The Defence Will State Their Case

[[...]]

So you do not see that as pointing fingers? I am not surprised you do not considering you support Tabak yourself, you're hardly impartial!

Yes... that is the point... I wasn't exactly trying to be impartial...

* I was trying to question why a man has gone to trial apparently guilty only to be found more guiltier....

* I am trying to understand , where the evidence lead to it being Dr Vincent Tabak.... 

* I am trying to understand why thing do not add up...

* I am trying to understand why witness's were not called...

* I am trying to understand why no-one stood in support of Dr Vincent Tabak...

* I am trying to understand why the CCTV of Canygne Road for Friday 17th December 2010 was not shown to the
   jury

* I am trying to understand why CJ's second witness statement is such a secret

* I am trying to understand where the time stamp went to...

* I am trying to understand why Colin Port state that The HopHouse Pub, was the last CCTV images of Joanna
  yeates

* I am trying to understand by which method Joanna Yeates arrived home seeing  the Hophouse pub is the last
   sighting

* I am trying to understand, why evidence bags were taken from Peter Stanleys house

* I am trying to understand, why Tanaj morson was not in court

* I am trying to understand why The Defence helped (imo) bury their client

* I am trying to understand, why the media stay silent

* I am trying to understand why no-one speaks of this case

* i am trying to understand, the motive for this attack

* I am trying to understand , how one person can carry a dead body so many times....

* I am trying to understand why Dr Vincent Tabak would take  the body around to his house....

* I am trying to understand why he didn't just leave her in situ and close the door...

* I am trying to understand why no body fluids were found in Joanna Yeates Flat

* I am trying to understand why no body fluids were found in Dr Vincent Tabaks Flat

* I am trying to understand why a flat doesn't look frozen in time....

* I am trying to understand how tiles came be painted, in a flat frozen in time,

* I am trying to understand why you need so many fire engines to recover a person from a grass verge...

* I am trying to understand, why Dr Vincent Tabak appeared at The Old Bailey

* I am trying to understand, why the head of the complex case unit saw a simple murder through to the bitter end..

* I am trying to understand, why this case gets mentioned in odd legal papers

* I am trying to understand, the significance of this case

* I am trying to understand, why builders remove a door that could have potential evidence on it

* I am trying to understand why the same builders are not wearing protective clothing

* I am trying to understand why the intercom panel was removed

* I am trying to understand, why Dr Vincent Tabak flat was put up for rent, before trial

* I am trying to understand, why the jury then were even taken to Dr Vincent Tabaks flat

* I am trying to understand why the parents want people to know that there was a "Piles or Piles of Washing" when
   they entered the flat/...

* I am trying to understand wh y they removed Joanna yeate sChristmas Tree from a flat frozen in time

* I am trying to understand why Dr Delaney states Joanna yeates had a flower patterned top on, but in the Ram her
  top is clearly Plain.....

* I am trying to understand , why the story on the stand matches the information that was already in the media...

* I am trying to understand, why Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't cautioned when they believed he was a suspect in
  December yet interviewed him as a witness...

* I am trying to understand, why a Missing persons case was being treated as a Murder inquiry from the beginning..

* I am trying to understand why the change of command got broken when DCI Phil Jones took over the inquiry..

* I am trying to understand why we were made aware of every detail of this case, before Joanna yeates had been
   found...

* I am trying to understand why witness statements were just read out....

* I am trying to understand why there was not hoards of screaming public baying for blood outside the court at trial.

* I am trying to understand why Dr Vincent Tabak didn't apply for bail..

* I am trying to understand , why Dr Vincent Tabak changed representation..

* I am trying to understand, why no-one saw a body on Longwood Lane for over 8 days

* I am trying to understand, why Dr Kelly Sheridan didn't take the stand with her fibre analysis of the Ikea bedding

* I am trying to understand why it takes only 48 hrs to turn around all the forensics in this case

* i am trying to understand how they had the suspects clothes to test in this 48 hour window...

* I am trying to understand, why the computer data wasn't challenged, when said computer could have been used
  by more than one person

* I am trying to understand how searches were made on Dr Vincent Tabak's laptop at 1:46am and 1:47am on
   Saturday the 18th December 2010, when Dr Vincent Tabak was busy picking up his girlfriend

* I am trying to understand what is so important about Joanna yeates

* I am trying to understand, what is so important about Dr Vincent Tabak

* I am trying to understand, why no witness can put Dr Vincent Tabak either on Canygne Road or anywhere else
  that evening

* I am trying to understand why the ASDA time stamps are Missing

* I am trying to understand, why there is no CCTV of the Megane travelling to longwood lane or Asda

* I am trying to understand, how a CCTV image of an unidentified car on Park Street, is supposed to be Dr Vincent
   Tabak's car

* I am trying to understand why the CCTV footage of Dr Vincent Tabak' Police interviews were not shown to the
  jury, even if they were no comment interviews...

