UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Other High Profile Cases and Persons of Interest => The murder of landscape architect Joanna Yeates in Bristol in December 2010. => Topic started by: [...] on November 27, 2017, 09:23:16 AM
-
I have been trying to understand why a 'Missing Persons Inquiry" was given an Operational name within day or so of Joanna Yeates being reported Missing...
I believe in part it was to do with CJ's second witness statement..
The media were aware of information long before they even published that information... and it is from The Leveson that we come to understand this...
Only part of what CJ says is available to view....
But I believe it is an important part.. because he tells us the date he actually informed the Police of his Second Witness Statement
My second statement to the police on Wednesday 22 December 2010
,
On Tuesday 21st December 2010 I provided a statement to the police who were at that
thue searching the entire house and all the flats in it and taking statements from all the
residents. I was not being treated as a suspect. At the time the police said to all of us
that if we subsequently remembered anything that could be material we should get
back in touch, That evening I remembered something else that I had not mentioned to
the police that I thought could possibly be material. This was that one evening, which
might have been Friday 17 December 2010, as I was coming back from the gym at
about 9pm, I had parked my car on the road and was just walking through the gates of
the main driveway, when I became aware of what sounded like two or perhaps three
people leaving by the side gate on the other side of the house which I could not see as
there is a hedge in between and it was dark, I duly telephoned the police and relayed
this.
,
The next day, Wednesday 22 December 2010, the same officer who had taken my
first statement came back to my flat and took a second statement about this. The
officer asked me if one of the voices could have been a woman’s voice. I responded
that it could have been but that I could not say either way. The police have since
confirmed to me that the fact flint I gave a supplementary statement raised their
suspicions in relation to me. On the basis of what ensued, I believe it is likely that the
police passed these suspicions on to themedia.
It was on the 22nd December 2010 that CJ gave this second witness statement... On this day we have the Launch of The new 'Missing Poster" with "Operation Braid" at the bottom.... This is 2 days into a "Missing Persons Inquiry"..
(https://helpfindjo.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/profile_findjo.jpg?w=167&h=300)
That cannot be coincidental... (imo) Whom had CJ seen ??? It was important enough for The Leveson Inquiry to seal the second witness statement of CJ for 84 years....
Exhibit CJ2 to w/s of Christopher Jeffries
This record is closed
Opening date: 02 November 2097
Submit FOI request
More information about the Freedom of Information review process
Reference: LEV 2/CCLF/Z
Description: Exhibit CJ2 to w/s of Christopher Jeffries
Held by: The National Archives
Legal status: Public Record
Closure status: Closed Or Retained Document, Open Description
Access conditions: Closed For 84 years
Record opening date: 02 November 2097
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/28b474f733f0437e895ea7b0ed4a496d
I believe we need to question what Operation Braid was really about.... Because it was never about a "Placid Dutchman" who happened to be a neighbour of Joanna Yeates.
It was obviously about so much more... So Much so The Head of The Complex Crime Unit was involved and I believe Ann Reddrop, DCI Phil Jones have been trying to relay to everyone all this time that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't kill Joanna Yeates.... And for some reason they cannot actually say who it was or why....
But it must be of great importance if we have to seal records from this Simple Murder Case for 84 years!! (imo)
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122175642/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/28b474f733f0437e895ea7b0ed4a496d
-
Good distraction tactic though, locking something or nothing up for 84 years, bound to focus a certain amount of attention away from the very thing you are trying to hide.
Thing is it’s a public road and footpath in the middle of Clifton, hearing people is not that unusual. Could have been anything or anyone. The fact that the focus of the police turned to CJ after advising the witnesses to call if they remembered anything else just serves to show how their simple drilled minds follow simple drilled procedures and just how two faced it is possible to get. If you end up against one of the idiots after he finked he finked about sumfink anything more than the simplest explanation is likely to earn your arrest simply because his brain isn’t going to sort this one out in a hurry.
Odd how heavyweight it got in minimum time, some big players in there right at the beginning, big players indeed.
A veil drawn?
