The Defence Will State Their Case

[[...]]

Here you all go again...

The information is all ready out there.... Where do you think i got it all from????

The interviews, the media reports, the images, the TV documentaries, the TV news interviews, appeals,The Leveson, etc etc etc...

All over the internet, all available for anyone to look at this case and form their own opinion on it based on what they choose to believe or not....

I have not got information from any other source... It is all out there and has been for years,.. Some people have blogged about the case...

I have only looked at the information and formed my own opinion... that is all...

[[...]]

huge assumptions once again along with your presumed right of entitlement to any info you think you deserve to know about!

Help Tabak? you are a disgrace!

Was that really called for Jixy??

[jixy]

Yes actually! You implying that in the middle of his own nightmare, CJ was in fact trying to help Tabak!

You defend this case like you are the guilty party! It is Tabak! You never say or see ANY wrong in any of his actions but have plenty to say about ALL the others even offering reasons why!

In my opinion, its disgusting.

[[...]]

Yes actually! You implying that in the middle of his own nightmare, CJ was in fact trying to help Tabak!

You defend this case like you are the guilty party! It is Tabak! You never say or see ANY wrong in any of his actions but have plenty to say about ALL the others even offering reasons why!

In my opinion, its disgusting.

No No No No No.......

I am trying to cover all the angles, I have no idea why CJ is in front of camera, this case as I have stated many many many many many times before makes no sense to me.... It may do to you, but that is your perogative...

The inconsistencies, timelines, The yeates family walking around the second scene of crime before it has been fully processed, with Forensic tents and Police tape still visible, has me questioning what this case is about and is it really so easy to ignore protocol and expect no-one to say anything about it...

It has me asking the question why no-one has brought certain facts to the CPs's attention.... Courts , the CCRC etc...

Every detail of this case being played out before a trial, over the media and social media...

Because the case forever has me in two minds, I am trying to understand peoples actions and intentions....

I have said I don't know if it is real or not...  Then remember what brought me here in the first place...

CJ saw Dr Vincent Tabak and spoke to him on two occasions on the weekend of the 17th December 2010 to the 19th December 2010, a witness in my opinion, he tells us Dr Vincent Tabak assisted him in moving his car from the drive, he tells the Leveson he left the car on the road... I tried to pinpoint when the car had been moved, because apparently Dr Vincent Tabak had tried to implicate CJ, because he informed the Police that his car had changed positions....

Well..... It had!!

These two conversations, CJ tells us himself that they occurred, in a TV interview for a TV drama...

So call me disgusting if you choose... It won't make any difference to what I think...

[jixy]

Tabak saying he is guilty not only of taking a life but nasty viewing habits doesnt register with you and you choose to ignore the views of the man himself. So its quite easy to see why you wouldnt listen to anyone on this forum or their views however much they make sense to everyone else!

[[...]]

Tabak saying he is guilty not only of taking a life but nasty viewing habits doesnt register with you and you choose to ignore the views of the man himself. So its quite easy to see why you wouldnt listen to anyone on this forum or their views however much they make sense to everyone else!

Jixy... I came here because I had doubts about Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction, i wanted to understand how everyone was told he plead guilty to manslaughter in May 2011 and the media told us so, not only that they told us that the CPS wasn't accepting this plea and would go to trial... I thought it was the judges decision on that point, but I don't know law so i'll leave that there...

Therefore, why have a man take the stand, to tell a story that basically was all ready in the public domain in one way or another?

I do not understand the silence.... I do not understand why the media are all over Joanna Yeates virtually empty flat that is apparently frozen in time, Missing the Christmas tree for starters, that Mrs yeates spoke of and many of the furnishings that were there before... Nothing from this Flat brought to trial to bolster and secure a conviction against Dr Vincent tabak

A Flat that to me looks staged....

But people are happy, that if the jury are reminded that Dr vincent Tabak has plead guilty to manslaughter, before he is on trial, and that manslaughter plea is mentioned in the media day in and day out, whilst the trial is taking place....

