I wouldn't say you have wasted your time. I think, perhaps you have got too "bogged down" in some of the details, and that's why it doesn't make sense.
In my opinion, it is not disrespectful to challenge a conviction-----if nobody ever did, for the sake of not upsetting victims' families, no miscarriages of justice would ever be overturned.
I'm just frustrated I think mrswah.... I feel I must be stupid or something, I point things out that are obvious and no-one makes comment on said piece of information...
I then wonder why no-one speaks of this case, I am confused as to why no-one really speaks of this case... thats why I come to the strange conclusions sometimes, as it doesn't appear real...
The posts on Parliament for instances, why would Parliament speak up for CJ whilst Dr Vincent Tabak is in prison waiting to face trial, where DCI Phil Jones has told us that the reason CJ was on bail was because of the trainers that had blood on them...
Surely there were other examples they could have used on the 4th February 2011....
I then think how the fact that Parliament had spoken on CJ's behalf could have had a possible effect on the outcome of taking The papers to Court for Contempt, (which I don't get where the contempt part came from? ) which resulted in CJ receiving an out of court settlement... Did CJ know he was the subject of a Parliamentary debate? Did it give him the confidence to take the media to court, was that why solicitors were happy to represent him?? If he had foreknowledge that he was the subject of interest in Parliament....
I'm just asking... ( I may be wrong)..... all this settled before a trial has taken place....? After a trial maybe... I don't get how it happened before to be honest... Everything always seems back to front.... Or am I just plain thick???
From the Parliament publication: 4th February 2011
I mentioned events in Bristol. Let me make it clear that I do not intend to name anybody, and I am sure that hon. Members will also be keen not to name anybody, save for this: I do not think there is anybody who is not aware of the publicity and media coverage that was given to the first man who was arrested following the murder of Joanna Yeates. It is right and fair to say that everybody with any sense of decency and sensibility has accepted that the coverage of that individual was, if not outrageous, as I believe it was, certainly unacceptable and plain wrong. It is as if we had forgotten that one is innocent in this land until proven guilty. Unfortunately, it is not the first time that that has happened, but it is the most extreme case that we have seen.
Everyone tends to forget that on being arrested, a person suffers the trauma of the arrest. It is difficult to imagine a worse accusation than to be accused of taking somebody's life, raping someone or doing something horrible to a child. There is the trauma of the process
The first man arrested is clearly CJ...
It is right and fair to say that everybody with any sense of decency and sensibility has accepted that the coverage of that individual was, if not outrageous, as I believe it was, Does the member know CJ?? Why outraged, nothing at this point has cleared CJ, he is still on Police Bail... now if it had been any other Tom, Dick or Harry would we have had the same outrage?? Have we since had the same outrage, when people are named in the media??
How on earth could Parliament get involved? I don't get it... CJ is on record stating he wasn't released from bail until March 2011, yet we have it from the (
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110204/debtext/110204-0001.htm ) publication that they did indeed discuss this before CJ was released on bail...
I have issues galore about the handling of CJ.. he appears to get preferential treatment (imo) .. He is apparently no-one, he doesn't want hounding by the media, he doesn't want all the attention that this case has brought, now don't get me wrong, Monstering people in the press isn't the right way to go either... but what made his case so special?
Who were CJ's friends?
We have in February 2011 Parliament using CJ as an example for a
Anonymity (Arrested Persons) Bill in Parliament, at a time when CJ was still on bail, a time when realistically I feel that they had no business in influencing any out come that may have taken place... I'll repeat CJ was on Police Bail at this time...
Mr Jefferies, 66, a former public school teacher, was questioned for several days over the murder of his neighbour in Bristol.
A spokesman said: ''Avon and Somerset Police can confirm that a 66-year-old arrested on suspicion of murdering Joanna Yeates was released without charge on Friday 4 March.''
So you can understand my concern about him being used as an example in Parliament.. After his release maybe, even after the court case in July 2011, maybe... But before... It doesn't seem right.. Realistically it should have been after the trial in October 2011...
Then we get in the Guardian on the 14th September 2011 this:..... A piece on Core Participants of The Leveson....
Christopher Jefferies
Bristol landlord arrested in connection with murder of landscape architect Joanna Yeates and later released without charge in December. He successfully took eight newspapers to court for libel, while the Daily Mirror and Sun were fined for contempt of court for their Jefferies coverage. He is expected to discuss what it was like to be targeted by the press in the feeding frenzy following a murder.
