Author Topic: The Defence Will State Their Case  (Read 599282 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Baz

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1590 on: August 19, 2018, 10:04:37 AM »
Baz it was hypothetical....

I'm still racking my brain as to what this is all about and why no-one will speak...  The newspapers will not say anything on this case.... There has to be a reason....

The lawyers won't comment on this case... That too means there needs to be a reason.... 

The Leveson Inquiry is connected to this case.... There has to be a reason....

Leveson 2 is never gonna happen, and until it does I don't think that there will ever be a resolution to this case...  Avon and Somerset Police  could still be investigating for all I know...

I do not know Dr Vincent Tabak ... I have never meet him Baz.... I have never been to Holland Baz....   

It was an experiment, I wondered if you made a claim that would then initiate a response from the newspapers etc... But it doesn't ..

The media had to get there information from somewhere... Now I don't know if the phone hacking scandal has anything to do with this.... Maybe it does..

Dr Vincent Tabak may not even exist for all I know...  So how would I meet a man who is not real?

Leveson 2  was going to be about social media and fake news.... So I believe that this part must have something to do with the case...

If the lawyers don't speak or the newspapers don't speak, then it maybe because of The Leveson 2... I don't know...

If it was all fake news and nothing took place at Bristol Crown Court apart from tweets and photographs being taken of the proceeding.. How are we to know any different... And the point then being that the trial etc, could not be talked about as it would then be part of an enquiry...

Rebecca Scott... That image concerns me of her walking to court looking unkempt.. It's like she went from recording the video about her best friend, then went straight to Bristol Crown Court and was filmed walking down the street there...

Your best friend has been murdered and you make no effort in your appearance when you are called as a witness in the trial of the man whom apparently killed her... It almost looks like she spent a night in the cells and was been escorted to the court , if I am being honest,..  Her hair is a mess....  I wonder if it is even her.. Her nose looks different on the images of her coming to trial.. A lot of the images in this case are wrong...

 I still have the issue of the facebook posts that are missing from 2010... They too may be evidence for Leveson 2.. I don't know.. just like lawyers keeping quiet....

I'm left in the same position as I have always been.... not knowing what is fake and what is real... Even to the point where I question was Joanna Yeates murdered? which may seem a little insensitive, but I do not know anymore...

There is plenty of information out there, and some which has been removed, but the reason it has been removed is really what the question is.... "Clifton People" for instance... It was on-line discussion and had a twitter page... That has been removed.. That I am presuming is the original source of some of the stories that came into the media's possession... Anyone could write stories for that online publication, or whatever you want to call it...

Is this fantasy? Is it real? Is it fake news?? Is it all just a story??  I have know idea... I don't know where I stand on this anymore... I have spent too long going around in circles, not understanding why no-one will comment on the staging that has taken place in this case....

CJ at The leveson and the vilification that has been spoken of, well.... no one should be vilified in the press... But I find CJ being at the Leveson strange, to be honest... The likes of Barry George and Colin Stagg are people who's lives were destroyed by the press..... Not someone who had a couple of days of stories about them... (I'm not trying to say it wasn't important)

The press reporting on CJ stopped quickly and since then he has been put in a more favourable light... But Colin Stagg never really has been... The Police had always believed that it was him and his life was literally turned upside down... Yet CJ out of many people who have had horrendous stories printed about them, is asked to participate in the Leveson... Odd!

I started this because I believed that a man named Dr Vincent Tabak had been shafted by the establishment.. I felt that he was not represented properly.. I couldn't and still can't understand how none evidence can convict somebody, whilst everyone in their professions are aware of this , yet stay quiet....

My problem is and always will be .. That I do not know the whole picture... I do not know what this case is really about... Yes it's easy to say it's about the murder of Joanna Yeates.... But I do not believe that it is that simple..

And I do not know what I can realistically do... I seem to be chasing a ghost... And I will forever be chasing a ghost...

So Baz... I am not going to add to the false information that is already out there... That was why I removed my post.... It wasn't real and I explained why it wasn't real...


Have I wasted my time chasing a ghost?? I can't answer that either.. Because what I have posted my be relevant in the future.. If I do not know what this is about how do I know whether my opinion and cross referencing of the information on the internet, will not have a purpose in the future...