* I am trying to understand why CJ's name is mentioned in court, yet he doesn't appear

* I am trying to understand in July 2011 it was stated that Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty because of a plea... A plea
   he could have changed at any time before he reached trial....

* I am trying to understand, why everyone wants this case to just go away

* I am trying to understand, why the Lehmans were so upset at trial

* I am trying to understand why the media were allowed to tweet this case

* I am trying to understand, why the Tabak's say nothing of this case

* I am trying to understand, hiw Crimewatch had footage of Dr Vincent Tabak's car outside Canygne Road main
   entrance

* I am trying to understand , why a man resembling Dr Vincent Tabak, is telling the driver where to park this car,
  when that car has a designated parking space..

* I am trying to understand how Geoffrey Hardyman statement about Joanna Yeates cat, can be seen as a
   statement for the defence

* I am trying to understand why Geoffrey Hardymans statement was ever used in court seeing as he witnessed
   nothing having had a cold and gone to bed....

* I am trying to understand why BDP announced that Joanna Yeates had been found on the 24th December 2010 on
   there website

* I am trying to understand , why Jess Siggers was wanting to look for Joanna yeates the weekend before she went
  missing

* I am trying to understand why the facebook page was removed

* I am trying to understand why the original facebook page was actually a forum and not a group

* I am trying to understand why The Missing group didn't set up as a forum

* I am trying to understand why people on the Missing Group had similar names to those of us on said facebook
  forum

* I am trying to understand, why a complete stranger would be a more likely suspect than someone who, new her

* I am trying to understand where the sobbing girl disappeared too

* I am trying to understand why Joanna yeates would open the door to a complete stranger....

* I am trying to understand why Dr Vincent Tabak would shit on his own door step

* I am trying to understand why that day of all days Dr Vincent tabak decided to act on his apparent urges

* I am trying to understand , why no other woman were at trial, accussing Dr Vincent Tabak of similar acts

* I am trying to understand, why there are many holes that could have a legal challenge are left wide open

* I am trying to understand how the Dutch authorities cooperated, with the CPS to allow questioning on their soil of
  one of there citizens

* I am trying to understand the urgency of the Holland interview

* I am trying to understand , why Dr Vincent Tabak didn't dump his laptop in a body of water in Holland

* I am trying to understand, why this conviction has never sat properly with me...

And if as mrswah said it is possible he could be guilty... Guilty of what exactly.... And shouldn't there be evidence to support this guilt.... Shouldn't there not be any reason not to question this case in so many ways....

If Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty, Guilty how and Why... The anomalies shouldn't be so vast....  The questions shouldn't be so many.... And civilians shouldn't be giving testimony to what they did in a Police capacity as an Officer who had been given various titles along the way to why he tried to stop a body from thawing....

Because the reason he had to try to stop a body from thawing brings me to a conclusion of he was trying to save some type of evidence... For all we know it could have been a finger print, it could have been a boot impression, it could have been anything... But that statement has not been cleared up, just like many things in this case....

Which can only bring me to a conclusion that there is more to this case than meets the eye... More to Dr Vincent Tabak than a story told on a stand.... More to why Joanna Yeates was murder....

And if questioning the guilt or innocence of Dr Vincent Tabak is too much for some.... maybe some should question the implications of the possibility that he is innocent.... Because that obviously means  a killer is walking about free to this day... A killer who may get the same urge to kill again... A killer who knows he/she has managed to get away with this crime.... A killer who may feel more confident in future....

And when another person looses a son or daughter to this killer, maybe then people might think , we should have questioned that case more....  We should have gone with our thoughts on the case, we should have gone with our questions on the case.....

We should have demanded solid evidence to support Dr Vincent Tabak's tale on the stand.....  And if he was protecting someone ... who and why?? By protecting someone doesn't make him guilty of murder.... It may make him something else in peoples eyes, but not of the deliberate act of ending someone life by his hand....

So yes, one could say i am being bias.... i am being bias because I do not understand why the evidence doesn't stack up.... And it has never stacked up....

And I question why they were so desperate to put and keep Dr Vincent Tabak behind bars from the day of his arrest... Without anyone being concerned for his rights... without the Dutch Authorities questioning why one of their citizens were being treated in this way....

[[...]]

Just to humour you...

How did David Yeates know how long the washing had been sitting there for? He hadn't been in her flat prior to her being killed - so how does he know when she did her washing? He could be just assuming what happened, a bit like you do in all of your posts...

David Yeates could not have known how long the Washing was there for, as you say unless he had been into the flat prior.... But we are not talking of when David Yeates was in the Flat,.... We have and I have assumed it was when they went to Bristol after the phone call from Greg Reardon......

You now are questioning The Yeates, you now are questioning when and on what day David Yeates saw said washing.....  You are now bringing into question another possibility about said washing.... I do not know when David yeates saw said washing.... Did the Police ask him when he saw said washing???

