones in one of the many documentaries he has appeared in....

[justsaying]

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.

[Baz]

Well if a News of the World reporter tweeted that he asked for £60K then it is definitely true, right?

And not only that if he DID chose to makes some money off the back of what must have been a truly horrific experience, who can blame him??

Nine, I find it fascinating the way you're willing to talk about some of the people involved in this case and their behaviour (Greg, Chris Jeffries, the parents, the police, the lawyers) with suspicion and or anger but Tabak himself has never been the subject of the same attitudes from you.

[[...]]

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...!!

[justsaying]

Nine, you do not seem to be fully aware of the law and/or trial procedures, I may be wrong but that is what I am getting from your posts.

1. It is not necessary for every person who has given a statement to be called as a witness during the trial, their statements will not have been in dispute hence the reason they were not called. (i.e. why call a witness who heard a scream, the fact she screamed was not disputed, it was in fact admitted by Tabak and was supposed to be the reason he covered the victim's mouth and subsequently strangled her)

2. Police do not release every bit of information in relation to their investigations, this means that they will have evidence which only the killer would have known about - I assume the same will have happened in this case.

3. Newspapers do not print every aspect of the trial, that is the problem with getting information from news reports, there are bound to be huge gaps.

4. No evidence of non-disclosure.

5. As explained previously, the defence had no choice but to paint him the way they did, the jury already knew Tabak had pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

6. You cannot be found guilty on confession alone, there has to be evidence linking you to the crime. Be that circumstantial, direct, indirect etc... (the law states this)

7. Once again, the trial was never about establishing whether Tabak killed the victim, he had already admitted that part.

8. The Crown are allowed to introduce theory on what allegedly happened, not what the actual evidence is. (whether true or not, that is why it is called theory)

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...

If everyone knows this then it is hardly undisclosed...