The Defence Will State Their Case

[justsaying]

After Tabak confessed procedures will have taken place, he will have submitted a statement with his confession which will have been used in trial against him.

[[...]]

After Tabak confessed procedures will have taken place, he will have submitted a statement with his confession which will have been used in trial against him.

Your assuming a lot there.... Where is the evidence of this ??

[justsaying]

Dr Vincent Tabak never stated to the Chaplain that he killed Joanna Yeates anyway.... that is someones interpretation of what was spoken... If people want to believe him guilty, then they will read what ever they want to into a statement that was made at trial by Brotherton...

How do you know? Were you hiding behind a curtain when he confessed? He had every opportunity to deny this at trial, he did not deny this - hence the trial took place based on the confession. Why can you not understand that, it is very simple!

[justsaying]

Also if he didn't confess and put in a further statement, which is procedure... Then how on earth did he claim that she screamed when he went to kiss her so he put his hand over her mouth. And, that he only strangled her for 20 seconds. Come on, even you cannot be that blind!

[[...]]

How do you know? Were you hiding behind a curtain when he confessed? He had every opportunity to deny this at trial, he did not deny this - hence the trial took place based on the confession. Why can you not understand that, it is very simple!

Maybe it's because I am Simple!!

[justsaying]

Your assuming a lot there.... Where is the evidence of this ??

Do you honestly think no-one spoke to him after he confessed? His defence will have had to take a statement from him, which will have been produced at trial to play down his alleged intent... It isn't rocket science - it is correct procedure...

[jixy]

Nine have you ever looked it from the view point of Tabak being guilty and working your way back? everyone on this forum comments on cases where they have been found guilty. Some say that is enough to convince them that right verdict was reached others totally disagree.

Tabak offered up a version of what he said happened... that could be true or maybe a watered down version to give the best impression of himself and the attack that took place that evening

If you were guilty yourself and looked at your future being spent serving a life sentence, what version of yourself would you put forward?

[justsaying]

Maybe it's because I am Simple!!

Maybe it is because you have no understanding of the law and trial procedures... No-one called you simple so stop jumping to conclusions. I think Tabak is guilty based on a number of sound facts. You think he is innocent based on all these theories you have conjured. Let's agree to disagree, I've had enough of people's hostility just because I dare to have a different opinion. We are supposed to be adults, yet people are acting like children.

[[...]]

Nine have you ever looked it from the view point of Tabak being guilty and working your way back? everyone on this forum comments on cases where they have been found guilty. Some say that is enough to convince them that right verdict was reached others totally disagree.

Tabak offered up a version of what he said happened... that could be true or maybe a watered down version to give the best impression of himself and the attack that took place that evening

If you were guilty yourself and looked at your future being spend serving a life sentence, what version of yourself would you put forward?

Stupidly I would be honest and say exactly what happened... But that is me...  I would expect to be represented properly too...

I can work backwards on this , but it still makes no sense.....  I can work upside down on this and it won't make any difference....

I have wasted my time... I thought there was a point to the Justice System... But not the point I originally believed...

I won't change my mind until someone proves to me that Dr Vincent Tabak did indeed kill Joanna yeates.... I won't change my mind until DS Mark Saunders CCTV tape of Canygne Road on the 17th December 2010 is seen by the public, to prove one way or another whether or not Joanna Yeates actually arrived home.... Because Colin Port shouldn't be telling The Leveson Inquiry that the last known sighting of Joanna Yeates was at the Hophouse pub...

Meaning Joanna yeates either got home and is on the CCTV that DS Mark Saunders speaks of... Or there is  CCTV footage of a time at the HopHouse pub we know nothing about... Because that clip we have seen of Joanna yeates at the end of the street on the HopHouse Pub footage, doesn't clearly indicate who the person is on that footage.... So there has to be more footage, for Colin Pot to say that Joanna Yeates was last seen on the CCTV from the Hophouse pub.... And we are aware that they Police took the entire system away from The Hophouse Pub... Why do that if there wasn't anything else on the footage from that establishment...

So yes.. I will question the events at trial..... because they make no sense either!

[justsaying]

Stupidly I would be honest and say exactly what happened... But that is me... 

And yet you assume Tabak didn't do the same, based on no evidence whatsoever...

[[...]]

And yet you assume Tabak didn't do the same, based on no evidence whatsoever...

Yes I do.... Because there is too much detail missing....  He should be able to answer questions put, not say he doesn't know more than 80 times....

[[...]]

And yet you assume Tabak didn't do the same, based on no evidence whatsoever...

Exactly..... No Evidence whatsoever!!!  

[justsaying]

http://murderpedia.org/male.T/t/tabak-vincent.htm

"The team deployed a method known as DNA SenCE, which enhances unusable DNA samples through purification and concentration: "We couldn't say whether the DNA was from saliva, or semen, or even touch. But we could say that the probability of it not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion."

I suppose the forensic team was in on the collusion as well...

[justsaying]

Exactly..... No Evidence whatsoever!!!  

I meant your theories were based on no evidence whatsoever 

[[...]]

http://murderpedia.org/male.T/t/tabak-vincent.htm

"The team deployed a method known as DNA SenCE, which enhances unusable DNA samples through purification and concentration: "We couldn't say whether the DNA was from saliva, or semen, or even touch. But we could say that the probability of it not being a match with Tabak was less than one in a billion."

I suppose he forensic team was in on the collusion as well...

Not again... It wasn't a billion to one... it was a partial...  And they cannot turn around all of the evidence in 48 hrs as Lyndsey Lennen stated in her Guardian Interview... She'd have an issue as Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't a suspect at that time...

You know the drill I am not going over it again....