http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8239.90#lastPostCountdown to Murder..........
I've been thinking about said program.... And it's odd.... It's like it was made??
I can't put my finger on it.... But it is not right.....
The story line,.... And i mean story line... This program should have been made after Dr Vincent Tabak was incarcerated , after 28th October 2011..
DCI Phil Jones states at 8:10pm Joanna Yeates left the Ram, she continues to walk home .. then at 8:25pm, she rings her best friend... 6 minutes later CCTV she's on the Tesco CCTV...
But she should still be on the phone?? Ok, 6 mins later is 8:31pm... we only see from the CCTv that she is in Tesco's at 8:36pm.... CCTV finishing at 8:37:30pm.. Meaning she spent 6 minutes buying a Pizza...
They have a witness walking his dog close to his flat in Canygne Road when he saw Joanna walk home...
So we again have DCI Phil Jones stating that at about half past eight twenty to nine that evening, he spoke to very breifly a woman who matched Joanna's description....
Now.... Clearly there evidence coming from DCI Phil Jones mouth that The priest who saw a woman, cannot have seen Joanna Yeates, as she was still in Tesco's...
So why was said priest a witness?? What every he had spoken about to this woman, is irrelevant, because it cannot have been Joanna Yeates.... Or could it??
I have to look at this differently.... I can use the interviews from the people we know as a guide, and then dissect the program seperately...
The narrator tells us one thing.... We know a different story and it's interspersed with interviews of certain people who are involved....
We have to take as fact for now, the information these people tell us... The program should be accurate... It apparently was made after Dr Vincent Tabak was in prison, but it has details in it that were NOT at trial....
The program tells us the method on which Dr Vincent Tabak gained access to Joanna Yeates flat... I'm sure this method had been speculated about before.... The program explains how Joanna Yeates even come to be wearing said grey ski- socks.... Now it cannot possibly know... It shouldn't know, but there we go, she arrives home puts the pizza on the side in the kitchen, goes to her bedroom kicks of her shoes and puts on the socks...
The narrator goes on to tell us that at 8:40pm there was a knock on the door... We get a story of how "Bernard " the cat had a tendency to walk into other tenants flats, Dr Vincent Tabak's included..... He then goes around to Joanna Yeates flat and knocks on her door with Bernard in his arms and Joanna yeates opens door and takes Bernard from him... He enters flat....
Now major problem... That simply didn't happen.... We have people saying that Dr Vincent Tabak lied on the stand, we have people saying he must have forced his way in, and the only way he would have a reason to get Joanna Yeates to open said door, would possibly be if he had Bernard her cat...
I find this ridiculous... How can a program that was apparently made AFTER a trial that has the evidence of said trial there for all to see... a trial that was tweeted... A trial that was in the media.... Have events happening that "Just didn't happen"!!!
Was this a story made before?? was it made coming up to trial?? when was it made???
Speculation on the internet was rife at the time, the idea that Dr Vincent Tabak used Bernard to gain entry I'm sure had been mentioned... But how can the program be so wrong?? We have had Crimewatch and that hasn't shown entry that way... we have had other programs that hasn't shown entry that way... So why on earth would this program, out of the blue make up details that were not part of a trial??
Enter stage left DCI Phil Jones, talking about The Lehmans....
As they were walking into Canygne Road, they were stood outside the flat,erm, the lady noticed the sercurity light was on , which would have been outside Joanna 's flat
Image with light on shows main entrance...
DCI Phil Jones
They heard was what they believe to be was a scream
Now the other day, I said I was confused as to what position Zoe Lehman was in and where she was stood... Reports from trial clearly indicate that Zoe Lehman was already on the path of 53, Canygne Road.. yet this program contradicts that... They are on the path outside 44,Canygne Road and closer to the main entrance according to the depiction than Joanna Yeates small gate...
DCI Phil Jones:
We know that they were specific about the time because they were stood outside there friends address and sent a test message to open the door to let them in... and that was around about 20 to 9..
I have noticed one thing... times are not accurate, and after a trail , they should be.. especially if you are the SOI leading this investigation, you should know what time is what.....
Around 20 to 9?? eh... We know that Joanna Yeates cannot be in two places at one time... Se is either leaving Tesco's or she is already home.... so which one is it??... Apparently Zoe Lehman has a sent a text message which would give us a clear time of when this scream was heard... No need to guess an approximation... There is solid evidence on her phone that she sent a message to the person who's party she was attending that evening....
