The Defence Will State Their Case

[Nicholas]

Sorry never heard of the term...  I'll have to google it..

Therefore applying this to myself... I have no understanding of the workings of the law... I have no understanding of this case...

The information that is Missing makes it impossible to have an accurate evaluation of what took place and who or who not was involved and to what capacity....

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

I find myself questioning my self about this case and whether or not it is real, There are too many possibilities, there are too many questions left unanswered.. And I always have more....

This is a 'Missing Persons Inquiry for all intense and purposes...  A Crime as far as we are made aware of at the start of this Inquiry has not been committed...  We do not know what we are searching for... And what I mean by that is we do not know what is Missing and what is left behind...

The Flat that was frozen in time

I know it's not frozen in time.... I can see it's not frozen in time.... So what time is it supposed to be Frozen in...???

Greg Reardon....  Greg has been back to the Flat according to the information we are aware of, from around 8:00pm on Sunday the 19th December 2010,...  Now we know nothing about Greg... We know nothing about his habits or whether or not he has OCD for instance... But the little we do know on what happened when he arrived home and what was left behind, has been documented all over the media..

* Arrived home 8:00pm Sunday 19th December 2010

* Cleaned up cat trays

* Fed Bernard

* Drunk from an open bottle of cider

* Had Pizza for his tea

* Tidied up the Flat

* Looked through Joanna Yeates clothes to see what she was wearing

* Went back outside to his car

* Was in the Flat for hours before ringing The Yeates ( around midnight)

* Rung CJ (around midnight)

* Rung Joanna Yeates phone at 9;00pm

* found phone in her coat pocket

* Searched her rucksack at around 11:00pm

* Found her Glasses, keys, bankcards

* Rings the Police at 12:45am on Monday 20th December 2010

There obviously was NO signs of a struggle in the Flat, there can't have been, And if there had have been Greg Reardon had already tidied up what every signs may have been there, making the Flat NOT FROZEN IN TIME....

We decide for ourselves that Greg Reardon must have gone to stay with someone... But why? This is a Missing Persons Inquiry, a crime has not been committed yet as far as we know..... So that stands to reason that Greg Reardon would still be residing in his Flat waiting for his girlfriend to hopefully return home...

He would sleep in the bed... he would watch TV possibily, he would make food maybe... He would brush his teeth, he would use the toilet, he would shower... He would have been around every part of that Flat... He may have sat at the dining table... He may have sat on the settees... He may have gone in and out of the flat putting up posters... Bring debris, back into the Flat...

Why would he not stay there?? She is a Missing Person... What other Indications where there that she wasn't?

And more importantly why would Greg leave the Flat?

He wouldn't (imo) He would be out looking for her, or pace back and forwards inside the flat waiting on her return....  he would want to be near the house phone just incase she rings..

So realistically he isn't going anywhere... He has no reason too... And we have days until she is discovered when anything could have happened inside that Flat....

He could have carried on with the painting to try and take his mind off things, he would have had visitors maybe supporting him in his hours of need...  The media footage of the tour of the Flat and the images of the flat show what?? A virtually empty flat... where there is no signs of Greg ever living there.... No bedding... no carpets... No TV no appliances in the kitchen, yet everyone has accepted that this is how the flat looked since the day that Joanna yeates went Missing.... No christmas Tree....

It can't be.... It simply can't be....

So any forensics that may have been collected from the flat are virtually useless... Seeing as we have had... The Police... Mr and Mrs Yeates, Greg Reardon all being inside this flat before any forensics had been done.....

How did The Yeates not notice any blood when they arrived?? 43 significant Injuries blood in her hair and dripping from her nose.... Enough blood was produced that a smear of said blood was apparently found on the wall at Longwood Lane... And if we are to believe a spot was found on the rubber seal of the car that Dr Vincent tabak used...

Yet not a smidgen of blood inside what is supposed to be the original scene of crime.... Nothing on the walls... Nothing on the bed... nothing on the carpets... nothing in the kitchen...

Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have place Joanna Yeates on the bed.... blood surely would have trickled or smeared on the bed....

He then has taken her around to his flat and placed her down... surely blood would have trickled or smeared somewhere there...

But no... It only manages to appear on a rubber seal in a car boot and on a wall on Longwood lane...

Dr Vincent Tabak didn't go around tidying up the scene of crime... He left took Joanna Yeates around to his house for an hour and then put her in the boot and drove to Asda's.... Really , ones gonna pop to the shops...

So if he didn't tidy the scene and Greg and The Yeates didn't see any signs of blood in the Flat, she cannot have been killed there....

The Yeates would have said that there was blood in the flat... They have done so many interviews for documentaries and not once do they say that there was evidence of blood....

So the automatic response then has to be that Greg cleaned it up.... But why would he do that??? Why would he lie about what took place... And why go to trial and tell his story on the stand.... So if Greg didn't need to clean any blood up and The Yeates didn't notice any blood... Joanna Yeates wasn't killed in her flat.... It stands to reason...

So how can that FLAT be frozen in time?? When there are so many possibilities as to who stayed there and who used what, whilst waiting for news on the whereabout of Joanna Yeates...

So how can a flat be presented to the jury as a scene of Crime when there was nothing to suggest that this is indeed the place that Joanna Yeates met her fate?

And more to the point,, why didn't the defence notice the condition of the Flat and lack of evidence within this flat??

Did it not make him question his clients story??

I don't get it... Clegg a man of reputation, a man who has been educated in the law, a man that should know what a crime scene look like, never once stops to look at his client and ask him how on earth he managed to do this crime... (imo)..

Mr Tabak, how did you manage to get into said Flat??

Mr Tabak how did you manage not to leave any traces behind if you say you are guilty of this crime....

Mr Tabak, could you tell me where the TV was positioned?

Mr Tabak, could you tell me the colour of the oven?

Mr Tabak could you tell me what the bed looked like that you placed Miss Yeates upon...

Mr Tabak, where was Miss Yeates cat at the time of the attack??

Mr Tabak, could you describe Bernard to me...

Mr Tabak, what type of lock did Miss yeates door have??

Mr Tabak when did you grab your coat back of the stand???

Mr Tabak, did you go back to collect your coat??

Mr Tabak , did you wrap Miss Yeates in your coat....

Mr Tabak we can see from the CCTV image that you had your coat on on the 19th January 2011

Mr Tabak, were you wearing your coat when you carried Miss Yeates??

Mr Tabak was Miss Yeates bleeding ??

Mr Tabak, did any of Miss Yeates blood get onto your coat??

Mr Tabak did you have Miss Yeates head near your coat as you carried her??

Mr Tabak what other clothes were you wearing that evening?

Mr tabak have you still got these clothes??

Mr Tabak, If you didn't have blood on your coat, did any blood transfer to any of your other clothes??

Mr Tabak did you dispose of these clothes....

Mr Tabak, Did you have the red top on we can see you wearing in Asda??

Mr Tabak, did you take a shower??

Mr Tabak did you clean the blood evidence from the Flat??

Mr Tabak why the need to turn off the TV??

Mr Tabak, do you think that I believe your story??


The list is endless... So what of the answers....

To establish that Dr Vincent Tabak is telling the truth, one needs to establish how it was even a possibility...

How a man who had No connection to a victim, would be incited into a home, commit a violent act and leave no traces whatsoever of said act having been committed inside said Flat....

And no evidence on ones person of said person committing said act...

I don't know what lawyers really do, yes they apply the law, but do they not question what their client states.. Do they just accept a story no matter how implausible said story is, and No Evidence to back up said story....

The DNA and Fibres could be explained away.... But what about how it would be possible to commit this violent act on a woman in her own home who I would imagined putting up a fight for her life, where when her boyfriend came home, he didn't notice that any signs of said violent struggle had taken place... And not just him... Her parents failed to notice any signs of a violent struggle taking place in said flat....