So do I continue... I don't know that either... I feel deflated, frustrated and confused by the whole thing...

Your comment on being admirable... Made me question what it's worth....  It appears qualities that were revered no longer appear important...  And if being admirable has made me look entirely foolish, then that is my problem...

I could have pointlessly been looking at defending a man that may not exist... Which is sad... I have lost sleep over my concerns, I have laughed , cried and got totally engrossed in a conundrum I cannot possibly solve..

And if there is still an ongoing investigation, then nothing new will be stated....

I don't know what else to say....

Well, I thought you were being honest with me. So I feel kind of shocked that you were just lying to me.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2018, 10:10:33 AM by Angelo222 »

Offline Angelo222

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1591 on: August 19, 2018, 10:16:55 AM »

Certainly not "everybody" believes that Vincent Tabak was guilty of murder, John !!!

I think he will find it extremely difficult to "disappear into obscurity and restart his life."

I personally think the charge should have been involuntary manslaughter as Tabak didn't initially intend to kill Joanna.  It was through his negligence that she died. The sentence of 20 years minimum was appropriate imo. He will be unrecognisable when he eventually gets released and long forgotten about.

The offence of manslaughter:

Manslaughter is a crime that can be broken down into two groups. These are described as:
voluntary manslaughter - where the offender intended to kill or cause really serious harm but is not guilty of murder due to provocation or mental incapacity (described as diminished responsibility); and

involuntary manslaughter - where the offender did not intend to kill or cause really serious harm but where death results from an unlawful act or from gross negligence.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2018, 10:27:37 AM by Angelo222 »
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1592 on: September 04, 2018, 12:39:14 PM »
Anyone live close enough to pop along and ask Bill some questions??




Quote
William Clegg QC is London’s top murder case lawyer, and the author of Under the Wig. In this vivid memoir he revisits some of his most notorious and intriguing trials, whilst laying bare the secrets of his profession, and how our right to a fair trial is now in great peril.

What's this Now business?? 
Lets go back some years and question the trial that was Dr Vincent Tabak




https://www.waterstones.com/events/memoirs-from-the-public-sector-adam-kay-sarah-langford-christie-watson-and-william-clegg-in-conversation-with-john-sutherland-at-piccadilly-london/london-piccadilly

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1593 on: September 04, 2018, 10:50:49 PM »
Here someone has managed to capture David and Theresa Yeates leaving Bristol Crown Court on the 20th September 2011.. The day that was a case management hearing for Dr Vincent Tabak...

No other cameras from the media are present filming Dr Vincent Tabak arrive.. (very odd)... 

Why are The Yeates at The Crown Court anyway??   It all seems highly irregular to me...

The clip was uploaded to youtube on the 20th September 2011...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm9DSq3CZZM


[attachment deleted by admin]

Offline John

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1594 on: September 09, 2018, 01:28:12 AM »
Here someone has managed to capture David and Theresa Yeates leaving Bristol Crown Court on the 20th September 2011.. The day that was a case management hearing for Dr Vincent Tabak...

No other cameras from the media are present filming Dr Vincent Tabak arrive.. (very odd)... 

Why are The Yeates at The Crown Court anyway??   It all seems highly irregular to me...

The clip was uploaded to youtube on the 20th September 2011...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm9DSq3CZZM

I don't follow?   The parents of the victim are entitled to attend such hearings.

Why highly irregular Nine?
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline John

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1595 on: September 09, 2018, 01:29:49 AM »
I personally think the charge should have been involuntary manslaughter as Tabak didn't initially intend to kill Joanna.  It was through his negligence that she died. The sentence of 20 years minimum was appropriate imo. He will be unrecognisable when he eventually gets released and long forgotten about.

The offence of manslaughter:

Manslaughter is a crime that can be broken down into two groups. These are described as:
voluntary manslaughter - where the offender intended to kill or cause really serious harm but is not guilty of murder due to provocation or mental incapacity (described as diminished responsibility); and

involuntary manslaughter - where the offender did not intend to kill or cause really serious harm but where death results from an unlawful act or from gross negligence.

