The Defence Will State Their Case

[Myster]

But it's in all the newspapers, so it can't possibly be true!!!   Poor unfortunate Dr. Vincent Tabak, my heart bleeds...

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/561436/Vincent-Tabak-Jo-Yeates-child-porn-images

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/02/vincent-tabak-admits-possessing-indecent-images-of-children

[[...]]

Sorry Nine I thought you knew, he admitted in court he had them on his computer and in in 2015 he receivied  10 months jail and 10 years on the sex offenders register.  Or do you think it was a false confession again like his confession to killing Joanna?

The papers tell us what has happened... I do not know whats real or not, I have said before...  What is accurate in the papers and what is inaccurate based on where said information has comes from..

Now when I mentioned Bannatyne yesterday, I was surprised that the tweets this person Yuri tweeted were still on twitter to this day...

Yuri Vasilyev
‏
 
@YuriVasilyev_

"@DuncanBannatyne  @HollieNicole85 give us £35,000: http://pastebin.com/N3x50nzN "( http://twitthis.com/b36qr9 )

1:55 pm - 31 Jul 2011

Yuri Vasilyev
‏
 
@YuriVasilyev_

"@DuncanBannatyne stop your self loving and save @HollieNicole85"( http://twitthis.com/at2ptw )

3:04 pm - 31 Jul 2011

Yuri Vasilyev
‏
 
@YuriVasilyev_

"Dear @DuncanBannatyne @HollieNicole85 last chance to contact us yurivasilyev@imail.ru "( http://twitthis.com/at2ptw )

1:31 am - 1 Aug 2011

Yuri Vasilyev
‏
 
@YuriVasilyev_

"@DuncanBannatyne  READ THIS ABOUT @HollieNicole85"( http://twitthis.com/pwrlti )

9:35 am - 1 Aug 2011

There are plenty of responses to this story, threats to kill, threats to break arms etc....  You see I don't know how much of a none story this really is.... I would have expected some Police action if this poster had threatened his daughter... The links provided work no longer, so don't know what they stated.... It could have been a joke or anything...

If it had been a real threat on the life of his daughter, the person in question would have had a knock on the door by PC whoever.... But mostly I would have expected to have seen at the very least, that twitter suspended this account.. Yet we are in 2019 and it is still visible nearly 10 years later..... I don't understand why...

82 followers this person has, they may all be just nosy I have no idea... I have no idea why the tweets are still visible... I do not know if there was another purpose for the tweets...  Or was it something to do with Leveson 2 ?

What are those other issues?
Advertisement

Hancock said that “the world has changed” since Leveson 1 and that the press is under threat from new digital forces that require “urgent” attention. Traditional publishers are struggling to make up the loss of revenue from the decline in popularity of printed press with digital income. In 2015, for every £100 newspapers lost in print revenue, newspapers only gained £3 in digital revenue. More than 200 local newspapers have closed since 2005. Google and Facebook control more than 60% of the UK digital ad market, with as much as 90% of all new online ad spend going to the two giants. Hancock said the “largely unregulated” social media world threatened high quality journalism with issues including clickbait, fake news, malicious disinformation and online abuse. “These are today’s challenges and this is where we need to focus,” he said.

And because most of the information relating to the case of Joanna Yeates and Dr Vincent Tabak was on social media, I therefore wondered if that was what the case was about?

The case of Dr Vincent Tabak still doesn't make sense to me... whether anyone agrees or not... There has to be more to it...(imo)

Or did the media take their stories from social media?? Like the story of Bannatynes daughter,where we get the headline from this publication:

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/204776/I-m-gonna-slaughter-Duncan-Bannatyne-s-daughter

The man, calling himself Yuri Vasilyev, set up another account to warn Dragons’ Den TV star Duncan Bannatyne about Hollie, 25.

Police have banned the Scot from responding to Vasilyev’s Tweets but last night refused to comment on the case.

A spokesman for the tycoon said: “He’s aware of the new threats but he’s not going to respond. Duncan respects the police are investigating the issue and he wants to let them get on with the job.”

Why would the Police ban Bannatyne?? Shouldn't the action be taken against the tweeter Yuri??

Bounty hunters have tried to locate Vasilyev using traces left on computers. The fiend has also posted a Twitter picture he claims shows his face.