It is not something I contemplated... Did David Yeates mention said washing to the Police at all??? I do not know...

Now said "WASHING" Is significant no matter how you look at it..... said WASHING is important to this case..... It is always something that seems insignificant and innocent that turns a case around... Something that no-one thought of the implication of something could actually mean.....

So yes.... said "WASHING" is of massive significance  which ever way you want to look at it..... said "WASHING" maybe the key to unravelling this case....

Said "WASHING" could be the clue that has been ignored....

Was said WASHING Dirty... Was said Washing folded in neat piles... Was said WASHING Ready for the drying....

Said WASHING could have stunk to high heaven.... Said WASHING, could be neat and tidy... Said WASHING, could have evidence of Dr Vincent Tabak upon it.. Said WASHING, could have an item of the Killer amongst it...

Said WASHING, might have belonged to someone else... Joanna yeates might have been WASHING someone elses clothes... Said WASHING, could have been dropped of by the people at the gate..

Said WASHING, could contain any item of clothing Joanna yeates had worn that day...


To say that I do not know when David Yeates saw said WASHING, is true... I don't... I don't know why said WASHING hasn't been mentioned before, at trial by Dr Vincent Tabak or by Greg...

If said WASHING has only been sitting there for a day... Who left said WASHING THERE?? Who had access to leave said WASHING THERE?? Dr Vincent Tabak has closed the door behind himself apparently on Friday 17th December 2010 and had not re-entered, if there was a possibility of this surely Tanja Morson would have needed to take the  stand... To explain, how Dr Vincent Tabak kept disappearing that weekend....

But it is the appearance of said WASHING we need to understand.....  And whether or not Said WASHING was clean or Dirty.... Or wet or Dry....

We have conflicting statements that I do not know if what to make of them..... We have Piles of said WASHING, that David Yeates decribes in his interview a detail that is significant.....

We have Greg apparently searching through piles of clothes and finding an earring in said PILE of clothes and in underneath the duvet....

Is the PILE of clothes that Greg found said earring in the WASHING pile that David Yeates speaks of... Or is it a different PILE of clothes....

I do remember David Yeates saying before that he found an earring and when it came to trial, It was Greg that found both earrings... Which throw me a little....

So is the pile of WASHING, where Joanna Yeates earring was discovered?? Where there more than one PILE of Clothes??

Is the PILE of clothes.... clean...  dirty... wet... folded or what??  Why didn't Greg describe the clothes he had searched through.... He had tidied up... pottered about with ever increasing levels of stress...  So why not mention said WASHING... Was it in the way?? Did it add to the pungent smell the cat had left???

Said WASHING is significant... And I mean significant.... Said WASHING conjures up all sorts of problems... and questions... Said WASHING and where said washing was, has questions attached to it no matter what you think of this case....

Why was Said WASHING not mentioned at trial??

Mr Reardon said that he found a pair of his girlfriend's earrings in the bedroom.
One was in the bed and the other earring was on the floor under some clothes.

Mr Reardon said that he only found one of the fasteners and that usually when she removed her earrings she left them on the bedside table.

Now looking at what Greg describes at trial.... he doesn't mention WASHING!!!

He doesn't describe the clothes on the floor as WASHING... He doesn't indicate that these clothes were in a neat pile... Or that the clothes on the floor were indeed a PILE of clothes....

So to me that indicates what David Yeates observed was a pile of WASHING, that must have been near a WASHING Machine...  No WASHING machine in the bedroom we can see in the video tour of Joanna Yeates flat... No need to remove a WASHING Machine from said flat... Dr Vincent Tabak hasn't notice said WASHING Machine in said bedroom either...

So is David Yeates description of a Pile of WASHING incorrect.... I do not think so.... Are we really gonna start questioning David Yeates about when he saw said WASHING Pile??

He had never been to the flat before he and Mrs Yeates arrived after Greg's phone call, so he cannot have mistaken it for a different time...  A significant piece of information that you observed when you entered your daughters flat... A significant piece of evidence that will not leave your mind...

A significant clue, that adds only to the many many questions in this case..... So where did this said WASHING disappear too??  How much of said WASHING was there?? Where Greg's clothes amongst said WASHING?? Who touched said WASHING??

Lets not forget Joanna Yeates is only a Missing Person at this point.... But The Yeates believe differently.... The Yeates believe that their daughter has been abducted.... They must have searched through said WASHING, even if Greg had already looked... The y must have wanted to see if there was any clue any indication in said WASHINg as to the whereabout of their daughter....

So why is it only know the questions of said WASHING are coming to the fore... Why is it only Now  that said WASHING could be significant.... Why have we not heard before of said WASHING in any capacity....

What is so significant about said WASHING, that it takes until I have looked at documentaries to spot this comment and the significance of this comment about said WASHING... Why has said WASHING not been mentioned before...

They say that Dr Vincent Tabak wore gloves.... Well did one one his gloves end up in the pile of said WASHING??