I agree, he was indicted on the wrong charge but sentenced correctly in any event imo.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1596 on: September 12, 2018, 11:59:04 AM »
Intent... This case is about Intent...

How was intent proven... And what Intent is it referring too??

Intent is a difficult ask... To prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to commit a crime...

The testimony that Dr Vincent Tabak gave on the witness stand, doesn't really show intent... The evidence that was presented, doesn't show intent... So what intent does it show....??

The only intention that Dr Vincent Tabak indicated was that he had intended to go shopping to Asda, in which we have been shown a CCTV that supports the idea that he carried out his intention and was captured on footage without time stamp...  That is the only evidence i can see that appeared at trial that goes towards intent...

The searches, doe not show Intent

The medical evidence doesn't show intent

Nobody was privvy to this intent on the killing of Joanna yeates, so how was Intent proven?

As far as I can tell Dr Vincent Tabak is only guilty of shopping at Asda as he told us of his intention to do so... But he had NO Intention to kill Joanna Yeates, and I still do not believe that he did kill her...




Offline John

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1597 on: September 13, 2018, 11:29:37 AM »
Intent... This case is about Intent...

How was intent proven... And what Intent is it referring too??

Intent is a difficult ask... To prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to commit a crime...

The testimony that Dr Vincent Tabak gave on the witness stand, doesn't really show intent... The evidence that was presented, doesn't show intent... So what intent does it show....??

The only intention that Dr Vincent Tabak indicated was that he had intended to go shopping to Asda, in which we have been shown a CCTV that supports the idea that he carried out his intention and was captured on footage without time stamp...  That is the only evidence i can see that appeared at trial that goes towards intent...

The searches, doe not show Intent

The medical evidence doesn't show intent

Nobody was privvy to this intent on the killing of Joanna yeates, so how was Intent proven?

As far as I can tell Dr Vincent Tabak is only guilty of shopping at Asda as he told us of his intention to do so... But he had NO Intention to kill Joanna Yeates, and I still do not believe that he did kill her...

He admitted it.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Baz

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1598 on: September 13, 2018, 02:24:13 PM »
He admitted it.

No John. It was a doppelganger or a clone or an actor or he was drugged or intimidated into admitting it. It definitely wasn't just that he killed her and didn't get away with it as he hoped.

Offline Angelo222

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1599 on: September 13, 2018, 02:46:00 PM »
In my opinion it was a simple sexual assault gone wrong. I don't believe for a minute that he set out to kill her and that what happened was truly very unfortunate. In the final analysis however I too think the sentence was appropriate to the crime.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1600 on: September 13, 2018, 02:52:46 PM »
He admitted it.

Admitting to anything doesn't mean that a person has done it....  The evidence is supposed to support what the defendant was saying and it doesn't...

This was a vicious assault apparently on a young woman in her home, and there is no evidence to support this assault... The house is clean and tidy... If there had been evidence of foul play, Mr Reardon cannot be that stupid as to tidy a crime scene?? If there was blood evidence he should have seen it... If the flat was in disarray, he should have noticed it....

There should have been evidence of body fluids in that Flat...  or at least in Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat, but there wasn't any... Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have taken Joanna Yeates around to his flat for an hour...  Body fluids leak... It's a fact... But there is no evidence of the body fluids leaking... there is no evidence that Joanna Yeates clothes had been soiled.... Therefore that make me believe that she had been killed elsewhere and washed and changed.....

You have the problem still of the CCTV of Canygne Road that DS Mark Saunders saw of cars and people milling about on Friday the 17th December 2010... That CCTV video has never been seen... If Joanna Yeates reached home she should be on that CCTV.... It's that simple... and Dr Vincent Tabak should be on that CCTV also.... So should CJ... and the timing of the people who heard screams etc....

But that is not the case is it, if Colin Port says at The Leveson that the last known sighting of Joanna Yeates is at The Hop House Pub!!

She therefore could not have reached home.... Therefore she was killed elsewhere... Therefore Dr Vincent Tabak could not have killed her.... Therefore the screams that were heard were just party goers ....  Therefore Dr Vincent Tabak could have told any story on the stand....  But someone obviously told him what to say, based on the evidence that had been in the papers... That is it... Nothing more.... Why on earth is there a coat stand in the hallway??  Just to prove he knew what the house looked like?? That should have gone with the other evidence that was collected from the flat seeing as he had touched it!!

Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't know the layout of the Flat...  He doesn't describe the layout of Joanna Yeates Flat.... He apparently tells us he turns the oven and TV off... but where are they situated in the Flat??  Did he tell us that the dining table was in the way??  There is no room in that flat and therefore there should be evidence of a struggle... chairs kicked out of the way... A messy bed... tables knocked over.... but no.... It looks like the cleaners have been in....

For Dr Vincent Tabak to be Joanna Yeates killer, he needed to know something about the crime scene that no-one else knew.... He needed to notice something about Joanna Yeates that no-one else knew... he had sat with her body for an hour, he must have looked at her if his story is to be believed....

What her eyes looked like.... was her mouth open? Did she have a mole... Did he change her clothes? what colour her bra was...  Were her toenails painted??  If he's calm enough to go shopping and he apparently gets turned on by this type of activity, then surely he would have noticed something about Joanna yeates that had not been reported...

He should have noticed the bloody great surf board in the Hallway that Justice Field tells us about...  why didn't he knock it over, trying to carry Joanna Yeates out of her Flat?? Where was her bike??  Why not take a piece of jewellery from her jewellery box instead , seeing as he was in her bedroom.... something small that he could squirrel away as his trophy.... But no... Pizza is the order of the day.... Hardly a trophy now is it....

We are told he gets the car from the road... But does he have to undo the large gates?? We don't know.... Did anyone see him on the road getting his car , was he on the CCTV that DS Mark Saunders saw?? Did anyone attending parties on Canygne Road she him??  Well as the evidence presented in court tells us NO!

They left the evidence elsewhere.... and why would they do that.... What is it about Dr Vincent tabak that they wanted to put him away for a very long time when no-one shouted, it's not fair... That is not justice.... that is not how our justice system operates??

The media... The lawyers.... Leveson... CJ... The Yeates .. The Tabak's  Greg and Frank Reardon.. Rebecca Scott and everyone else is saying nothing, and as so many years have passed by something must have had alarm bells going for them....  The Lawyers , Leveson and the media are not stupid.... yet they all keep quiet...  The know that what we have been told about this case is not right and true....

Unless a completely different case was being heard at Bristol Crown Court and the media just reported a tissue of lies... But why hide the truth.... Why is everyone hiding the truth??

Alternatively the Police know exactly what happened to Joanna Yeates and they Know exactly who killed her and they have been covering it up since day one.... Which is crazy.... 

The more I think about CJ, the more I find he pisses me off....  A man who was more concerned about his own image than the fact that a tenant of his was murdered on his watch.... A man who is happy to tell the world his woes and how he was vilified, yet skim passed what took place on his own property.... a man that had known Dr Vincent Tabak as a tenant for 2 years yet had nothing to tell us about his character...  A man that saw 2-3 people at the gate on Friday the 17th December 2010... yet he doesn't say anything about his second witness statement....

A man that has gone on to be all over the media still, yet he must know something of importance to this case.... And not once does he mention who he saw at The gate.... Not once does he tell us whether he saw Dr Vincent Tabak that evening.... Not once does he tell us whether Dr Vincent Tabak's car was on the drive or on the road....  Not once does he tell us whether he heard any screams that evening, whether it was a girl being attacked or just frivolity outside his premises...

A man of education.. a man whom likes good standing in the community... A man who was on the neighbourhood watch committee... Surely, his first concern should have been for Joanna Yeates.... What the media said has not changed , they'll say it about anyone... then these people get on with their lives... But CJ has made a career out of it...(imo)... he has made a career out of the misfortune of the murder of Joanna Yeates, because someone commented on his blue hair... FFS... I don't give a crap about his hair... or whether he had keys to the Flats, or whether he's eccentric... I care what he knows... I care that he should have come forward since the trial and divulged what he knew....