Bounty hunters???  Traces left on what computers??? Another odd story (imo) Another story that has started on social media it would appear... 

Who actually writes on Bannatynes account?  Does a tick equal authenticity? Do we know for a fact that it is he??


There is something strange going on..(imo) as I have stated, how can CJ be apart of The Leveson Inquiry, when he should and could have been a witness at Dr Vincent Tabak's trial?

When we know by CJ's own statement either written or oral, that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't lie about the car changing position... But that was seen as a factor against Dr Vincent Tabak at this apparent trial...

I go backwards and forwards all the time...  I never know what to believe is true about the case.... Just because it's in social media or the media doesn't prove anything...(imo)



https://twitter.com/YuriVasilyev_/status/97772296508420096

https://twitter.com/YuriVasilyev_/status/97789783274831872

https://twitter.com/YuriVasilyev_/status/97947513784500224

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/mar/01/leveson-2-explained-what-was-it-meant-to-achieve

[[...]]

I didn't know  or realise that CJ had corresponded with David Yeates...  I wonder when that was??

At 1: 34 of the clip..

Chris Jefferies has been in recent correspondence with Jo Yeates father and says he was struck by the kindness of his sentiments, despite The Yeates families own tragedy.

"I was very touched by the fact that he obviously recognised that my life had been turned upside down as well, erm, by the events that had taken place, so then I think there was a very considerable feeling of mutual empathy really"

Did this happen before the trial??

Edit...

CJ, never mentions at The Leveson Joanna Yeates father corresponding with him and having empathy for his situation... I'm surprised he didn't to be honest..

This clip  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFgGbNtF0wA was publish ed on the 28th October 2010, don't know when it was first aired on TV

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmali3F29Ss  29th October 2010

Double Edit... Question..... Is the reason that CJ wasn't called as a witness, because he had corresponded with Joanna Yeates father??

Think we need clarification of the date of this correspondence, then there are no mistakes, did they correspond more than once??

Question 2: Is Jo Yeates father one and the same as David Yeates?  That question is just for clarity..

[mrswah]

Sorry Nine I thought you knew, he admitted in court he had them on his computer and in in 2015 he receivied  10 months jail and 10 years on the sex offenders register.  Or do you think it was a false confession again like his confession to killing Joanna?

Just to be pedantic and awkward, VT was tried for possessing indecent images of children, not "snuff videos".

He MIGHT have an unhealthy interest in children; on the other hand, IMO,  he was bound to  plead guilty at his second trial. He was already serving a life sentence, we don't know what his mental state was like, and perhaps he wanted the trial over as quickly as possible. Being put on the sex offenders' register for 10 years is hardly going to matter to him,  since he is going to be in prison for those 10 years anyway.

I do wonder, however, why the child porn charges were not tried at the same time as the murder charge, and I find it somewhat "fishy" that they tried him for this some three years later---------but then, this case has never sat well with me.

[Real justice]

Just to be pedantic and awkward, VT was tried for possessing indecent images of children, not "snuff videos".

He MIGHT have an unhealthy interest in children; on the other hand, IMO,  he was bound to  plead guilty at his second trial. He was already serving a life sentence, we don't know what his mental state was like, and perhaps he wanted the trial over as quickly as possible. Being put on the sex offenders' register for 10 years is hardly going to matter to him,  since he is going to be in prison for those 10 years anyway.

I do wonder, however, why the child porn charges were not tried at the same time as the murder charge, and I find it somewhat "fishy" that they tried him for this some three years later---------but then, this case has never sat well with me.

I really like your choice of words HARDLY going to matter to him.  Well I hope it does and I hope he realises the damage it does to young children and young girls.  The jury did hear about his liking for Snuff videos in his trial in 2015 wether you think it bothers him or not, it might have an impact when the murdering, sex offender comes up for parole

Although he's serving a minimum tariff of 20 years' imprisonment, we felt it was crucial Tabak was brought to justice for possessing indecent images of children, so the full nature of his offending is on record.

"Tabak is now a convicted sex offender and this means an extensive range of protective measures can now be put in place to manage his criminal behaviour and protect those at risk.

"This conviction will have a direct impact on how he is managed in the custody system and more importantly will affect how he is monitored and managed when he's released back into the community.

"When Tabak is released, he'll be suitably risk-assessed and risk-managed according to the crimes he’s been convicted of.