Had someone else enter the flat and looked through said WASHING?? not knowing the significance of there entry to said flat..

No-one needs to point fingers... about said WASHING pile... But everyone needs to take into account the significance that said WASHING Pile should have in this case.... No matter from what angle you want to look at it....

No matter whether or not you believe a conspiracy had taken place... No matter whether you think Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty or not....

You should question the evidence of said WASHING Pile, that clearly David Yeates had witnessed it being at Joanna Yeates home and consider, why it's relevance has been ignored....

An independent witness, whom only wants his daughter returning to him, out of the blue gives us information that was not part of anyone elses witness testimony... and on video, so much so, that he appears to have slipped when he told us this... he has divulged something no one else knew at trial... no-one else in the country who had been following every twist and turn of this case.... No-one at trial told us of this information... Not a Policeman/woman.... not Dr Vincent Tabak, and not even Greg Reardon....

A piece of evidence that everyone should consider as being a vital piece of evidence...(imo).. Because it shapes our minds to how the crime scene may have really looked like... It changes our opinion as to whether or not Joanna Yeates was actually getting on with mundane chores such as WASHING... Or if shapes our minds in to questioning if the killer staged the Flat to make it look like Joanna Yeates was about to WASH her and Gregs clothes...

And then baking seems a little less important as no-one can prove that Joanna yeates did in fact turn on the oven to bake... We only have the story of Dr Vincent Tabak, that he turned OFF said oven.. .... Because that was an assumption, that was a task she was apparently doing.... But evidentially, we have David Yeates being able to tell us that he witnessed a pile of WASHING in his daughters flat when he entered it...

We have David Yeates on video revealing for the first time that there was something different that we didn't already know....

So being me and being as blunt as I am, I would question why the evidence that David Yeates witnessed was not talked about on the stand by himself or anyone else... I would question why he didn't take the stand to tell us about said WASHING.... I understand it must be painful, to talk when one has lost a child....

But the jury should have been made aware of this fact... The jury should have had a fuller picture of what the flat looked like when it was entered by various people...  The jury should have been furnished with the truth...

By not having The Yeates take the stand in Dr Vincent Tabak's trial, we do not know of there observations.... we do not really know what made them question and believe that their daughter had been abducted... we do not know what made Mrs Yeates bang on car boots.... We do not know why Greg's phone call made them believe that something terrible had happened to their daughter....

And we do not know why a comment of a pile of WASHING might be really significant.....  I am not trying to be unfeeling about The Yeates or the difficulties they may have had and still have to deal with to this day....

I am trying to understand why.... what I see as a significant piece of evidence was never brought to the juries attention.... I am trying to understand how GREG didn't also see this PILE of WASHING...  I am trying to understand whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak noticed this pile of WASHING or even knew of it's existence....

Because as far as I am concerned, it is the only tangible piece of evidence that has come to light that we were not informed of before or during trial... The only tangible piece of evidence that brings even more questions to its existence....

 A piece of evidence that should bring questions... whether or not you want to question David yeates about it... whether or not you want to know how long this piece of evidence was there for....

It clearly is evidence that is real... It clearly is evidence that was witnessed.... What really needs to be established... Is what it's significance really is..... (imo)



https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/boyfriends-panic-over-missing-joanna-yeates-2371910.html

[[...]]

I think what is more significant, did the police officers who attended the call from Greg see said WASHING in a pile... Did any Officers, see the said WASHING at all...

We have the video evidence from David Yeates that he witnessed said WASHING when he arrived at Joanna Yeates Flat...(or before if we misconstrue another posters comment)

Did said WASHING get put away before the Police arrived... Did someone tidy up said WASHING, before the Police arrived...

Did the POLICE Know of said WASHINGS existence??

Did The Yeates realise the importance of said WASHING at all....

SAID WASHING IS IMPORTANT... and maybe The Police have only just come to realise, that it has and should of had significance....

SAID WASHING, could be the crux of this case....  Said WASHING has many implications....

 Said WASHING was witnessed.....

So yes i may repeat myself.... I repeat many things.....

SAID WASHING IS A SIGNIFICANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE, if you want to try and understand this case... If you want to question anything about this case.....

SAID WASHING IS THE EUREKA MOMENT OF SAID CASE.... ( amongst other things, and secondary witness statements)

So try and look at this case in an unbiased fashion.... and ask yourself why A vital piece of SAID WASHING was never mentioned at trial in any capacity.... Ask yourselves why a potential vital piece of evidence has been over looked...

Ask yourselves why it could be significant.... Ask yourselves why the jury were not informed of this piece of evidence either...

Ask yourselves why the Police Officer who was on the scene first didn't question the evidence that is the said WASHING....

Did no -one to this day KNOW that Said WASHING existed??

It is evidence that should be questioned... no matter what side of the fence you sit on..... (imo)

[[...]]