Her mother I would be sure... Would have combed every inch of that flat looking for something that may indicate where her daughter may or may not have gone.... Giving her opportunity, to see signs of a struggle...

Teresa Yeates tells us that the minute they received the phone call, she knew something was untoward... Her and David came straight to Bristol to start looking for her.... So if she suspected foul play or an abduction, I am of the belief that she would have been looking for signs of foul play whilst she was in that flat...

But there cannot have been any.... maybe that is why she believed that Joanna Yeates was abducted... So how did Dr Vincent Tabak manage to kill Joanna Yeates in said Flat without leaving any traces behind?? Or leaving any traces of Joanna Yeates on himself or in his own flat??

So NO.... That Flat is NOT FROZEN IN TIME.... It never was!!

And if we are to believe that fibres from Dr Vincent Tabak's coat  were on Miss Yeates, then how and when did that happen?? You would guess he must have had his coat on at sometime whilst being in direct contact with her... Therefore how did he manage not to transfer any blood whatsoever onto said coat??

He either took his coat around to his flat when he popped around there to panic for a moment, when he realised she was dead... meaning his clothing he was wearing at the time would have had evidence of said violent act... Or he put his coat on and buttoned it up before carrying Miss yeates around to his flat, leaving untold traces of blood on said coat....

But at trial we have neither.... No mention of what he wore that evening and no mention of nay blood transfer on either his coat or his clothes....

Odd that.... !!

These are the type of questions I would have expected the defence to ask there client... They do not know him... He could be a serial story teller... But the evidence that has been shown, in itself casts doubt on the story told on the stand...

We know Dr Vincent Tabak had his black coat on in Asda.... So.... where is the evidence upon it.... and shouldn't the defence have questioned that!!

Thank goodness you aren't a police officer hey 

[justsaying]

You continue to make valid points Nine and it seems to me from the evidence you bring here (I haven't read it all btw) that the anomalies in this case are vast.

When Simon Hall confessed to murder after having lied for around 12 years it became apparent that the original police investigation and subsequent trial were wrong with regards motive. This fact caused problems for the prison and probation service once Hall confessed but it was hushed up!? Hall died a D-cat prisoner. A sexually motivated murder, which it turned out to be, would have carried a much higher jail term for starters.

There are many who claim to be fighting for truth and justice and who say the criminal justice system is flawed etc but I've come to learn that due to the emotive nature of cases such as this, a lot of people simply aren't interested for various reasons. And Objective argument and reasoning is nigh on impossible.

It's a shame because from my view point the possibility that many of the answers they seek in attempting to highlight the flawed criminal justice system lay in cases such as this.

I am curious Stephanie. What changed your mind?

[Angelo222]

I'd like to know what makes Nine think the police didn't investigate this case properly?

The police didn't have to do much after they linked Tabak to the body of the victim. Once a confession was had then that was it, no more resources needed to be spent on the case.  When someone admits guilt, the police will restrict any further enquiries to joining up the dots.

[Nicholas]

I am curious Stephanie. What changed your mind?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg493604#msg493604

[Nicholas]

Nine - Have you heard of my side bias and the concept illusion of explanatory depth?

Sorry never heard of the term...  I'll have to google it..

Therefore applying this to myself... I have no understanding of the workings of the law... I have no understanding of this case...

The information that is Missing makes it impossible to have an accurate evaluation of what took place and who or who not was involved and to what capacity....

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

I find myself questioning my self about this case and whether or not it is real, There are too many possibilities, there are too many questions left unanswered.. And I always have more....

This is a 'Missing Persons Inquiry for all intense and purposes...  A Crime as far as we are made aware of at the start of this Inquiry has not been committed...  We do not know what we are searching for... And what I mean by that is we do not know what is Missing and what is left behind...