"It's possible he may return to the Netherlands following release, so it’s crucial the Dutch authorities are aware of the risks he poses. This could only have been guaranteed if a relevant conviction relating to a sexual interest in children were secured.

[[...]]

I always think there are connections and reasons behind how Joanna Yeates was found.. years ago it was suggested that the fact she was an architect was something to do with her murder, having been found by the quarry on Longwood Lane.. Possible talks of disagreements of planning that had been applied for was another reason put forward in forums....

Virtually everything that had been reported in the papers had been shared on the internet, but the sexual connection had never fully been explained away in regards to earlier reports....

I suppose again it has to be in what context...

There had been a project taking place around the time of Joanna Yeates disappearance and this project was completed in July 2011

Ali Damani
‏
 
@MadrasExpress

Priory repair project completed: A £4.4m project to restore St James Priory in central Bristol is completed. http://bbc.in/nd1Bbo #Bristol

2:41 am - 24 Jul 2011

St James Priory repair project completed

24 July 2011

The Priory was founded in 1129 and is Bristol's oldest standing building
A £4.4m project to repair St James Priory in central Bristol has been completed.

The Grade I listed church, which is on English Heritage's buildings at risk register, had a leaky roof and rising damp.

http://bbc.in/nd1Bbo

What had been discovered at this project was of interest to me...

By OLIVER PICKUP
UPDATED: 08:52, 22 September 2011





Religious cover-up: The statue when it was found (left) and the figure of the goddess after being restored (right)
 
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039615/Wesley-church-restoration-reveals-statue-topless-woman.html#comments

This article updated on the day that Dr Vincent Tabak appeared at court....

Isn't it of interest, that architecture is at the heart of this case, and a statue with it's breast exposed was uncovered in this project... Just like Joanna Yeates breast had been exposed on Longwood Lane.. I personally find that coincidental..

There has to be a reason for Joanna Yeates breast to be exposed and maybe this is the reason, rather than an apparent attack for no reason by a neighbour who knew nothing about her... And an apparent sexual motive, with Joanna Yeates breast being exposed as she is lifted over a wall that wasn't successful... (imo)

Maybe it more to do with mimicing this piece of architecture,... something to contemplate... (imo)








https://twitter.com/MadrasExpress/status/95066049740935168

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039615/Wesley-church-restoration-reveals-statue-topless-woman.html#comments

[Caroline]

At 29:33  of the video Fiona Bruce says:

Bill Clegg

This was whilst he was defending Stagg,  if I remember correctly....

William Clegg doesn't say he knows what record Napper may or may not have Or whether or not a man named Napper killed Rachell Nickell..... 

It just happens that he believed the person who killed Samantha Bisset and her child, must have been responsible for the Murder of Rachell Nickell...  That person turned out to be Robert Napper.... That was based on the one identifying feature of a woman being murdered in front of her child...

Samantha Bisset's child was killed after she had been killed... But Rachell Nickell's son was not murdered and stood with his mothers body on Wimbledon Common....

Therefore the only connect was that a child was present.... and Jasmine Bisset was killed in her own home... And Rachell Nickell out in the open....

What made Clegg jump to that conclusion on reading a few papers is beyond me... But we know Staggs case was thrown out by Judge Ognall and Napper became Cleggs client for the Murder of Jasmine Bisset, I believe......


I keep saying I cannot understand how Clegg can defend both these men... It seems a conflict of interests.... (imo) seeing as he had already believed who ever killed Samantha Bisset had to be responsible for Rachell Nickell's murder....  (then later admitted to the manslaughter of Rachell Nickell... many many years after he was convicted of Samantha Bissets murder!)

Edit....

10th October 1995

So was it Scotland yard who thought Robert Napper was responsible/links or William Clegg??  Clegg states it was himself in his interview with Fiona Bruce...  And I believe that whilst he was representing Stagg... 

QC Bill Clegg was about to lead Colin Stagg's Defence.. when he first heard about the Murders of Samantha and Jasmine.