What makes you think that Tabak WANTS to speak to any of you who have tried to contact him? There are cases of higher profile than his who manage to protest their innocent. What utter rubbish!

JustSaying.. we can argue that point till where blue in the face.... Dr Vincent Tabak may for whatever reason...May not be able to say he is innocent... He may not want to draw attention to himself so he has the chance of keeping his head down, doing his time and maybe will be transferred to a different category prison, in the hopes he will get released....

He may wish that I didn't speak... I don't know... He may be glad I have taken this interest.... But he is not telling me anything....

If without his hand... I can highlight what I see as anomalies in this case, I may be able to draw peoples attention to it...  I may be assisting in my odd way....

If with only what is available on the internet, I can find things that brings into question what happened before trial and during trial, then this case cannot be as cut and dry as they wish us to believe it is......

Dr Vincent Tabak has  never corresponded with me..... as I say he may wish I kept quiet... He may have accepted his punishment because it is the easiest way to go... And ruffling feathers would only make his prison life even harder.....

But if it wasn't for people whom question cases that they believe people may be innocent in then there wouldn't be any need for Innocence type project...  Dr Vincent Tabak has no control... His only control is his own life situation as it is at present... he can only control how he may or may not be  seen by the prison authorities....  And by keeping his head down, or behaving... however one wants to look at it.... His chances of getting out of prison become greater...

You know yourself JustSaying.... that for instance if a prisoner accepts his/her guilt at a parole hearing for instance, they have a greater chance of being released on parole.... If they keep insisting they did not commit said crime and that they are Innocent.... The parole board will look upon this as the prisoner not accepting their responsibiity for which they have been incarcerated for.... And parole will be denied....!!

So for me.... why would anyone dare say they are INNOCENT.... It only seems to backfire.... It only makes a prisoners life even more unbearable....

So no-one can say that Dr Vincent Tabak has waged a campaign to fight for his freedom, because he says he is innocent of the charges and Murder of Joanna Yeates.... No-one can say he has had any contact with anyone from the outside world, to fight his case.... No-one could ever accuse him of being a difficult prisoner....

Because he has had no say in what I have done,.... He has had no say in what my opinions are..... He has had no say that his case is kept in the public eye.... because no-one has been able to even contact him....

People can say I am wrong.... People can say I am deluded.... People can say anything they want about me in that respect... but if my delusions as some may say, help bring about an investigation into this "Strange Case" then that can only been seen as good.... If my delusions, can help a man whom has accepted his fate , that he will be serving a sentence no matter what and keeping quite is the best way forward..... Then me highlighting said case should not be a problem....

It should not case any waves.....  I keep saying.... I cannot see how Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty.... The evidence doesn't support his claim on the stand..... If The Yeates are divulging information intentionally or not that brings into question many other possibilities about the 1st Scene of Crime, then this information needs looking at more closely....  This information may clearly point the finger at someone else entirely.....

So this info didn't arrive at trial..... All the more reason to question it's importance, now we know what apparently happened to Joanna Yeates....

All the more reason to re-question anyone who witnessed anything at the time..... knowing CJ witnessed people at the gate is highly significant.... Because he either saw Dr Vincent Tabak at the small gate that evening, or he witnessed someone entirely different at the gate that evening, at around 9:00pm... a time when the "SCREAMS" should have been heard.....

Making the people at the gate at the very least witness's or at worst suspects.....

So these people are of importance... There identities should be made known.... They themselves should have been at the trial, to help us understand whether or not they heard screams at the time they left via the small gate.... They are in fact the closes witness's to what happened and at what time....

Clegg should have had statements from these witness's which would support the timeline of Dr Vincent Tabak or discredit the screams heard at different times.... But these people are unknown to us.... These people are hidden away between the pages of  CJ's second witness statement.... These people were apparently not important enough to be considers either witness's or suspects....

These people who came from what direction to be leaving or entering said small gate at a time of great importance, should be on everyones mind...

* Did they in fact walk passed Joanna Yeates door...

* Had they knocked on Joanna Yeates door...

* Had they come from the main building and walked diagonally across the grass. to the little gate....

* Did they hear any noise coming from Joanna Yeates flat....

* Did they see if any lights were on inside or outside Joanna Yeates flat....

* Did they in fact see Dr Vincent Tabak that evening....

* Did they not bump into him...

* Did they see him either in the light or the shadows around that building ....

So whether or not one may see them as possible suspects, if they are not they are WITNESS"S witness's that could give us a clearer indication of what they may and may not have witnessed at that critical time, so their identity is important... what they may have witnessed is important, which beggars the question why didn't they take the stand at trial??

Or was it The Lehmans who were the people at the gate?? is that why Zoe Lehman is so distraught when she leaves the court at Bristol....

Because they are the only people whom where around that area at that time that we are aware of.... They are the only people whom could tell us what they saw... They could tell us whether they saw CJ arrive and if they made themselves known to him....  They could tell us why they believed CJ couldn't tell us whom he saw at the gate... maybe they too witnessed these people???