How is he named as a core participant? why was everyone so certain that Dr Vincent Tabak wouldn't want CJ called as a witness? How were the media in contempt of court? That I don't understand, how did it interfere with the judicial process or prejudice any trial? That was never really explained..(imo)
From the program.... Countdown to Murder Joanna Yeates CJ states:at 27:41
As I was on my way out to the gym, quite by chance, erm I met Vincent Tabak and we had a very brief conversation, erm and he seemed to be in quite an elated mood and was saying what a very beautiful evening it was erm, this light dusting of snow, erm thats all the conversation consisted of...
At 28:45 of the video:
Vincent Tabak helped me move the car that morning, erm, becawse, there was snow on the drive, and I need some help, in the car being pushed up.. erm, the slight incline, erm, from the parking area onto the main part of the drive,, so that I could get the car out.
Er, when I thanked Vincent for er, doing that for me, erm, his reply was,.. well what are neighbours for
I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently signed a statement in September 2011, I presume that would be at the 20th September 2011 at the pre trial hearing..
Again that has me questioning how could CJ be named a core participant, before Dr Vincent Tabak has signed his apparent statement in September 2011 and before a trial at court...
I cannot imagine how CJ, a man whom no-one really knew anything about , has become this apparent figure for Parliament and the Justice System to protect him and have him involved in an inquiry such as the Leveson, when, there is an ongoing trial/ investigation is taking place...
This is the point at which my head explodes....
How could everyone blatantly ignore what should be The Order of Justice and use CJ in this way, when I have pointed out how CJ could and should have been a witness at this trial.....
And then I find myself back to the question of whether the trial was real or not!
I'm sure you can understand my dilemma...
When no-one says anything about this, but (imo) should say something, and I go round and round again...
Then I come to the conclusion about Joanna Yeates not being real for example, as I do not get how Parliament and The Leveson could confidently use CJ without anyone batting an eye..
I don't understand why everyone appears happy with what was stated on the stand by Dr Vincent Tabak, as it doesn't add up and there is no supporting evidence...
Everyone appears to have chucked the baby out with the bathwater and no give a flying fig about it...
CJ recently has been pushing for Leveson 2 to take place.... now I hoped it would, but only in the event that he discloses something that hasn't thus far been disclosed... The contents of his second witness statement for starters... But I don't think it will happen...
So isn't it about time he disclosed this information now... isn't it about time that the mystery that is The Joanna Yeates case is put to bed once and for all...
The media have been nothing but glowing in handling CJ since 2011 and I believe now they should be asking him the questions that need answering, such as did he recognise the people at the gate etc etc.... I believe they are of great significance...
I have no idea who CJ is, and quite honestly I do not care, the protection of this man seems weird, seeing as I believe he should have been a witness and no-one in the government should have taken an interest him whilst a live case was in its Judicial process.. (imo)
CJ a man whom I believe should speak up if he actually gives a damn about the Murder of Joanna Yeates and not stay silent and talk of himself all the time... He's not daft, even he must see how it looks when our countries big wheels are moving just for him... What influence and sway does he actually have??
CJ is pushing for Leveson 2.. And I find it strange, when he stated that he didn't want publicity, he is still front and centre stage and The case of Joanna Yeates is forgotten... everyone only knows the tale of the landlord that was vilified in the media.....
I only hope that pushing for Leveson 2 is to uncover this case... but I have my doubts....
And then I come back to the beginning, as to how all these people in powerful positions interfered with a future trial of Dr Vincent Tabak, I cannot see how it is all so blatant and no-one does or says anything about it....
It is time REAL questions were asked about this case... It is time to look at the conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak....imo
It is time that people spoke up...
It is time that this is addressed....
Ok... I'll change my request to remove my posts and state that if Dr Vincent Tabak is a real person severing time in prison for the murder of Joanna Yeates, then you can keep my posts up... as fighting for what I believe is a miscarriage of justice is important....
If not, explain to me what this is all about, other than the narrative, explain why it doesn't make sense and what brings Parliament and The Leveson to the front and centre of this case before a trial has taken place in October 2011, where a man stood on a stand and explained how he apparently killed his next door neighbour for no apparent reason, not knowing his next door neighbour, only having been home just a few days before, after returning from America on a business trip.. Would he decide it was a good idea to kill her, and not happy with that share his and her DNA between various flats and a car, followed by the deposition site...
So mrswah... detail is needed, because without the detail, links and quotes I make, it wouldn't be possible to back up any argument I may have... I have made many statements, which are backed up with where I have obtained my information... And all I have done is cross reference any material that is relevant to this case, and therefore I come to my conclusions..
The Defence Will State Their Case... Is the title of this thread for a reason, I was trying to show what I believed that the Defence could and should have looked at with regards their client Dr Vincent Tabak, instead of accepting a plea in May 2011 some 4 months after arrest and charge... Where in those months a team of investigators for the defence could have questioned the people of Canygne Road, and questioned Greg Reardon, Tanaj Morson,and CJ......