The Flat that was frozen in time

I know it's not frozen in time.... I can see it's not frozen in time.... So what time is it supposed to be Frozen in...???

Greg Reardon....  Greg has been back to the Flat according to the information we are aware of, from around 8:00pm on Sunday the 19th December 2010,...  Now we know nothing about Greg... We know nothing about his habits or whether or not he has OCD for instance... But the little we do know on what happened when he arrived home and what was left behind, has been documented all over the media..

* Arrived home 8:00pm Sunday 19th December 2010

* Cleaned up cat trays

* Fed Bernard

* Drunk from an open bottle of cider

* Had Pizza for his tea

* Tidied up the Flat

* Looked through Joanna Yeates clothes to see what she was wearing

* Went back outside to his car

* Was in the Flat for hours before ringing The Yeates ( around midnight)

* Rung CJ (around midnight)

* Rung Joanna Yeates phone at 9;00pm

* found phone in her coat pocket

* Searched her rucksack at around 11:00pm

* Found her Glasses, keys, bankcards

* Rings the Police at 12:45am on Monday 20th December 2010

There obviously was NO signs of a struggle in the Flat, there can't have been, And if there had have been Greg Reardon had already tidied up what every signs may have been there, making the Flat NOT FROZEN IN TIME....

We decide for ourselves that Greg Reardon must have gone to stay with someone... But why? This is a Missing Persons Inquiry, a crime has not been committed yet as far as we know..... So that stands to reason that Greg Reardon would still be residing in his Flat waiting for his girlfriend to hopefully return home...

He would sleep in the bed... he would watch TV possibily, he would make food maybe... He would brush his teeth, he would use the toilet, he would shower... He would have been around every part of that Flat... He may have sat at the dining table... He may have sat on the settees... He may have gone in and out of the flat putting up posters... Bring debris, back into the Flat...

Why would he not stay there?? She is a Missing Person... What other Indications where there that she wasn't?

And more importantly why would Greg leave the Flat?

He wouldn't (imo) He would be out looking for her, or pace back and forwards inside the flat waiting on her return....  he would want to be near the house phone just incase she rings..

So realistically he isn't going anywhere... He has no reason too... And we have days until she is discovered when anything could have happened inside that Flat....

He could have carried on with the painting to try and take his mind off things, he would have had visitors maybe supporting him in his hours of need...  The media footage of the tour of the Flat and the images of the flat show what?? A virtually empty flat... where there is no signs of Greg ever living there.... No bedding... no carpets... No TV no appliances in the kitchen, yet everyone has accepted that this is how the flat looked since the day that Joanna yeates went Missing.... No christmas Tree....

It can't be.... It simply can't be....

So any forensics that may have been collected from the flat are virtually useless... Seeing as we have had... The Police... Mr and Mrs Yeates, Greg Reardon all being inside this flat before any forensics had been done.....

How did The Yeates not notice any blood when they arrived?? 43 significant Injuries blood in her hair and dripping from her nose.... Enough blood was produced that a smear of said blood was apparently found on the wall at Longwood Lane... And if we are to believe a spot was found on the rubber seal of the car that Dr Vincent tabak used...

Yet not a smidgen of blood inside what is supposed to be the original scene of crime.... Nothing on the walls... Nothing on the bed... nothing on the carpets... nothing in the kitchen...

Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have place Joanna Yeates on the bed.... blood surely would have trickled or smeared on the bed....

He then has taken her around to his flat and placed her down... surely blood would have trickled or smeared somewhere there...

But no... It only manages to appear on a rubber seal in a car boot and on a wall on Longwood lane...

Dr Vincent Tabak didn't go around tidying up the scene of crime... He left took Joanna Yeates around to his house for an hour and then put her in the boot and drove to Asda's.... Really , ones gonna pop to the shops...

So if he didn't tidy the scene and Greg and The Yeates didn't see any signs of blood in the Flat, she cannot have been killed there....