Then you put a man on the stand to explain how he apparently did it.... The juries mind is obviously already made up... This was a high profile case, Bristol people were on the jury... Dean Armstrong himself was amazed at the interest...

The public are baying for blood, one suspect has been cleared... The public want someone to pay....

So whatever Dr Vincent Tabak stated on the stand at trial, his goose was already cooked (imo)... No-one really gave a damn how what and where, they would not give him an inch, or believe him.... People on the internet at the time wanted to lynch him when he was arrested...

So no I do not believe what was said, the way in which this trial was conducted, doesn't't seem legal to me, but what do I know...

But I know the odds were stacked against a man whom wasn't given the opportunity to face over 21 witness's if memory serves me correctly, who's statements were read out at trial and did not make an appearance... all these statements being hearsay (imo)


But you along with everyone else appear to be happy about this circus....

Who's Billy Now !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS4o5c4vFPk

Edit...  How can you appear on the stand Guilty to be proved even Guiltier??

What happened to the presumption of innocence and the Prosecution proving their case.... Not the Defence giving them a leg up!

[Real justice]

Jixy... I came here because I had doubts about Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction, i wanted to understand how everyone was told he plead guilty to manslaughter in May 2011 and the media told us so, not only that they told us that the CPS wasn't accepting this plea and would go to trial... I thought it was the judges decision on that point, but I don't know law so i'll leave that there...

Therefore, why have a man take the stand, to tell a story that basically was all ready in the public domain in one way or another?

I do not understand the silence.... I do not understand why the media are all over Joanna Yeates virtually empty flat that is apparently frozen in time, Missing the Christmas tree for starters, that Mrs yeates spoke of and many of the furnishings that were there before... Nothing from this Flat brought to trial to bolster and secure a conviction against Dr Vincent tabak

A Flat that to me looks staged....

But people are happy, that if the jury are reminded that Dr vincent Tabak has plead guilty to manslaughter, before he is on trial, and that manslaughter plea is mentioned in the media day in and day out, whilst the trial is taking place....

Then you put a man on the stand to explain how he apparently did it.... The juries mind is obviously already made up... This was a high profile case, Bristol people were on the jury... Dean Armstrong himself was amazed at the interest...

The public are baying for blood, one suspect has been cleared... The public want someone to pay....

So whatever Dr Vincent Tabak stated on the stand at trial, his goose was already cooked (imo)... No-one really gave a damn how what and where, they would not give him an inch, or believe him.... People on the internet at the time wanted to lynch him when he was arrested...

So no I do not believe what was said, the way in which this trial was conducted, doesn't't seem legal to me, but what do I know...

But I know the odds were stacked against a man whom wasn't given the opportunity to face over 21 witness's if memory serves me correctly, who's statements were read out at trial and did not make an appearance... all these statements being hearsay (imo)


But you along with everyone else appear to be happy about this circus....

Who's Billy Now !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS4o5c4vFPk

Edit...  How can you appear on the stand Guilty to be proved even Guiltier??

What happened to the presumption of innocence and the Prosecution proving their case.... Not the Defence giving them a leg up!

He took the stand to try and get off with murder, he wanted the jury to believe his manslaughter plea.  Doesn’t matter that most things was in the public domain, he still has to be prosecuted in a court off law, there’s no other way of doing it.

[jixy]

Jixy... I came here because I had doubts about Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction, i wanted to understand how everyone was told he plead guilty to manslaughter in May 2011 and the media told us so, not only that they told us that the CPS wasn't accepting this plea and would go to trial... I thought it was the judges decision on that point, but I don't know law so i'll leave that there...

Therefore, why have a man take the stand, to tell a story that basically was all ready in the public domain in one way or another?

I do not understand the silence.... I do not understand why the media are all over Joanna Yeates virtually empty flat that is apparently frozen in time, Missing the Christmas tree for starters, that Mrs yeates spoke of and many of the furnishings that were there before... Nothing from this Flat brought to trial to bolster and secure a conviction against Dr Vincent tabak

A Flat that to me looks staged....