This topic is just that... questions, queries, head scratching as to why it doesn't make sense... As to why Dr Vincent Tabak's girlfriend Tanja Morson wasn't even at trial to make a statement, good or bad for Dr Vincent Tabak, and why CJ, who most certainly had conversed with Dr Vincent Tabak that weekend, should have also been a witness...
But it is all my opinion,
I just really need it explaining to me WHY..... on the 4th February 2011 Parliament feels it can use CJ as an example for a Bill in Parliament when he is still on Police Bail and when a trial hasn't taken place and when it was still viable that he could be called as a witness in this case, not forgetting CJ was still on Police Bail until March 2011 and then The Leveson names CJ as a core participant, before a trial has taken place, when he could and should have been called as a witness...
Whatever you may think about this case, that surely isn't right....
I swing from having sympathy for CJ, to feeling somewhat outraged, I cannot get how he has commanded the influence with these figures, when he is apparently just a school teacher... When there were statements made in the media at the time of his arrest over a couple of days, where if he hadn't gone on about it so much everyone would have soon forgotten who the hell he was, the media reporting continuing from the original time which was some 8/9 years ago.....
He still is insistent about Leveson 2, he still wants to be front and centre, where he has now made himself a household name, where in reality no-one probably gave a crap as to who he is or what apparently had happened to him.... (imo)
He has had more coverage than Joanna Yeates to be honest, and that is ridiculous, the victim of a crime, a crime of murder and she has become second stage in this saga.... he has had more coverage than anyone, he is known as the poor landlord first and Joanna Yeates is mentioned almost as a secondary thought....
If CJ wants this Leveson 2, because he wants the truth out there, I get it.... but otherwise, he needs to wind his neck in (imo), if Leveson 2 would allow him to reveal what he actually told the Police in his statements, then I am for it... But I don't think that is what it is about... I don't think he wants to tell,( Or do you CJ?) he could intimate he would reveal something to the public in due course, if it was only the Leveson 2 preventing him from speaking up..
When I look at the video of him speaking about Dr Vincent Tabak, it's almost like he know a secret or something, he's almost smirking as he tell of his conversation with Dr Vincent Tabak and thanking him for his assistance.... why would you feel the need to smirk about such a serious thing as talking about the killer of Joanna Yeates??
This is an oddity I find of a man whom was supposed to not want media attention, who is all over the media in print and recorded interviews and has had the assistance of people I believe should not have assisted him..(imo)
A man whom gets an apology from Avon and Somerset Police some years later, when I cannot think of anyone whom has received such an apology with such content..
31: It may be that, in addition to the legal route for libel, someone who has been held on
bail for a prolonged time without being charged, and their reputation ruined, there should
be a mechanism for the person to receive an acknowledgement that they were falsely
accused. In the Chris Jeffries case, the Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset, Nick
Gargan, wrote to Mr Jeffries in the following terms:
I write formally to acknowledge the hurt that you suffered as a result of that arrest,
detention and eventual release on police bail in connection with the murder of
Joanna Yeates in December 2010 and which was the subject of huge media interest.
[…] I accept unequivocally that you played no part in the murder and that you are
wholly innocent of the crime.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmhaff/962/962.pdfWhen anyone else would not receive such an apology, as an investigation and arrest on suspicion of a crime based on the evidence that they had at the time, would and should be seen as the Police following protocols... So why the apology?
I find it odd that is all... Seeing as the Police don't do this all the time.... or NEVER, should I say
CJ has become synonymous with The Joanna Yeates Murder, in which ever way you wish to view it, a man that wanted to hide away and not be bothered by the media etc, has become centre stage and I want to understand why?
I want to understand why Parliament and The Leveson used him as they did, and why Avon and Somerset Police made such a public apology... When there have been people whom have served prison sentences for years that never receive an apology from any Police Authority...
This case is strange... This case is odd, this case has had attention that it shouldn't have had from people in power, when a trial hasn't even taken place...(imo)...
But who am I to say?
I will stick with my belief that Dr Vincent Tabak is innocent, I will stick with my belief that this case just doesn't add up... I will stick with my belief that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't get the defence he deserved (imo).. I will stick with my belief that the public have been fooled on some level and I will stick with my belief that people have somehow been made to stay silent....
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8365807/Joanna-Yeates-murder-landlord-Chris-Jefferies-released-from-bail-without-charge.htmlhttps://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/sep/14/leveson-inquiry-full-list-participantshttps://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/jefferies-and-others-v-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-secretary-of-state-for-digital-culture-media-and-sport-leveson-2/