The Defence Will State Their Case

[mrswah]

Ultimately, Tabak was responsible because he killed Jo and pointed the finger at CJ. That's how simply it is.

CJ was arrested before VT and Tanja called the police from Holland.

[Caroline]

CJ was arrested before VT and Tanja called the police from Holland.

But gave a statement to police implicating his CJ just after CJ was arrested and BEFORE his trip to Holland and ultimately his own arrest. He even apologised for it.


https://www.breakingnews.ie/world/tabak-admits-landlord-car-claim-525149.html

[Caroline]

Ok... But questions need to be answered...

The situation is very clear, the arrest of Christopher Jefferies was integral and necessary part of the investigation and I've no criticism of that decision. Er.. Nor indeed the way in which it was carried out.

Why was it integral and necessary part of the investigation to arrest CJ??

That should relate directly to Dr Vincent Tabak..... surely

Are Dr Vincent Tabak and CJ related ?  I'm trying to understand why arresting CJ whom it has been shown is wholly innocent was an integral and necessary part of the investigation ...

What other reason could there be for CJ arrest to be an integral and necessary part of the investigation???

Is that a serious question?

[Real justice]

But gave a statement to police implicating his CJ just after CJ was arrested and BEFORE his trip to Holland and ultimately his own arrest. He even apologised for it.


https://www.breakingnews.ie/world/tabak-admits-landlord-car-claim-525149.html

mrswah doesn’t believe Tabak was involved with Joanna’s murder, so she ain’t going to accept the fact that Tabak killing Joanna led to the press intrusion of CJ. 

[Caroline]

mrswah doesn’t believe Tabak was involved with Joanna’s murder, so she ain’t going to accept the fact that Tabak killing Joanna led to the press intrusion of CJ.

Can't argue with the facts Justice 

[mrswah]

mrswah doesn’t believe Tabak was involved with Joanna’s murder, so she ain’t going to accept the fact that Tabak killing Joanna led to the press intrusion of CJ.

To be honest, this isn't really worth arguing about( !!!) , but the fact is that CJ was arrested on 30th December. VT and Tanja rang the police from Holland the following day, having (presumably) followed events on line. Whether or not VT killed Joanna, the newspapers went wild with all sorts of rumours and rubbish regarding CJ.  That latter sued the newspapers, not VT.

[Caroline]

To be honest, this isn't really worth arguing about( !!!) , but the fact is that CJ was arrested on 30th December. VT and Tanja rang the police from Holland the following day, having (presumably) followed events on line. Whether or not VT killed Joanna, the newspapers went wild with all sorts of rumours and rubbish regarding CJ.  That latter sued the newspapers, not VT.

Well, it is given that what Tabak said to police was said to implicate CJ and as such, contributed to what followed.

[Real justice]

To be honest, this isn't really worth arguing about( !!!) , but the fact is that CJ was arrested on 30th December. VT and Tanja rang the police from Holland the following day, having (presumably) followed events on line. Whether or not VT killed Joanna, the newspapers went wild with all sorts of rumours and rubbish regarding CJ.  That latter sued the newspapers, not VT.

Thanks for that, I know all the timelines, I know the reaction afterwards, Tabak was and is responsible for all this mess, he’s responsible for what happened to Joanna and he’s responsible for CJ being arrested which led to the hounding, he had a chance to stop it all and put it right, he chose to fuel it and cause further hounding of a innocent and truly remarkable man. 

[[...]]

From The Metro:

Mr Jefferies said: ‘It provides an important conclusion to the whole aftermath of what I had to go through following my arrest. ‘As the letter itself explains it provides the public vindication which was not given at the time I was released from police bail. Vincent Tabak was found guilty of murdering Joanna Yeates ‘Although the letter is addressed to me and is therefore expressing regret at what I had to endure, the letter also implicitly provides the public acceptance that the events didn’t just affect me but affected a large circle of my relatives and friends.’


https://metro.co.uk/2013/09/16/were-sorry-police-apologise-for-treatment-of-christopher-jefferies-after-arrest-for-joanna-yeates-murder-4024433/?ito=cbshare

Recap Nick Gargan:

It's not a letter of apology, it is a letter that acknowledges that things might have been done differently. The situation is very clear, the arrest of Christopher Jefferies was integral and necessary part of the investigation and I've no criticism of that decision. Er.. Nor indeed the way in which it was carried out.

On reflection, in the light of our conversation with Mr Jefferies since, what we have come to realise, is that we might have been quicker in making it clear that he was no longer a suspect.