But people are happy, that if the jury are reminded that Dr vincent Tabak has plead guilty to manslaughter, before he is on trial, and that manslaughter plea is mentioned in the media day in and day out, whilst the trial is taking place....

Then you put a man on the stand to explain how he apparently did it.... The juries mind is obviously already made up... This was a high profile case, Bristol people were on the jury... Dean Armstrong himself was amazed at the interest...

The public are baying for blood, one suspect has been cleared... The public want someone to pay....

So whatever Dr Vincent Tabak stated on the stand at trial, his goose was already cooked (imo)... No-one really gave a damn how what and where, they would not give him an inch, or believe him.... People on the internet at the time wanted to lynch him when he was arrested...

So no I do not believe what was said, the way in which this trial was conducted, doesn't't seem legal to me, but what do I know...

But I know the odds were stacked against a man whom wasn't given the opportunity to face over 21 witness's if memory serves me correctly, who's statements were read out at trial and did not make an appearance... all these statements being hearsay (imo)


But you along with everyone else appear to be happy about this circus....

Who's Billy Now !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS4o5c4vFPk

Edit...  How can you appear on the stand Guilty to be proved even Guiltier??

What happened to the presumption of innocence and the Prosecution proving their case.... Not the Defence giving them a leg up!

Another offensive post! Its not a circus, a young woman lost her life

Most people were concerned about that, the family and those close to Jo!

It isnt unusual to mention that someone has admitted being responsible for taking a life. why would it be?

ALL your sympathy lie with Tabak. The circus as you call us are thinking of the victim!

I am really quite tired of the use of the work guiltier. Its quite childish and very inappropriate. It was either murder or manslaughter!!! simple. He tried he failed to convince the jury

No matter what evidence from the flat or elsewhere that was brought into a court room would ever change the Guilty part of this

I cant work  after 1000s of posts you still think that was ever possible

Going over OLD ground again but even Tabak was happy  to accept he took a life but you expect a jury to decide that he didnt. How very strange!


The trial doesnt seem legal  go into any court room in the land and see it happens that way each and every day

[Real justice]

Then you put a man on the stand to explain how he apparently did it.... The juries mind is obviously already made up... This was a high profile case, Bristol people were on the jury... Dean Armstrong himself was amazed at the interest...


Incorrect, the juries mind wasn’t made up it took them three days to reach a verdict and then it was a 10/2 majority.

[jixy]

Jesus Christ.... I told you I don't know who Dr Vincent Tabak is... or anything about him....

For all I know he is a Tobacco product, and this is a smoking advert, or a different approach to advertising... I have no idea.... It makes no sense to me... at ALL...

And if he is a Tobacco product, then he is a silent Killer.. Boom Boom!!

I think you need to sit in a quiet room and switch off all devices oh and close the curtains

[jixy]

Jesus Christ.... I told you I don't know who Dr Vincent Tabak is... or anything about him....

For all I know he is a Tobacco product, and this is a smoking advert, or a different approach to advertising... I have no idea.... It makes no sense to me... at ALL...

And if he is a Tobacco product, then he is a silent Killer.. Boom Boom!!

You dont know him that is correct but you seem to have set yourself up as an expert on what he does and doesnt view, whether he is capable of taking a life, telling the truth what he means when he texts and even which language he searches in!  All to prove is innocence of course

[[...]]

I think you need to sit in a quiet room and switch off all devices oh and close the curtains

Why??

[[...]]

I think you need to sit in a quiet room and switch off all devices oh and close the curtains

I need to stop replying to you .

[jixy]

  you rarely actually reply to anyone!

[[...]]

The jury cannot be blamed for the conclusion they came too, based on the fact that they already knew the man in front of them had plead guilty to manslaughter.... And here he was explaining how it did it...

The only evidence they needed to weigh up.....

If important evidence is omitted and witness's are not called.... How can you make a judgement? their judgement was based on the little evidence provided...

A confession or should I say an explanation on the stand as to how Joanna Yeates may have come to her demise.... Bit flimsy really... (imo)