I care that he helped Greg start his car... I care that he spoke to Peter Stanley.. I care that he was on Canygne Road that evening and didn't say whether he noticed anything strange, or anyone behaving oddly... I care that the CCTV that DS Mark Saunders saw wasn't present at trial... Did it belong to CJ?? because anything to do with him seems a no go area.....

Maybe it's time the public questioned CJ... he 's happy to appear here and there.... he likes his mush all over the place... he is  synonymous with this case and always will be.....

CJ... I hear the people say... Oh yes, he was the landlord that got vilified in the press.... My God.... Has everyone forgotten that Joanna Yeates was Murdered in Flat 1 Canygne Road?? Or are they more concerned whether a nobody had some bad publicity....

Get a PR guru CJ... Then get some balls and tell everyone what you actually know.... 

I have a question for you CJ.... Did you let the Ikea men into Joanna Yeates Flat?? did you see the Ikea men?? Do you know what furniture she had delivered??  Simple question , but they could be important... Not whether you have had your image photoshopped to make you have a blue rinse....

You see i have a problem again.... At The Leveson, you tell us you heard what may have been 2-3 people at the gate talking in hushed tones... And Colin Port claims at The Leveson that you saw 2-3 people at the gate... Now this is where my problem lies.... There a party going on... there are cars and people milling about.... DS Mark Saunders told us so.... Yet it is deathly silent when you arrive home and no one is screaming , laughing beeping a horn , driving past or talking, and you hear hushed tones....

Was it not party goers?? Are you sure it was at the small gate and not on the path.... ?? Did any cars drive past??  Did you  have to open the large gate?? Was Joanna yeates outdoor lights on?? Was Dr Vincent Tabaks outdoor lights on... Was there anyone in the shadows.... 

Were you not more inquisitive seeing as you are on the neighbourhood watch committee as to whom was at the gate?? Did you not go and to check whether or not some unsavoury character had entered your premises... after all you didn't know Joanna Yeates and Greg all that well as they hadn't lived there long.... Or did you know them??

I think you need to put us straight on a few things CJ...  You need to tell us what is in that second witness statement... you need to tell us whether you checked to see who was at the gate.... You need to tell us whether or not you heard anything else that night...  Because a program on Netflix isn't cutting it for me....  It appears it was all quite on the western front if we are to believe what is depicted on that program....

What was it about Dr Vincent Tabak that you haven't come to his defence in anyway... Or to support that he had seen you the next day and had aided you...  Why not do all you can to apprehend the killer of Joanna Yeates by telling us what you know....  Did and do you honestly believe that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates...

What was held between the pages of your 2 witness statements... What piece of information no matter how insignificant you may think it is was on the pages of what you told the Police? Let us now judge whether we believe your statements were not needed at trial... let us now judge, what you say you saw or heard....

You see you will always be known as the landlord who's tenant was murdered, the landlord who had a blue rinse, the land lord who changed his appearance so that no-one would recognise him in the street , then shoves himself in the public limelight so no-one will forget who you are....  You will always be the landlord that The Police arrested for the murder of Joanna Yeates, you will always be remembered for your blue hair... you will always be remembered for the suggestions that where made about you.... Peeking into tenants flats etc... because what I can say is that information came from people the media had talked to ... it came from comments made on social media...  But the people who made the comments never came forward.... Passed tenants never spoke for or against you....

We only have what you have done in front of the media and court since.... Which (imo) is nothing sort of shocking.... I don't feel sorry for you at all to be fair.... You have courted the media and still court the media in your own self interest... you have appeared on documentaries telling us about Greg ringing you.... But you didn't tell us who you saw!!

You see... I don't care what the media said... there is fake news everywhere, but I myself decide what I choose to believe.... I myself choose what information I have gathered and form my opinion on that basis.... Just like you CJ.... My opinion is based on what you haven't done..... Not on blue hair.... And what you haven't done is tell everyone what you witness statements say....  All you have managed to do is cast even more doubt...(imo).. what are you trying to hide?? Who are you trying to protect... because i can not see any reason why you didn't appear at trial or haven't since trial, put to bed the questions that people have about this case....