Important information need clarifying.... Important information tells us what we need to know... It eliminates people from an Inquiry.. it puts to bed suspicions people may have.... To keep said information secret is ridiculous (imo).. Said information should only bolster the Prosecutions Case....

Did Joanna Yeates know that a party was happening across the road? Was she invited to said party.... Did the Lehmans call on her that evening??  Did she leave the small gate with them??? Did she return home later??

There are many questions we do not know the answer too... But maybe Zoe Lehman was caught up with the emotion of the day.... But to be looking so upset leaving Bristol crown Court on the day of trial her and her husband attended, has me questioning why... If Zoe Lehman didn't know Joanna Yeates in any shape or form, or if Zoe Lehman had seen someone at the gate that evening, but hasn't been able to make any statement on that either...
What would make her so upset?? Months and months have past.... Being a little said yes... But visibly upset is something different all together....
The parents .. boyfriend... brother... work colleague, do not show any signs of being upset as they attend a trial, trying to keep their emotions in check... But a stranger, who knows little to zero of Joanna Yeates, is brought almost to tears, as she leaves said court building... Brought almost to tears not knowing if the screams she heard were in anyway connected to the time that Joanna Yeates was Murdered...

So that is why I question what Zoe Lehman knew and what Zoe Lehman could have witnessed.... If direct questions were not asked at trial... then the answers would not be known.... Leaving forever the identity of the people at the gate a secret.....

Or is it possible..... That it was indeed the Lehmans at the small gate whom CJ saw.... And if so why the secrecy... Did as I have suggested , The Lehmans come into contact with Dr Vincent Tabak??

Did the Lehman not see CJ... maybe his timing were mistaken, he was mistaken as to where or not he heard someone at the gate or saw someone at the gate, so the timing he has, he could also be mistaken in.... I don't know...

But  Zoe Lehman must be a sensitive soul... a person who takes to heart very deeply what she may have witnessed, at a trial that was the trial of high prominence....

She may herself have doubts about what she heard or saw... And today question what she too thinks of this case.... Because as far as I remember, Zoe Lehman and Florian Lehman, were only every asked what they heard.... They were never asked if they witnessed seeing anyone, so there answers would have only been in conjunction of what was heard... Where in actual fact what they saw was of far greater importance.....

So depending on the timings.... Depending on what time you believe that they heard the screams , depends on what time something happened and whether they did indeed witness more....

The only thing we know that puts Joanna Yeates in her home around 9:00 ish, is the CCTV from Tesco...  A CCTV without the original time stamp upon it.. A CCTV that we cannot accurately trust as to it's timings....

The Receipt of which I see no evidence of it being produced at trial, which would clearly indicate the time of purchase of said Pizza... would once and for all prove when Joanna Yeates was in Tesco's... It would give us a more accurate timeline.... 

But I get confused as to where about the Lehmans were.... On the path outside 44, Canygne Road or on the path at 53, Canygne Road....  Because at that distance... what could they actually hear?? I mean, this attack took place inside 44, Canygne Road.... Surely they wouldn't hear said screams....

From a media report of the time......

A woman attending a party near Joanna Yeates's flat described to a jury today hearing two screams and a thud on the night she died.Zoe Lehman and her husband Florian were attending the bash of their friends Peter and Rosie Brown at No 53 Canynge Road - diagonally opposite Miss Yeates's flat at No 44.Mrs Lehman described to the jury how she walked into Canynge Road and saw a security light illuminating No 44.She and her husband had opened the gate to No 53 and as they walked down the footpath to the front door, they heard screams."As I got to the gate I heard quite a loud scream," she told jurors at Bristol Crown Court."I thought it came from behind me. It was coming from across the road at the house by the playing field."

Two screams and a thud?? What is more important in that sentence... The screams are difficult to say whether or not they came from 44, Canygne Road and whether or not they heard said screams..... But a THUD!!

What was close enough that they could hear a THUD!! A noise that should have had ears pricked, a noise that is suggesting something being carried or maybe dropped outside... A noise that you wouldn't maybe notice or describe as furniture moving if you are half way up a path on the opposite side of the road attending said party....

Zoe Lehman said she also heard screams and a thud. "I heard a loud scream and turned around to have a look. The first one was loud, then there was a gap of about two seconds, then the second one was slightly less loud – a bit stifled. Then afterwards there was what sounded like furniture falling over, a thud."

A THUD should change everything, it suggest more was happening outside 44, Canygne Road on said night in question... It suggests that something had been dropped....  To hear not only a scream but a THUD and to be so concerned as to turn and look to see what the noise was and what area said noise came from, surely she would have witnessed anyone whom was about that area at that time...

She would have seen from the road side anyone acting suspiciously and maybe she too would have seen people leaving via the small gate of 44, Canygne Road.....