AH
-
Sorry Nine,
Have you already mentioned that Braid is a simple anagram of “A Bird”?
A simplicity rather in keeping I would suggest.
AH.
-
I am familiar with the National Archives, as I am a (very amateur) genealogist, and I have been there on numerous occasions.
I know it is usual to close records for a number of years----often 100. This is even true of censuses---this is why the last one to which we currently have access is the 1911 one. We won't have access to the 1921 census until 2021. It is something to do with protecting the confidentiality of people who might still be alive.
BUT, is it usual to close records that are connected with murder enquiries? That I do not know, and I cannot see why they would need to close somebody's witness statement.
Can anyone enlighten us? is this usual?
-
Well done Nine...Again!
I never had ANY sources for 20th December 2010 - the day when the public first became aware of Joanna's disappearance. I only ever had three links to news reports on the case dated 21st December 2010, and now I find that each of these three has now been obliterated. The earliest reports still still available say Joanna was last seen on the evening of Friday 17th December 2010. I never spotted that claim that she had been missing for five days. I probably would have dismissed it as a mistake. But now that it has been redacted, you may be on to something. Maybe the police and the family quickly changed their story. It is scarcely credible. Maybe she really WAS in the Bristol Ram on 17th December 2010, but they wanted to signal the opposite to the perpetrator?
Would someone with access to a public library with an archive please ask for a paper copy or microfilm of the Bristol Evening Post or equivalent for 21st December 2010 and check the story in print?
Parents of missing 25-year-old Bristol woman launch plea for help
By - December 21, 2010
The devastated parents of a pretty young architect who mysteriously vanished five days ago today launched a desperate plea for help.
Here's the reference to 5 days on the 21st December 2010
We have the reference to the headaches also.... Also we have NO plans for the weekend... which also changed...
He added that Jo had been suffering from headaches in the week before her disappearance, but had not checked into any hospital for treatment.
Joanna, who recently cut her hair into a short blond crop, had no plans for the weekend when she vanished.
She failed to show up at the Bristol architect’s firm where she works on Monday morning, which is ”very out of character” for her, according to police.
Officers have found CCTV of Jo leaving The Ram pub – where she was last spotted – at 8pm on Friday night and were looking for any other leads.
Anyone with information is urged to contact police on 0845456 7000 quoting Operation Braid or Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111.
Operation Braid.. happened as early as the 21st December 2010 Which for a person only being reported Missing the day before, makes you wonder what reason they had to give an Operational name to a Missing Persons Inquiry??
I have attached images... one is of a comment by someone named Vic... who says that Greg is hers/his brother-in law.. they posted on December 21, 2010 at 7:18 pm another image I have posted is from SWNS, which shows the archive for that date of 21st December 2010 do not know the time of the article...
http://stories.swns.com/news/parents-of-missing-25-year-old-bristol-woman-launch-plea-for-help-12546/
-
This is one of the earliest Posters of Joanna Yeates and I am not sure of the date.... But the other posters are from the 21st/22nd December 2010, as they mention "Operation Braid"...So I assume this must be from around the 20th/21st December 2010 .....
(http://images2.corriereobjects.it/methode_image/2017/08/04/Interni/Foto%20Gallery/4%20joanna-yeates-poster_MGTHUMB-INTERNA.jpg)
Why are the CID involved in a "Missing Persons Inquiry"??? They deal with serious crime.... What was apparent to the Police from the moment that they were contacted in relation to Joanna Yeates disappearance??
Another thought I had... Is "Operation Braid", still in Operation??
From Avon and Somersets website..
Missing People
There is no time limit on when you can report a missing person. You don't have to wait 24 hours.
Before reporting someone missing
Search their home or the place the person was last seen, in case they are hiding or may have fallen and been injured. Remember that children can hide in very small spaces
Look out for any notes or clues that may suggest where they may be
Check to see if they have left you a message on your phone, voicemail or online
Contact family members, friends and the person’s place of work to verify that they are actually missing and not simply somewhere unexpected
Report it
To report a missing person call 101 or visit your local police station. If it is an emergency and you feel that the missing person may be at risk of immediate harm, dial 999.