The Yeates would have said that there was blood in the flat... They have done so many interviews for documentaries and not once do they say that there was evidence of blood....

So the automatic response then has to be that Greg cleaned it up.... But why would he do that??? Why would he lie about what took place... And why go to trial and tell his story on the stand.... So if Greg didn't need to clean any blood up and The Yeates didn't notice any blood... Joanna Yeates wasn't killed in her flat.... It stands to reason...

So how can that FLAT be frozen in time?? When there are so many possibilities as to who stayed there and who used what, whilst waiting for news on the whereabout of Joanna Yeates...

So how can a flat be presented to the jury as a scene of Crime when there was nothing to suggest that this is indeed the place that Joanna Yeates met her fate?

And more to the point,, why didn't the defence notice the condition of the Flat and lack of evidence within this flat??

Did it not make him question his clients story??

I don't get it... Clegg a man of reputation, a man who has been educated in the law, a man that should know what a crime scene look like, never once stops to look at his client and ask him how on earth he managed to do this crime... (imo)..

Mr Tabak, how did you manage to get into said Flat??

Mr Tabak how did you manage not to leave any traces behind if you say you are guilty of this crime....

Mr Tabak, could you tell me where the TV was positioned?

Mr Tabak, could you tell me the colour of the oven?

Mr Tabak could you tell me what the bed looked like that you placed Miss Yeates upon...

Mr Tabak, where was Miss Yeates cat at the time of the attack??

Mr Tabak, could you describe Bernard to me...

Mr Tabak, what type of lock did Miss yeates door have??

Mr Tabak when did you grab your coat back of the stand???

Mr Tabak, did you go back to collect your coat??

Mr Tabak , did you wrap Miss Yeates in your coat....

Mr Tabak we can see from the CCTV image that you had your coat on on the 19th January 2011

Mr Tabak, were you wearing your coat when you carried Miss Yeates??

Mr Tabak was Miss Yeates bleeding ??

Mr Tabak, did any of Miss Yeates blood get onto your coat??

Mr Tabak did you have Miss Yeates head near your coat as you carried her??

Mr Tabak what other clothes were you wearing that evening?

Mr tabak have you still got these clothes??

Mr Tabak, If you didn't have blood on your coat, did any blood transfer to any of your other clothes??

Mr Tabak did you dispose of these clothes....

Mr Tabak, Did you have the red top on we can see you wearing in Asda??

Mr Tabak, did you take a shower??

Mr Tabak did you clean the blood evidence from the Flat??

Mr Tabak why the need to turn off the TV??

Mr Tabak, do you think that I believe your story??


The list is endless... So what of the answers....

To establish that Dr Vincent Tabak is telling the truth, one needs to establish how it was even a possibility...

How a man who had No connection to a victim, would be incited into a home, commit a violent act and leave no traces whatsoever of said act having been committed inside said Flat....

And no evidence on ones person of said person committing said act...

I don't know what lawyers really do, yes they apply the law, but do they not question what their client states.. Do they just accept a story no matter how implausible said story is, and No Evidence to back up said story....

The DNA and Fibres could be explained away.... But what about how it would be possible to commit this violent act on a woman in her own home who I would imagined putting up a fight for her life, where when her boyfriend came home, he didn't notice that any signs of said violent struggle had taken place... And not just him... Her parents failed to notice any signs of a violent struggle taking place in said flat....

Her mother I would be sure... Would have combed every inch of that flat looking for something that may indicate where her daughter may or may not have gone.... Giving her opportunity, to see signs of a struggle...

Teresa Yeates tells us that the minute they received the phone call, she knew something was untoward... Her and David came straight to Bristol to start looking for her.... So if she suspected foul play or an abduction, I am of the belief that she would have been looking for signs of foul play whilst she was in that flat...

But there cannot have been any.... maybe that is why she believed that Joanna Yeates was abducted... So how did Dr Vincent Tabak manage to kill Joanna Yeates in said Flat without leaving any traces behind?? Or leaving any traces of Joanna Yeates on himself or in his own flat??