So I think my opinion that you are a self interested man is correct, who doesn't care what really took place in the property you own and doesn't care about truth and justice, who has spent the last 7 years gaining notoriety from the Murder of a woman that most people these days do not know her name... yet they know your name and talk in hushed tones about you....... The taking the media to court didn't put paid to what people think or thought... It never has.... It never will.... The Police statement hasn't put paid to what people think either..... Whilst every fool in this country believes everything the media says, it's the people who are not foolish you need to be concerned about.... The people who do not believe what is drip fed to them on a daily basis....

The whole country didn't need to know your plight to be honest.... when it really should have stayed in Bristol... We would have long forgotten you... But now we can't forget you..... For a man of the standing you have acquired, we do not need to know anymore about your brush with the law, when people are in prison for crimes they didn't commit.... Where people have committed suicide because they see no end to their suffering....

We need to know that someone like you, whom has been given the ability to talk to the media and be heard across the nation... tell us exactly what happened on the weekend of the 17th to the 19th December 2010 and what you may have witnessed....


Or is that too much to ask??

So CJ... The problem is only that what people think about you truly is not in print.... And that is all.... What they imagine or think you may know about this case will forever be questioned... you will forever cast doubt (imo)... because you won't speak up, And i myself have many doubts about your intention with this case!!



jixy

  • Guest
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1601 on: September 13, 2018, 05:20:38 PM »
Maybe it doesnt support what he was saying cos that was a lie? he put the best case forward to try and bag himself a manslaughter conviction. All the 'facts' about the hows and whys are based purely on what he said to get the best possible sentence for himself

Maybe it didnt even happen where he said or how he said for any reason he has given. Hence the clean and tidy flat you say makes him innocent?

You mention CCTV and her reaching home? did she? we only have a calculated killer's word for it
« Last Edit: September 14, 2018, 07:32:33 AM by jixy »

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1602 on: September 13, 2018, 06:36:14 PM »
Maybe it doesnt support what he was saying cos that was a lie? he put the best case forward to try and bag himself a manslaughter conviction. All the 'facts' about the hows and whys are based purely on what he said to get the best possible sentence for himself

Maybe it didnt even happen where he said or how he said for any reason he has given. Hence the clean and tidy flat you say makes him innocent?

You mention CCTV and her reaching home? did she? we only have a calculated kiler's word for it

 &%%6 &%%6 &%%6 &%%6 &%%6

So therefore how can you convict someone on a crime that might not have taken place??  I'm stuck between whether this whole debacle is true or not.... As I keep saying i do not know anymore.... 

If Joanna Yeates was Murdered, then how , when and where she was Murdered is important... the facts need to be established as to whether it was deliberate or not... whether it was by the hand of one person or more...

You can't just accept that someone said they did it without evidence to support it....  You can't be happy to put someone away for Murder for 20 years when you do not know what took place...  If there is evidence to prove that Joanna yeates did not reach home that evening, then the story that Dr Vincent tabak told on the stand is not true....

We cannot accept that Dr Vincent Tabak told the story to get a lighter sentence if he didn't do it... Thats back to front... How did they know he did it, if he only said he did it when he attended trial and nothing was said prior... They need evidence to take him to trial in the first place... Which may I add , never materialised!

If The hop house pub is the last sighting of Joanna Yeates , how can she have reached home?? DS Mark Saunders tells us about the Canygne Road CCTV... But not whether Joanna Yeates is on it.... And she cannot be on it if Colin Port tells the Leveson, that Joanna Yeates was last seen on CCTv on the Hop House pub... some walk from her home...

So Dr Vincent Tabak could not have taken an imaginary Pizza from the Flat , or switched of a TV.... or strangled Joanna Yeates in her Flat.... He has little or no time to do this deed, yet we have a story that is not believable... a story that doesn't make sense, and you are trying to tell me that it is ok for the prosecution to accept this story, just so they can get a conviction??

On your approach, you can basically put anyone away for a crime they didn't commit, just because they say they did something... Whilst the real killer roams free....

Yes a clean and tidy flat goes towards proving the events that the jury believed didn't happen.... The lack of CCTV time stamps to support when and at what time any supermarket was frequented... The lack of witness's on the stand who had direct knowledge of Dr Vincent Tabak.....  Simply by not being able to prove by supporting evidence that Dr Vincent tabak's tail on the stand was a fairy story, should have been enough for it to have been thrown out... (imo)... The Defence should have argued that point, not try to support the idea their client was guilty by making their opening statement....