She had to believe that the THUD combined with the scream was significant..... significant enough that it stopped her in her tracks....  did she not walk a little further to check?? Did she not look out of the window of the property where she was attending said party to see if she could have abetter view of 44, Canygne Road or the fields close by... Did she not see whether the outside light was on.... Did she see any tenants coming or going from 44, Canygne Road or anyone at all....

If the only questions posed at trial are of what someone heard, why didn't more question get posed as to what they may or may not have SEEN??

It's a simple question that either of them should have been asked.... Did you see anyone that evening when you arrived at 53, Canygne Road.... did you see the defendant.... A simple NO, would squash any concerns anyone may have about who witnessed what....

But I do not believe that they were even questioned about what they may or may not have seen... I do not believe they were questioned at trial of whom they may have witnessed on Canygne Road....

So am I satisfied with their statement at trial??  "No" is the simple answer to that... Because they could have been the people at the gate for all we know... They could have witnessed someone around 44, Canygne Road at said time, and to react to a thud that was loud enough to be heard across the road to concern Zoe Lehman enough that she turned around to see what it was.... Suggests that it is of significance....

Now I am sure she would not be able to heard a THUD of a person falling on the floor after being attacked in their own home....  I am more than sure of that... If the THUD was so loud then the tenants of 44, Canygne Road should have been alerted to the noise.... But they hear nothing.... So where did the screams and THUD come from??

It must have been close enough for Zoe Lehman to hear... Or did Zoe Leham witness a lot more than we know.... And that is possibly the reason for her distress when leaving Bristol Crown Court....

The description that said THUD sounded like furniture,would only add to the how was Joanna Yeates transported out of the house??? Was it in a piece of furniture??

The THUD is more important... The Screams could be put down to party goers, But a THUD that sounds like furniture being dropped, should bring into question how it could be possible to remove Joanna Yeates from her home without anyone noticing.... Removing her from her home without anyone really taking any notice, or questioning anyone doing such an act.....

It is far more feasible that two or 3 people at a gate could be moving furniture out of said gate, and didn't bring into question why.... It could be far more feasible that it took 2/3 people to move a dead weight from a premises without attracting too much attention, and doing it in plain sight.....

It is far more likely that more than one individual helped move Joanna Yeates body than Dr Vincent Tabak on his own without leaving any evidence of this in his or her flat..... With the task of moving a  dead body being a rather difficult one..... Leaving most killers with the option of leaving said body in situ, or dismembering said body to make transportation easier.....

But neither was the case.... Neither option applied to what happened to Joanna Yeates..

I'm trying to imagine what type of furniture could have been used?? A wardrobe,?? A chest of draws?? A Fridge ??

Is the image of the fridge sat in the front room of Joanna Yeates significant... Is this fridge a clue as to how someone transported Joanna Yeates... It's odd that the fridge is just sat there anyway... Why isn't there a fridge in the kitchen??

So is the THUD that Zoe Lehman heard another significant piece of evidence, Do we need to question this THUD in more detail??  Because most of the DETAIL appears to be MISSING from this case....

It then brings me back to why the mentioning of the Ikea delivery guys was also important....Was the point more to do with letting someone know, there were witness's to said piece of furniture being moved from Joanna Yeates flat??

Where the Ikea guys, used to let someone know, they had an idea of how Joanna Yeates body had been transported
 not that the Ikea guys had anything to do with this, but the mere mention of a different way in which a body could be transported, is now seen... That anyone with a van or large car, could transport a piece of furniture from the home that was Joanna yeates, A home she had not lived in for too long, a flat she was busy trying to make into her own home....


Does CJ's second witness statement contain any evidence of the possibility of someone moving furniture... is that what he heard at the gate, Is that why he noticed people talking in hushed tones....





https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/9305302.GVs_of_Jo_Yeates_parents_leaving_Bristol_Crown_Court_and_gvs_of_witnesses_Zoe_and_Florian_Lehman_/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/13/tabak-friends-police-joanna-yeates

[jixy]

 

[[...]]

Whats tickled you this morning Jixy??? You had your coffee yet??

[jixy]

Your posts and yes ive been at work a while and had plenty of coffee.

I am actually writing a report on MAPPA Offenders and their interaction with NPS and the differences between services within CRCs

Maybe I am doing it all wrong  and everyone who pleaded guilty is actually innocent but just wanted an easy time in Prison. Silly me, might need to rewrite it all

Oh Innocent Projects etc need a starting point. usually by a claim of innocence by the Prisoner! So prisoners who are innocent (or even guilty but lying) can and do protest their conviction and work hard to see justice done.

You are bending the pieces to make your Tabak puzzle fit, its not reality

[[...]]

Your posts and yes ive been at work a while and had plenty of coffee.