The program is odd... It's like it was made before the event..... Because we have information that is contradicting... we shouldn't , either that or someone is trying to tell us something else, something about the case being about something else altogether.... DCI Phil Jones should know the ladies name, he should be able to say Zoe Lehman....
Joanna Yeates is depicted wearing a pink flower patterned top... I only ever found one reference to said top... And that was Dr Delaneys description of it in the media.... no-one else states anything about this pink flower patterned top....
So Joanna Yeates is in the Ram Pub... in a plain top..... she goes to shops walks home and is killed in no time by Dr Vincent Tabak apparently... yet we have 2 references to this flower patterned pink top.... 2 references...
I can think of 3 options here....
(1): Joanna yeates changed her clothes when she arrived home.....
(2): Joanna Yeates was re-dressed
(3): This piece of fiction was made prior....
If we go with (1): we have a problem, the same answer would apply with (2): also.... In the program, Joanna yeates is shown at the pub at lunch time with Greg, i'll take it being Greg for now... wearing said Pink Flower patterned Pink Top...
We now from the Ram CCTV footage she had a plain top on..... But when the program depicts Joanna Yeates in The Ram she is wearing said Pink Flower Patterned Top....
Now my heads now on a journey..... We have details that are clearly incorrect, we have details that the program makers should not have had a problem with, we have details that make my head spin.....
Ok... If I take for read that Joanna yeates was murdered.... then what do I make of this program.... ?? When was this program was made.... We have vague recollections from key people in this program, we have recollections of events that never came to trial, said remark by David Yeates about said WASHING... We have The Lehmans closer than they stated at trial... but they are vaguely on the path.... But that shouldn't be good enough..
What Dr Vincent Tabak said at trial..... Yes I'm sure it was a pack of lies on the stand.... Was Clegg doing something we weren't aware of..??
Who is this case really about.... Who knew Dr Vincent Tabak... ??
Was he part of a cover up, rather than a Murder?? I don't know ... or was he totally being stitched up???
You laugh when I bring different idea to the table... But words I hear coming out of the mouths of key people in this case, have "Alarm Bells" going......
I have noticed how vague everyone is.... Take The Yeates for a moment... i try not to say anything because i do not want to be seen as being disrespectful, but..... I have to go where the information takes me and question said information..... There interviews on Crimewatch for instance, they do not mention Dr Vincent Tabak by name.... Or Tanja Morson by name...... One could put the fact that the mere mention of Dr Vincent Tabak's name was too much for them to say, But not Tanja,.... she was nothing to do with this crime ,....
So it leaves me with the idea, that a program was made.... A story was told, and if we use the words He and she, everyone will know who we mean.... If we give rough estimates of a timeline no-one will notice.....
But I do.... I notice, extra pieces of information we were not made aware of at the time... I notice that the timeline keeps changing..... The programs should be more accurate... they trial has happened, they have DCI Phil Jones there.... There should be no guessing......
The program depicts a fight in the hallway moving into the bedroom, where Dr Vincent Tabak apparently kills Joanna Yeates....
Now.... whether or not anyone believes the story told on the stand by Dr Vincent Tabak, in this instance, it doesn't really matter.... What was stated at trial should be the official version of events, therefore this complete fairy tale a program is depicting has come from where??
Yes it could explain away how the earring ended up in the duvet, but why not go with the story on the stand??
DCI Phil Jones: 23:06 of the video
Joanna had 30 to 40 injuries, minor injuries... On her body ... erm the cause of death was strangulation, but the pathologist couldn't rule out that a soft ligature hadn't been used. But also what was significant was, there was had been a slight discharge of blood from her nose, the likely cause of that was the asphixial process, that became relevant later on in the investigation..
So we have DCI Phil jones who not only attends trial, whether he is put on the stand or not is aware of the evidence presented, he as I have stated is the SOI of this investigation... He would have made himself informed of all of the material, that attains to this crime, he would know how many injuries and whether or not they were violent in nature....
Do you see what I mean... everyone is vague about said detail.... of all people DCI Phil Jones should know how many injuries Joanna yeates had... especially as this is apparently been made after said trail....
30 to 40 injuries.... Well we are told it was 43 significant injuries.... How can this man have it so wrong????