Clegg's an idiot..(imo).. Incompetent (imo) He apparently knows the law, but did nothing to prove or disprove anything about the case... And was happy to watch his client get sentenced... He's supposed to be defending him... Not helping convict him.....

You cannot and should not be allowed to be convicted on an unsupported statement... Where NO EVIDENCE anywhere supports anything in this case.... Why try him in the first place, with NO EVIDENCE?? It should not have got passed first base (imo)... But it went through to a finished game with all the scores on the doors...

Ridiculous...... That is not law... They know it isn't, and you know it isn't.... But again there is silence, and for what reason i do NOT know....


The whole thing could have been made up from start to finish, for all we know.... From Joanna Yeates Missing to her demise... I haven't a clue.... None of it makes sense, I know that much....

For all I know, everyone we see at trial is a dopple ganger, a bit player... a person whom looks like someone, but isn't that someone.... I do not know if a trial really took place.... I do not know anything for sure, but what I do know is this whole episode stinks... This whole media circus that was played out to everyone is questionable...

R V Tabak.... can't find it anywhere, apart from Sally Ramages paper.... No judges summing up... Nothing on BailII.com about Dr Vincent  Tabak's case... The only reference there is about CJ....

So did a man named Dr Vincent Tabak go to trial for Murder??  Did he get sentenced?? Did anything we saw in the media actually happen?? And on that basis , if the trial isn't true and it is all a story... then the media can write what they like....  Who's going to question it....  The whole case is a shambles....  But do the public mind.... probably not anymore... They get fed crap on a daily basis, and they love a social media gossip whether it's true or not....

This whole trial and case could be a fabrication.... And should I care.... I don't know.... I am mighty fed up...  i'm sick of banging my head against a brick wall, when the obvious is ignored and where nearly everyone is happy with the crap we have been told....

Was it a media exercise by Avon and Somerset Police, that went too far?? Don't know...

But there must be people out there that care about what was done.... There must be people out there who question this sham of a trial.... And hopefully there are people out there who will tell the truth as to what it is all about...

I am just a citizen, who now believes that our law is not just or fair, and our media is pointless....  If there is no-one to trust in authority, what does that say about a country? If the media do not report what this case was truly about... what does that say about the media.?? 

Truth and Justice seems to be what isn't required anymore... Thats why you have a society that only give a shit about themselves... And until they too get put in a position where they get shafted, then they won't do anything... And if the media, whom so many believe and whom are streamed through our TV's telling us of events world wide are party to telling untruths... Why are we to believe them? Why are we to believe any of them anymore...


I don't need any more lies or untruths or whatever you want to call them... I want the truth... It's simple really...
And I would like a media to go that extra mile and actually publish the truth about this case... And tell us what really took place...

So Jixy... we can go round in circles for an eternity... Doesn't change anything... will never change anything... And again I respond and write,... Why... i do not know... Because we will never find out the truth... And my time on this seems to have been wasted... Wasted nearly 2 years on here banging on about a Placid Dutchman that I believe was treated unfairly, a Placid Dutchman that may not even exist!!

But people know the truth... they just haven't got the ability to share it for some reason!! Maybe it's time they did!!!!




jixy

  • Guest
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1603 on: September 13, 2018, 06:41:24 PM »
oh you so missed the irony of my post! expected.

Will read your lengthy reply when I have some spare time but your opening line speaks volumes. Stop looking for what isnt there!!!!

He is either a well respected trusted man who tells total lies which means none of this is true so you are fighting a ghost or he is a killer who can still be telling a pack of lies to cover his backside

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1604 on: September 13, 2018, 07:38:51 PM »
oh you so missed the irony of my post! expected.

Will read your lengthy reply when I have some spare time but your opening line speaks volumes. Stop looking for what isnt there!!!!

He is either a well respected trusted man who tells total lies which means none of this is true so you are fighting a ghost or he is a killer who can still be telling a pack of lies to cover his backside

And your post speaks volumes also!!