I remember Reading it in The Papers in Chambers and within about 2 or 3 hours I came out of the room and said to my clark..Um.. I reckon that's the man that killed Rachell Nickell. It seemed to me to be perfectly obvious...
Statistically it's extremely rare for a mother to be murdered in the presence of a young child.



https://www.itv.com/presscentre/ep1week10/rachel-nickell-untold-story

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/dec/18/rachel-nickell-robert-napper-murder-guilty

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12069046.double-killer-sent-to-broadmoor-mother-was-mutilated-beside-dead-daughter/

He didn't defend Napper, he represented him - and as far as the connecton ges (again), he was right!

[Caroline]

I always think there are connections and reasons behind how Joanna Yeates was found.. years ago it was suggested that the fact she was an architect was something to do with her murder, having been found by the quarry on Longwood Lane.. Possible talks of disagreements of planning that had been applied for was another reason put forward in forums....

Virtually everything that had been reported in the papers had been shared on the internet, but the sexual connection had never fully been explained away in regards to earlier reports....

I suppose again it has to be in what context...

There had been a project taking place around the time of Joanna Yeates disappearance and this project was completed in July 2011



http://bbc.in/nd1Bbo

What had been discovered at this project was of interest to me...

By OLIVER PICKUP
UPDATED: 08:52, 22 September 2011





Religious cover-up: The statue when it was found (left) and the figure of the goddess after being restored (right)
 
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039615/Wesley-church-restoration-reveals-statue-topless-woman.html#comments

This article updated on the day that Dr Vincent Tabak appeared at court....

Isn't it of interest, that architecture is at the heart of this case, and a statue with it's breast exposed was uncovered in this project... Just like Joanna Yeates breast had been exposed on Longwood Lane.. I personally find that coincidental..

There has to be a reason for Joanna Yeates breast to be exposed and maybe this is the reason, rather than an apparent attack for no reason by a neighbour who knew nothing about her... And an apparent sexual motive, with Joanna Yeates breast being exposed as she is lifted over a wall that wasn't successful... (imo)

Maybe it more to do with mimicing this piece of architecture,... something to contemplate... (imo)








https://twitter.com/MadrasExpress/status/95066049740935168

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039615/Wesley-church-restoration-reveals-statue-topless-woman.html#comments

Architecture is neither here nor there and the statu has nothing to do with the murder - Tabak was/is a  pervert and it's THAT that is at the heart of the case. Why do you ant him to be innocent?

[Myster]

 Too much idolatry of Noel O'Gara going on here, never mind a statue of the Virgin Mary, so no need to contemplate another load of bollocks!   

[Myster]

Too much idolatry of Noel O'Gara going on here, never mind a statue of the Virgin Mary*, so no need to contemplate another load of bollocks!   

*... or Abundantia, as the case may be.

[[...]]

A statue of a bare-breasted woman whose torso was discreetly covered for centuries has been found in a Bristol church house where John Wesley worshipped. There is speculation that the half-clad figure was considered too much of a distraction for Wesley, the founder of Methodism, and his followers. The figure, holding a cornucopia of fruit, is suspected to be Abundantia – a Roman personification of abundance and prosperity.

And from the Guardian..

The figure, holding a cornucopia of fruit, is suspected to be Abundantia – a Roman personification of abundance and prosperity.

The statue is believed to be that of Abundance a.k.a. Abundantia.....

The original painting of Abundance showed her with only one breast exposed... Ruben's C 1630



Having me wonder if someone only heard about the find of this statue of abundantia/abdundance and was aware of the Rubens painting only, not knowing the full truth behind the find at the church in Bristol where both breasts were exposed...!

The Guardian  @stevenmorris20
Tue 11 Oct 2011 18.14 BST First published on Tue 11 Oct 2011 18.14 BST

Her jeans were fastened but her pink top was partially pulled up over her head, the court heard. Yeates was still wearing her bra but her right breast was exposed.

Coincidence... I don't believe so....

Edit... has someone close to the investigation just decided that there was a sexual motive to this crime because of Joanna Yeates right breast being exposed??

Did they pursue this case as a sexually motivated case, when it was probably more to do with the fact that Joanna Yeates was an architect... And the exposing of the breast, more to do with the find at the church in Bristol??


https://www.alamy.com/abundance-abundantia-by-peter-paul-rubens-c-1630-oil-on-panel-national-image213963512.html

https://www.arthistorynews.com/articles/589_No_breasts_please_were_Methodists

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/11/vincent-tabak-joanna-yeates

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/sep/20/bare-breasted-statue-uncovered-john-wesley

[Caroline]

And from the Guardian..