Provide detailed information
We will take a detailed report and it will be helpful if you can provide as much of the following information as possible:
full name and date of birth for the missing person
physical description of the missing person, including what clothes and jewellery they were wearing
recent photograph of the missing person
when they were last seen and by whom
where they had planned to go on the day they went missing
contact mobile number for the person
name, address and contact numbers of family members and their close friends.
details of any medication they take and whether they have this medication with them.
information of any online sites that they might be a member of
any other relevant circumstances that may increase the risk to the missing person such as problems at work, school
or at home, recent changes in behaviour that is out of character.
What the police do to find missing people
We use the information that you give to assess the level of risk that the missing person may be at.
We then consider all lines of enquiry which are appropriate and necessary in the circumstances and begin an investigation to find them.
If the missing person is not found following the initial lines of enquiry, then the investigation will be passed to a nominated officer.
Were all these details given in the phone call to the Police when Greg Reardon called?? How long was the phone call to the Police on the 20th December 2010?? Was this entire phone call played in court??
There had to be something about the actions of The Yeates family that made The CID be involved in this Missing Persons Inquiry, and for them to act so swiftly... And I do not believe that it had anything to do with the Placid Dutchman....(imo)
I think someone needs to question Avon and Somerset Police, and ask them why a Missing Persons Inquiry was headed by the CID and what made them give it an Operational Name by 21st December 2010... When as we know Gaia Popes disappearance of over 1 week didn't have an Operational name and 3 people in that Inquiry were arrested on suspicion of Murder!
https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/advice/missing-people/
-
This carries on from the post I have just done... link at the bottom.....
We would like to thank the police liaison officers, Emma and Russ, for their consideration towards us and as far as they could keeping us informed of developments.
We would also like to express our appreciation to the members of Operation Braid for giving up their time, especially over the festive period, and their efforts in apprehending Jo's killer.
This quote is lacking (imo)... firstly it doesn't describe Emma and Russ as "Family Liaison Officers" and misses out the lack of support you would expect from such a role... It states about their consideration...
Police Liaison Officers roles are different from "Family Liaison Officers" roles.... They tend to be used for Information gathering, in protests etc... But they could have been used in this case for information gathering also...
When questioned in court, Chief Inspector Sonia Davies (pictured above), stated that “obviously, we want to gather information, but that’s different to intelligence.” “Intelligence”, according to Davis, was narrowly defined as “information that has come from police sources and is acted upon”.
The other part of the quote which initially gained my interest was..
We would also like to express our appreciation to the members of Operation Braid for giving up their time, especially over the festive period, and their efforts in apprehending Jo's killer.
That statement suggest to me that Operation Braid is in fact an ongoing Operation, and not the Operational name of the Joanna Yeates Murder Investigation....
Because why would they be giving up their time ?????
They wouldn't !!
What connection could there have been between Joanna Yeates and an Operation called "Operation Braid"???
Operation Braid team members assisted The Joanna Yeates Inquiry and were not "The Joanna Yeates Inquiry"..(imo)
So what is Operation Braid ?? Is it the name of an Operation looking into Cold Cases like Glenis Carruthers or Melanie Hall for instance ????
Because if it is a completely different "Operation" other than The Inquiry Into Joanna Yeates Murder... (which I believe is the case)...
Where would Dr Vincent Tabak fit into this Operation???
Question... Is Operation Braid still in Operation?? Or was it still in Operation after the conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak??
Edit.... I have mentioned 'A twin Track Investigation before.... Was the Twin track Investigation...
(A): Operation Braid
and
(B): The Joanna Yeates Murder Inquiry ????
https://www.anarchistaction.net/info-for-action/the-role-of-police-liaison-officers/
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8194.msg434516#msg434516
-
This idea of Operation Braid being an ongoing inquiry into a wider investigation lends itself very well into our inquiry. The simple association of another murder may well have triggered an immediate response from a dedicated team hence the reason you have an immediate input from higher up the food chain..
AH
-
This is from CJ's second witness statement.. We only have part of this statement available to read, the rest is locked away...