I am actually writing a report on MAPPA Offenders and their interaction with NPS and the differences between services within CRCs

Maybe I am doing it all wrong  and everyone who pleaded guilty is actually innocent but just wanted an easy time in Prison. Silly me, might need to rewrite it all

Oh Innocent Projects etc need a starting point. usually by a claim of innocence by the Prisoner! So prisoners who are innocent (or even guilty but lying) can and do protest their conviction and work hard to see justice done.

You are bending the pieces to make your Tabak puzzle fit, its not reality

Why do my posts amuse ??

It is not bending the pieces, but asking questions, that should have been asked..... that is all.....

Your sarcasm is noted 

[jixy]

Oh before I get back to real life, just so you know. I was working with a female offender yesterday who murdered someone. Never committed any crimes before or since. Clearly stated no mental health issues, no drink or drug issues or abuse. She murdered him simple! So even placid (urgh) people like Tabak can kill

As for why did she let him into to flat? How do you know she did? Maybe he just barged his way in and forgot himself? Just a minute, I know because we are believing that he was invited in but not the fact he admitted killing her? selective?

[[...]]

Oh before I get back to real life, just so you know. I was working with a female offender yesterday who murdered someone. Never committed any crimes before or since. Clearly stated no mental health issues, no drink or drug issues or abuse. She murdered him simple! So even placid (urgh) people like Tabak can kill

As for why did she let him into to flat? How do you know she did? Maybe he just barged his way in and forgot himself? Just a minute, I know because we are believing that he was invited in but not the fact he admitted killing her? selective?

If we believe the story on the stand, then we believe he was invited in... If we do NOT believe the story on the stand, then why accept it... Why if the evidence doesn't support a story on the stand are the justice system accepting it??

Just on someones say so???

[jixy]

let you into a secret Nine ssshhh dont tell anyone but you know when someone pleads guilty to a crime, the process is different to someone pleading not guilty

[[...]]

let you into a secret Nine ssshhh dont tell anyone but you know when someone pleads guilty to a crime, the process is different to someone pleading not guilty

Well explain said process to me please.... Explain why they would just accept a guilty plea if someone couldn't have committed said crime in said time, because the timeline doesn't add up....

Explain to me why the people at the gate were not seen as important....  Explain to me why anyone could say they were guilty of a crime and be believed without evidence to support said claim.....

Thank you

[[...]]

Someone mentioned Peter Sutcliffe to me and him pleading guilty....

Now the difference between him and Dr Vincent Tabak, is that Peter Sutcliffe had been stopped by the Police on the night of his arrest, Peter Sutcliffe had a prostitute with him in his car when he was stopped...

Peter Sutcliffe wanted to go to relieve himself, leaving the lady and Officers at the car, they took Peter Sutcliffe in for questioning, they wanted to search his person, they discovered his unusual under garments... The Officer went back to where they had arrested Peter Sutcliffe and retrieved a screw-driver.... Peter Sutcliffe confessed to the murders he committed.....


The obvious difference between the two is probable cause.... There was probable cause to stop and question Peter Sutcliffe on the night in question, with a serial killer on the loose there was probable cause to search... There was probable cause to return to the scene of said car stoppage, and look at why Peter Sutcliffe wanted to leave the area of the car.....

There was no probable cause to arrest Dr Vincent Tabak, that we have been told, there was NO, confession at the Police station that we have been made aware of or that was introduced as evidence at trial....

Dr Vincent Tabak was not trawling Bristol looking for someone to kill on the day he was arrested./... Dr Vincent Tabak had given no indication he knew his next door neighbour...

What was the probable cause that made the Police arrest Dr Vincent Tabak in the first Place???



 

[Baz]

So you do not see that as pointing fingers? I am not surprised you do not considering you support Tabak yourself, you're hardly impartial!

I've always found Mrswah and Nine to be respectful so I don't think either of them wishes Chris Jeffries or the Yeates anymore pain than they have already experienced. Nine will take the tiniest possible piece of information and look at it in weird and wonderful ways that make no sense to me but I've never found her to be mean or nasty.

And to be honest considering CJ has been accused by the entire nation and managed to keep his head up and fight for his rights and reputation, I suspect that one person on a forum speculating is hardly going to make him lose any sleep.

Anyway, chances that he (or anyone actually connected to the case) actually read this thread are quite minimal I would have thought.

People need to chill out on this thread a bit. We are not enemies.

[[...]]

I've always found Mrswah and Nine to be respectful so I don't think either of them wishes Chris Jeffries or the Yeates anymore pain than they have already experienced. Nine will take the tiniest possible piece of information and look at it in weird and wonderful ways that make no sense to me but I've never found her to be mean or nasty.

And to be honest considering CJ has been accused by the entire nation and managed to keep his head up and fight for his rights and reputation, I suspect that one person on a forum speculating is hardly going to make him lose any sleep.

Anyway, chances that he (or anyone actually connected to the case) actually read this thread are quite minimal I would have thought.

People need to chill out on this thread a bit. We are not enemies.

Thank you Baz  for that clarification