The statue is believed to be that of Abundance a.k.a. Abundantia.....

The original painting of Abundance showed her with only one breast exposed... Ruben's C 1630



Having me wonder if someone only heard about the find of this statue of abundantia/abdundance and was aware of the Rubens painting only, not knowing the full truth behind the find at the church in Bristol where both breasts were exposed...!

The Guardian  @stevenmorris20
Tue 11 Oct 2011 18.14 BST First published on Tue 11 Oct 2011 18.14 BST

Coincidence... I don't believe so....


https://www.alamy.com/abundance-abundantia-by-peter-paul-rubens-c-1630-oil-on-panel-national-image213963512.html

https://www.arthistorynews.com/articles/589_No_breasts_please_were_Methodists

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/11/vincent-tabak-joanna-yeates

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/sep/20/bare-breasted-statue-uncovered-john-wesley

Tabak was certainly fond of exposed boobs but not of the arty variety, more the porny variety!

Edit - by the way, this is the silliest theory yet!

[Real justice]

And from the Guardian..

The statue is believed to be that of Abundance a.k.a. Abundantia.....

The original painting of Abundance showed her with only one breast exposed... Ruben's C 1630



Having me wonder if someone only heard about the find of this statue of abundantia/abdundance and was aware of the Rubens painting only, not knowing the full truth behind the find at the church in Bristol where both breasts were exposed...!

The Guardian  @stevenmorris20
Tue 11 Oct 2011 18.14 BST First published on Tue 11 Oct 2011 18.14 BST

Coincidence... I don't believe so....

Edit... has someone close to the investigation just decided that there was a sexual motive to this crime because of Joanna Yeates right breast being exposed??

Did they pursue this case as a sexually motivated case, when it was probably more to do with the fact that Joanna Yeates was an architect... And the exposing of the breast, more to do with the find at the church in Bristol??


https://www.alamy.com/abundance-abundantia-by-peter-paul-rubens-c-1630-oil-on-panel-national-image213963512.html

https://www.arthistorynews.com/articles/589_No_breasts_please_were_Methodists

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/11/vincent-tabak-joanna-yeates

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/sep/20/bare-breasted-statue-uncovered-john-wesley

Here Nine, educate yourself, in Tabak’s own words from the trial he tells you how the breast was exposed,

Defence Counsel: What did you do then?
Tabak: I tried to hide the body. I tried to put the body over the fence.
Defence Counsel: Were you able to? Tabak: No, the body was too heavy.
Defence Counsel: Did the body come into contact with the wall? Tabak: Yes. But she was too heavy.
Defence Counsel: Part of her breast was exposed- how did that happen? Tabak: Perhaps when carrying her body.
Defence Counsel: Your DNA was found on the breast of the body- how did that come about?
Tabak: I think as I was trying to put the body over the wall.


My theory, Tabak probably exposed the breast for sexual pleasure and pleasured himself at the sight of it, cleaning up after him but leaving his  DNA on poor Joanna. 

[jixy]

Just to be pedantic and awkward, VT was tried for possessing indecent images of children, not "snuff videos".

He MIGHT have an unhealthy interest in children; on the other hand, IMO,  he was bound to  plead guilty at his second trial. He was already serving a life sentence, we don't know what his mental state was like, and perhaps he wanted the trial over as quickly as possible. Being put on the sex offenders' register for 10 years is hardly going to matter to him,  since he is going to be in prison for those 10 years anyway.

I do wonder, however, why the child porn charges were not tried at the same time as the murder charge, and I find it somewhat "fishy" that they tried him for this some three years later---------but then, this case has never sat well with me.

Mrswah its vital he is on the Register as he is attracted to children. The 10 years wouldnt start until his release so it really does matter.

No excuses can be made for pictures , Im sure he didnt admit his guilt yet again, just to get it out of the way! He is guilty!

[Real justice]

Mrswah its vital he is on the Register as he is attracted to children. The 10 years wouldnt start until his release so it really does matter.

No excuses can be made for pictures , Im sure he didnt admit his guilt yet again, just to get it out of the way! He is guilty!

Im not 100 per cent sure jixy, but as I understood it the period applies from conviction and not release?  Maybe someone could verify this for us?