Leaking of my name on arrest by the police to the press
15, I have recently received a letter from the Chief Constable of ASC confirming that my
name was leaked to the press when I was arrested. See page 13 of CJ2. I have been
informed that an internal inquiry has led to the arrest of two people although no one
has been charged. The letter refers to an "inadvertent" disclosure by the police but
provides no details, which prevents the explanation being investigated or verified;
(page 13 isn't available to view...)
There are many things that strike me with CJ.... And within his Leveson statements , he seems privy to information that he doesn't need to know....
Why would a Senior Police Officer Inform CJ, that they had been 2 arrests after an internal Inquiry???
I believe that the Chief Constable is Colin Port... As Colin Port did not step down until November 2012.. The date of this PDF I have linked is February 2012... So it has to be Colin Port..(imo)
Why did Colin Port inform CJ of what was taking place in an Internal Inquiry??? There was no need for Colin Port to give this information to CJ..(imo).... Did CJ know Colin Port??
"Operation Braid".... leaked so much Information to the press, yet it was denied at The Leveson that it had happened.. But does CJ's statement to The Leveson support that the leaking of Information was known about??? And does that mean that the information that was leaked was correct??
The real problem I face, is trying to understand what possible act these two individuals committed as to have been arrested within the Inquiry???? And was it "just" in conjunction with CJ?? Or was it wider reaching within "Operation Braid"??
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122175642/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf
-
I want to go back to the idea that Russ and Emma are chaperones and are collecting evidence whilst they are around the people closest to this Investigation...
If they are indeed the Chaperones I believe that they are, then I may have stumbled upon something.....
As we know in any inquiry the boyfriend is always the main person of Interest.... And we can see from the video clips that Emma and Russ are always in attendance when anything of importance is taking place...
Clip one That I have linked shows The Yeates Family the Detective in charge, Russ and Emma and frank and Greg Reardon on Longwood lane...
I'm begining to wonder if Emma was collecting evidence covertly... I say this because it appears that she could be holding a hand held recorder in her hand as she walks up the lane...
At 2:10 she appears to do something with this device... To me she could be switching it on.... She brings it from the left side of her body to the front of her body and her right hand does an action... Her left arm goes down and the device is still in her left hand....
Once she reaches the Police tape.. she again brings it in front of her body and does something.. then swops the device to her right hand and places it inside her right pocket... (This devices is too narrow and deep to be a mobile phone..)(imo)
At 3:39 Emma and Russ are not concentrating on The Yeates, they are talking to Greg.....
On the second Clip of Longwood Lane at 1:32... Emma follows Greg and Frank Reardon to the side of the van.... Now I can see no purpose for this unless she is covertly recording what is being said at Longwood Lane....9imo)..
Frank.... Frank Reardon the Annomaly of this case.... I say that because of the communication between Frank and The Police....
At various points on this walkabout of Longwood Lane the Police talk directly to Frank Reardon... The Investigating Officer and Emma and Greg also... I find it strange for them to do this... They do not talk to Alla Yeates for instance, and she is part of the Yeates family... But talk to a person who's only connection to the case was that he was Greg Reardons alibi... But as Family liaison officers, they really should be concentrating on The Yeates (imo)
Now my next question is why is it that frank Reardon is driving Greg Reardon to and from this Crime Scene ???
They are not going to allow any member of the public bring a vehicle of theirs to a Crime Scene when the Police were still Investigating that Crime Scene...
At 3:18 (image 2:) We see Frank Reardon getting into the drivers side of the second vehicle.... Russ and the Officer in charge are both talking to Frank Reardon , before Greg Reardon climbs into this vehicle... Now this is my issue.... What Role did Frank Reardon play in this Investigation???
Why are the Police talking to Frank as he leaves? The Investigating Officer and Russ are both deep in conversation with him.....
Is....Or was Frank Reardon an under Cover Police Man ??? I say this because he is the driver of the second vehicle and no member of the public would be allowed to drive their own vehicle onto a crime scene...(imo)... or else the press would have been all parked on Longwood lane....