So NO.... That Flat is NOT FROZEN IN TIME.... It never was!!

And if we are to believe that fibres from Dr Vincent Tabak's coat  were on Miss Yeates, then how and when did that happen?? You would guess he must have had his coat on at sometime whilst being in direct contact with her... Therefore how did he manage not to transfer any blood whatsoever onto said coat??

He either took his coat around to his flat when he popped around there to panic for a moment, when he realised she was dead... meaning his clothing he was wearing at the time would have had evidence of said violent act... Or he put his coat on and buttoned it up before carrying Miss yeates around to his flat, leaving untold traces of blood on said coat....

But at trial we have neither.... No mention of what he wore that evening and no mention of nay blood transfer on either his coat or his clothes....

Odd that.... !!

These are the type of questions I would have expected the defence to ask there client... They do not know him... He could be a serial story teller... But the evidence that has been shown, in itself casts doubt on the story told on the stand...

We know Dr Vincent Tabak had his black coat on in Asda.... So.... where is the evidence upon it.... and shouldn't the defence have questioned that!!

No - your opinions are flawed

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ejsp.2504

http://scienceblogs.com/mixingmemory/2006/11/16/the-illusion-of-explanatory-de/

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27117

[[...]]

No - your opinions are flawed

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ejsp.2504

http://scienceblogs.com/mixingmemory/2006/11/16/the-illusion-of-explanatory-de/

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27117

In that context yes.... Therefore everyone elses opinions are flawed, if they haven't been furnished with the full facts...  Or is my opinion again flawed??

[Angelo222]

I would say that Nine has made many valid points about this case but has provided nothing in the form of any evidence which could support any view that VT is innocent. The mere fact that VT has already freely admitted his guilt and is sane closes this chapter for me.

[justsaying]

In that context yes.... Therefore everyone elses opinions are flawed, if they haven't been furnished with the full facts...  Or is my opinion again flawed??

My opinion is based on fact. The fact he admitted killing the victim and based on the facts of what he said in court whilst giving his evidence in chief. Your opinion, Nine, is based on the fact that you refuse to accept any of the evidence against him.

[Nicholas]

My opinion is based on fact. The fact he admitted killing the victim and based on the facts of what he said in court whilst giving his evidence in chief. Your opinion, Nine, is based on the fact that you refuse to accept any of the evidence against him.

Do you mean whilst giving live evidence?

[justsaying]

Do you mean whilst giving live evidence?

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095802999

[Nicholas]

My opinion is based on fact. The fact he admitted killing the victim and based on the facts of what he said in court whilst giving his evidence in chief. Your opinion, Nine, is based on the fact that you refuse to accept any of the evidence against him.

He was the defendent not a prosecution witness?

[justsaying]

He was the defendent not a prosecution witness?

Correct. He gave evidence in chief when he was called to the stand in his own defence.

The questioning of one's own witness in order to adduce evidence to prove one's own case and disprove the opponent's case.

[Nicholas]

Correct. He gave evidence in chief when he was called to the stand in his own defence.

The questioning of one's own witness in order to adduce evidence to prove one's own case and disprove the opponent's case.

He was charged with murder ergo the defendant

[justsaying]

He was charged with murder ergo the defendant

Stephanie I do not need that explaining to me, I am quite aware that he was the defendant. However - he was called to the stand by his own defence team, he was questioned by his own defence team in order to adduce evidence to disprove the prosecution case - he was his own witness - in fact the only witness to the crime he committed. He took the witness stand to give his evidence in chief led by his own defence barrister. The defence, as you well know, can call witnesses and that also includes any defendant.

[Nicholas]

Correct. He gave evidence in chief when he was called to the stand in his own defence.

The questioning of one's own witness in order to adduce evidence to prove one's own case and disprove the opponent's case.

Go on, admit it, you copied the above from here https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/evidence-in-chief.3312105/