We remember at the Police Conference when he told us that there were no significant injuries.... And her also he states that... But at trial in October 2011 we have 43 significant injuries....
Every insists that CJ is totally Innocent, and I am not saying any different..... But... the question is why?? If this is made up complete nonsense , then that would prove that the rime of Murder didn't even happen... So therefore he cannot be guilty... And his life been turned upside down by an imaginary crime, is an outrage...
Did this Crime first and foremost take place???? If yes is the answer then the content of a program shouldn't be so off.... Who colluded with who???? There is collusion going on, but who are the people colluding???
Because of the vagueness of some of the statements by key people in this program, it makes me believe it was made before Dr vincent Tabak was even at trial.... How much of it was made before is anyones guess... But then you have a problem of how the hell a jury came to a guilty decision.... ?? How could a program prempt that...
Well you have a basic story line and edit the narrator over said story line and it is said narrator who has filled in the gaps it is the narrator whom tells us the name Dr Vincent Tabak, although she only uses the name tabak....
The narrator says that Tabak drove to Asda from his flat.... then we have...
DCI Phil Jones:
He was on CCTV in that supermarket at 10:30pm that Friday evening and whilst he was at the supermarket, he sent another text message, stating again that he was bored, I'm at the supermarket buying a packet of.. "Crisis".. Missing you loads Vxxx
DCI Phil Jones doesn't mention Dr Vincent Tabaks name... he refers to him as he.... He could be anyone V could stand for anything
It's not definitive... Not clear... DCI Phil Jones has made rough estimates to many things....
Did the text state "buying a packet of "Crisis".... media reports state the message differently
Tabak sends a text message to Miss Morson in which he says: “How are you, I am at the Asda buying crisis (sic). Was bored cannot wait to pick you up.”
The word packet is missing..... Ok.. we know that media reports can be inaccurate, But the tweets were supposed to report exactly what had been said at trial..
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Following Following @rupertevelyn
More
Tabak sent text to Tanja "how are you. I'm at Asda buying some crisis" possible spelling mistake in text
12:39 PM - 10 Oct 2011
So we have a program with vague and incorrect details, that was supposed to have been made after a trial.... But which parts were made after a trial???
What is this program trying to tell us?? What is going on?? There are details in said program,that are not mentioned at trial, an attack that did not happen that way... You may think it did, but realistically we can only use what version of the events the defendant told us about, whether or not we believe differently, and a program with key people in it should know these events...
I do not know what this program is trying to tell us..... Was it made before trial?? And if so why??? And if that is the case, why hasn't anyone said anything..... If DCI Phil jones cannot get times accurate, doesn't that suggest it may have been made before said trial.... Or did DCI Phil Jones deliberately gives us incorrect information and if so why??
There is a lot of information that doesn't add up that was divulged after a trial.... A man has been sentenced and a woman murdered , and those vital details are either deliberately divulged or were said before the trial....
Making the story on the stand by Dr Vincent Tabak, evidence... evidence of some type of collusion happening, ... who made this program??
I then get some posters questioning why I question this case , whether I am sure it is real or not.... But the program casts doubt on the validity of the tale we know... It holds information that were speculations made by various posters on various forums of the time.... And it shouldn't ...
Bernard:... From The Telegraph at the time of trial..
Mr Lickley also suggested that rather than being invited into Miss Yeates’s flat, Tabak had used her pet cat, Bernard, as a pretext to get her to open her door.
It is a suggestion by the prosecution.... Not what the defendant told us.... So what should we make of that?? That Lickley was aware of the contents of the program?? and something else was taking place at that trial??
What information was Missing from the trial that we do not know about??
Have we been allowed to believe that this case is real?? I am still confused... I believe i will always be confused, when nothing adds up.... And when programs with key people in it are miles off from the timings we were informed of at time of trial......
So who was/is Joanna Yeates?? What is this case really about?? Her being found on December 25th 2010 is also important when we realise that the plaque on the cross in the grave yard has a date of the 25th December 2010, the date of Joanna Yeates death... So what came first, a piece of written fiction that turned out to be a real crime?? Or a crime that is a piece of fiction?
I am still at a loss!!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8847912/Vincent-Tabak-found-guilty-of-Joanna-Yeates-murder-how-it-happened.htmlhttps://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/123362124243288064https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8841298/Vincent-Tabak-strangled-Joanna-Yeates-to-gain-sexual-gratification.html[attachment deleted by admin]