Does the fact that Frank is chaperoning Greg to and from this scene suggest he has to be involved with the police in some capacity for them to let him drive his vehicle onto Longwood Lane and be the main driver???
There is an odd comment at the begining of this video clip from one of the reporters.... At about 22 seconds in...
Which ones the boyfriend?? Is the boyfriend the one on the far left?
Seeing as Greg had already done his TV Interview the media should know who the boyfriend is..... The person on the far left is actually Frank Reardon..... (make of it what you will)
What role has Frank Reardon got in this Investigation ?? Is it possible that he was an under cover detective?? Is it possible that he actually worked for the Police ??
It is something worth considering.. especially as he was allowed to drive a vehicle to and from a "Crime Scene".... !!
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/family-of-joanna-yeates-visit-spot-where-her-body-was-news-footage/693154970
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/family-of-joanna-yeates-visit-spot-where-her-body-was-news-footage/693155122
-
Continuing from the above post of mine....
Again i will question why Frank Reardon is allowed on Longwood Lane at all....
If Frank Reardon is Greg Reardons alibi witness... why would you allow an alibi witness so close to a "Crime Scene"????
Shouldn't he have been kept away from this part of the Investigation and not dropped right in on Longwood Lane.... If they were still Investigating the Longwood lane area at this time and we know that they were... why would you have anyone contaminating that area????
Has no-one even thought about this??
Frank Reardon should not have been allowed anywhere near Longwood Lane (imo) They hadn't finished Investigating Greg Reardons alibi as far as I can tell... and things in relation to what has been said at anyone time can change and do change.... So why bring Frank Reardon to Longwood Lane before confirmation has been given to the cause of death of Joanna yeates ???
The post Mortem results were not expected until the 28th December 2010 and the visit from Frank ,Greg and the Yeates family is on the 27th December 2010....
Giving even more reason to question why anyone was allowed on a "Crime Scene" when the cause of death hadn't yet Offically been established....
And Greg at this Point in time was still Offically a suspect... because it is not until the 28th December that the Police say that Greg is a witnness and Not a suspect.... which if you think of the time they had to decide this,it is not very long at all...
They only apparently discover on the 28th December 2010 that Joanna Yeates had been Murdered.... So how can they possibly rule Greg out on the same day when they had only just discovered that Joanna Yeates shad been Murdered???
Wouldn't they look again at his alibi and make sure that everything he said was accurate??? Which still beggars the question as to why Frank Reardon Greg's alibi witness was allowed to attend Longwood Lane the day before we are informed of how she died??
Was Joanna Yeates really found on Longwood lane ??? Because they seem to allow too many people onto that Crime Scene when it wasn't Offically a Crime Scene until the day after... Therefore you would have imagined that NO-one.... not even the Yeates family should have been walking about it....(imo)
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/family-of-joanna-yeates-visit-spot-where-her-body-was-news-footage/693155122
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
How can DCI Jones say as early as the 28th December 2010 that Greg Reardon is a witness in this Investigation ... we have the Police conference on the 28th December 2010, where they tell the media how Joanna Yeates died....
From ITV News correspondant...
ITV News.. Is Greg Reardon a suspect?
DCI Phil Jones...
No he's a witness in this Investigation.
Now it didn't become a Murder Investigation until the 28th December 2010 when they received the results from the Post Mortem... So how can they rule Greg Reardon out so quickly... You would have imagined that they would have gone over ever inch of Greg Reardons statement and also Interviewed Frank Reardon and Helen Reardon to ask what Greg was up to over that weekend and did he at anytime leave Sheffield... etc etc ...
They really had no apparent reason to interview Helen and Frank before the 28th December 2010, because for all intense and purposes Joanna Yeates was just a "Missing Person"...
And it is not until after the 28th Decemeber 2010.. that a full blown Investigation into Joanna yeates murder can begin.....
Yet they seem to have everything battened down by the time they reveal that she has been Murdered.... Should the 28th December 2010 be the start of the Murder Inquiry??
And not a day to rule anyone in or out of This Murder Inquiry so soon.... Especially as they had only just received the information that she had been Murdered!!