Now it's not ordinary Police practice, to release details, a press release to say that someone isn't a suspect anymore. But then again this wasn't an ordinary case and Mr Jefferies, had been subjected to a campaign of vilification in the press,. It was within our gift to reduce that by making an earlier announcement that he was no longer a suspect and on reflection we think that er.. we think that might have been done.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg526880#msg526880

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6waChhMuRU


The Letter in question:




Interesting.... I've just checked that the image has shown up and I copied the image address, but what I have got here is only part of the letter that is on the ITV website, even though the image I see is clearly the full letter... Or is it? Is it 2 images together?

I'll attach the full image of the letter:


Anyway... The letter clearly indicates an apology, It states that the "Police" are 'SORRY" even though in the interview CC Nick Gargan clearly tells us that it is not a letter of apology...

The article states letter.. But this has been emailed, the information on the bottom of the page states;

C/V1 877 letter to Mr Jefferies re apology.doc_289985_1


I went back to check... and yes, it is two individual images  Each with their own jpg number... How Odd!



I will still attach what is the full image I have screen shot....

Now this brings even more questions....  has someone made this document up and married 2 seperate letters?

Which letter is the original, is the top or bottom image??


I write as I think quite often, and find things, like these 2 married individual images, I was just originally going to put up the image I had screen shot once I attached the image, but when i realised I could copy and paste the url, I did a direct copy of image, this is how I discovered it was indeed 2 images and not one....

I'll still attach the image I have screen shoot, then edit my post so it appears on my post....

Now why would ITV show us a letter that is clearly two images married together? Why hasn't anyone said anything about this letter before?

I'm quite stunned , I didn't expect that when I started writing this post.... My original reason to write the post was to state that the letter says "Sorry"... and clearly CC Nick Gargan on the TV interview states that the Police never apologised...

That married letter deserves a 

Where did ITV obtain this letter?


I'm amazed here, I don't know what to say now.....

Here are the 2 individual URLs for the 2 images:


https://news.images.itv.com/image/file/262284/image_update_eae92464283c8b96_1379306661_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg

https://news.images.itv.com/image/file/262285/image_update_ad4ba0f0e7a21eda_1379306710_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg

Edit...




Double Edit...

[ the letter also implicitly provides the public acceptance that the events didn’t just affect me but affected a large circle of my relatives and friends.’
]

Where in the letter does it state about family and friends??

Oppsie.. missed ITV's website address:

https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/story/2013-09-16/jefferies-gets-police-apology/

[Real justice]

From The Metro:


Recap Nick Gargan:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg526880#msg526880

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6waChhMuRU


The Letter in question:




Interesting.... I've just checked that the image has shown up and I copied the image address, but what I have got here is only part of the letter that is on the ITV website, even though the image I see is clearly the full letter... Or is it? Is it 2 images together?

I'll attach the full image of the letter:


Anyway... The letter clearly indicates an apology, It states that the "Police" are 'SORRY" even though in the interview CC Nick Gargan clearly tells us that it is not a letter of apology...

The article states letter.. But this has been emailed, the information on the bottom of the page states;

C/V1 877 letter to Mr Jefferies re apology.doc_289985_1


I went back to check... and yes, it is two individual images  Each with their own jpg number... How Odd!



I will still attach what is the full image I have screen shot....

Now this brings even more questions....  has someone made this document up and married 2 seperate letters?

Which letter is the original, is the top or bottom image??


I write as I think quite often, and find things, like these 2 married individual images, I was just originally going to put up the image I had screen shot once I attached the image, but when i realised I could copy and paste the url, I did a direct copy of image, this is how I discovered it was indeed 2 images and not one....

I'll still attach the image I have screen shoot, then edit my post so it appears on my post....

Now why would ITV show us a letter that is clearly two images married together? Why hasn't anyone said anything about this letter before?

I'm quite stunned , I didn't expect that when I started writing this post.... My original reason to write the post was to state that the letter says "Sorry"... and clearly CC Nick Gargan on the TV interview states that the Police never apologised...

That married letter deserves a 

Where did ITV obtain this letter?


I'm amazed here, I don't know what to say now.....

Here are the 2 individual URLs for the 2 images:


https://news.images.itv.com/image/file/262284/image_update_eae92464283c8b96_1379306661_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg

https://news.images.itv.com/image/file/262285/image_update_ad4ba0f0e7a21eda_1379306710_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg

Edit...

Been there, seen it all done that, If TABAK hadn’t done what he did, you and I wouldn’t be here deliberating, Tabak wouldn’t be in prison (although it was just a matter of time for the monster) CJ wouldn’t have been hounded by the press, the police wouldn’t have have been apologetic and Mr and Mrs Yeates would still have their precious daughter and a future to look forward to.  TABAK is responsible for all of this and more.


If I chucked a man overboard out at sea and a shark came along and gobbled him up, is it the sharks fault?

[Real justice]

From The Metro:


Recap Nick Gargan:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg526880#msg526880

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6waChhMuRU


The Letter in question:




Interesting.... I've just checked that the image has shown up and I copied the image address, but what I have got here is only part of the letter that is on the ITV website, even though the image I see is clearly the full letter... Or is it? Is it 2 images together?

I'll attach the full image of the letter:


Anyway... The letter clearly indicates an apology, It states that the "Police" are 'SORRY" even though in the interview CC Nick Gargan clearly tells us that it is not a letter of apology...

The article states letter.. But this has been emailed, the information on the bottom of the page states;

C/V1 877 letter to Mr Jefferies re apology.doc_289985_1


I went back to check... and yes, it is two individual images  Each with their own jpg number... How Odd!



I will still attach what is the full image I have screen shot....

Now this brings even more questions....  has someone made this document up and married 2 seperate letters?

Which letter is the original, is the top or bottom image??


I write as I think quite often, and find things, like these 2 married individual images, I was just originally going to put up the image I had screen shot once I attached the image, but when i realised I could copy and paste the url, I did a direct copy of image, this is how I discovered it was indeed 2 images and not one....

I'll still attach the image I have screen shoot, then edit my post so it appears on my post....

Now why would ITV show us a letter that is clearly two images married together? Why hasn't anyone said anything about this letter before?

I'm quite stunned , I didn't expect that when I started writing this post.... My original reason to write the post was to state that the letter says "Sorry"... and clearly CC Nick Gargan on the TV interview states that the Police never apologised...

That married letter deserves a 

Where did ITV obtain this letter?


I'm amazed here, I don't know what to say now.....

Here are the 2 individual URLs for the 2 images:


https://news.images.itv.com/image/file/262284/image_update_eae92464283c8b96_1379306661_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg

https://news.images.itv.com/image/file/262285/image_update_ad4ba0f0e7a21eda_1379306710_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg

Edit...




Double Edit...

[ the letter also implicitly provides the public acceptance that the events didn’t just affect me but affected a large circle of my relatives and friends.’
]

Where in the letter does it state about family and friends??

I suppose you stumbled across this all by accident again Billy?  Your very prone 

[[...]]

Now I am wondering... Is the top part of the email from the media whom apologised??

From a blog about media apologies..

Here's the Star's apology:

In court yesterday the Daily Star apologised to Christopher Jefferies for articles published on December 31 2010 and January 1 2011, in which we reported on his arrest on suspicion of the murder of Joanna Yeates.

The articles suggested that there were strong grounds to believe that Mr Jefferies had killed Ms Yeates and that he had acted in an inappropriate over- sexualised manner with his pupils when he was a teacher. The articles also suggested that he had probably lied to police to obstruct their investigations.

We accepted that all these allegations were untrue and apologised to Mr Jefferies.

Yesterday the Daily Mirror, The Sunday Mirror and other newspapers apologised in court for the publication of false allegations about the retired school master Christopher Jefferies, who, we had wrongly suggested, was strongly to be suspected of having killed his former tenant Joanna Yeates.

The Daily Mirror wrongly suggested that he had invaded his tenants' privacy, was associated with a convicted paedophile and might have had something to do with an unsolved murder dating back to 1974.

The Sunday Mirror wrongly suggested that he had acted inappropriately towards his pupils in the past.

We accepted that these allegations were untrue and that far from being involved in the crime, Mr Jefferies helped the police with their inquiries as best he could.

We have agreed to pay substantial damages to Mr Jefferies plus his legal costs.

The letters I think appeared in the papers, but did they also write to CJ personally??

http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/2011/07/page-two-apologies-to-christopher.html

I write further to correspondence between Avon and Somerset Legal Directorate and your solicitor.

So again I'll ask... is this image taken from an apology to Mr Jefferies from one of the media outlets??

It's possible, anything is possible in this case... (imo)

Therefore why would ITV show the letter of 2 images as one?

Edit..I write further to correspondence between Avon and Somerset Legal Directorate and your solicitor.

Does that statement mean it is from someone other than Avon and Somerset Police ??

Just asking.....

[[...]]

I suppose you stumbled across this all by accident again Billy?  Your very prone 

I explained in my post how it happened...  I was laughing because I couldn't believe it.... I'm like OMG!!

[John]

The MSM behaved appallingly in the way Chris Jefferies was vilified the moment interest shifted towards him.  Sky News' doorstepping of him being one of the worst offenders.

[Real justice]

The MSM behaved appallingly in the way Chris Jefferies was vilified the moment interest shifted towards him.  Sky News' doorstepping of him being one of the worst offenders.

True and no one is disputing that