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/police-confirm-strangulation-as-cause-of-death-police-news-footage/686990982
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Looking at this clip again from when the trial is over and Greg Reardon emerges from the court ahead of Frank Reardon...
He walks quickly to the waiting car... Frank leaves with Russ and Emma is behind them....
Greg climbs into the back of the car and Frank closes the car door and doesn't say anything to Greg and he himsefl and Emma drive away with Greg.....
Now.... Franks actions to me after thinking about his possible role in this Investigation... are that of a Police Officer....
If It was Russ or Emma closing the car door to make sure that their chaperoning task was followed through I could understand... But...... Frank takes on that role (imo)....
In fact Frank almost slams the door... he doesn't appear to be a caring brother at this point... (imo).. he doesn't even have any recognition of him... He shuts the door and then gets into the front passenger seat...
I do not know if Russ gets into this car.... But what Russ does do is moves forward to the front passenger side where Frank is sat...
Does he speak to Frank again???.... I don't know because the clip cuts to them driving off...
What is the man we know as Frank Reardon's role into The Investigation of the Murder of Joanna Yeates ??? Is he a Police Officer or Police Staff??
What and Who is Frank Reardon????
I keep watching that clip at the point where Frank slams the door of the car... He just looks mega pee-ed off to me.... And never communicates with his brother at all in this short clip... Not even eye contact!!
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shots-greg-reardon-boyfriend-of-joanna-yeates-news-footage/131193032
-
Look at the image??
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/police-stop-vehicles-on-longwood-lane-in-north-somerset-near-to-the-picture-id839274252)
When I have clicked on the link it takes me to Getty images of this image with the information below stating that...
Police stop vehicles on Longwood Lane in North Somerset - near to the spot where the body of Joanna Yeates was found, during an appeal for information regarding the murder of the architect.
January 07, 2011 Licence
I have also attached the image....
Now it isn't on Longwood Lane..... I couldn't see anywhere that looks like that on Longwood Lane... I remeber similar images of cars on Longwood lane and the Police interviewing driver, and I just assumed that it was in the entrance to the quarry.... But this isn't....
I have enhanced the image so I can see what is hiding in the dark and the careful setting of the lighting to take said image.....
image 1: Same as posted with information available to see.
Image 2: is enhanced to see what is hiding.....
Image 3: Is circled....
Now on image 3 we can see to the left of the tree that there is a door... we can just about make out through the tree branches windows on different levels of a building....
I am starting to wonder if that is the car park behind Joanna Yeates house??? And the building you can just about make out is in fact the modern building that is opposite what we know as Flat 2???
"Percival Road" you would need to access to get there.... Now if that doesn't ring bells I don't know what does !!
Image 4: Aerial view of Canygne Road and houses behind.....
If it is not the houses behind it... where can it be on Longwood Lane???? Because I don't know of a building like that, and a carpark with yellow painted parking bays, anywhere on Longwood lane.....
I think it is the modern build you access from Percival Road.....
Edit.. Image 5: is more enhancement of image 3.... clearly seeing windows...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
It looks a bit like the entrance to the woods on the other side of the road to the quarry, but I'm not sure. There is a car park of sorts there, although I don't recall whether it has marked bays.
Not sure about the door----is it definitely a door?
-
Part One...
Looking back at Sally Ramage papers, I was trying to understand why the text messages stop between Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson, seeing as the 1300 page document was supposed to be all text messages, emails etc.... Yet they stop after the 17th December 2010... I would have imagined that if Dr Vincent Tabak was trying to make himself look like nothing had changed in his day to day life... then the text messages would have continued up until his arrest... I would have expected text messages from his family in regard to the Police Interview that took place in Holland, just making sure everything was ok with Dr Vincent Tabak...
But then I came across Entry 11.... And put into place the basics of everything is not what it seems.... why does Entry 11 not have a PM or AM after it??
Defence Counsel: Turn to entry 11.
‘Entry 11- seen past the flat at 9.05 where Tanya had already left for work in a lift-share’.
Text message from Tabak: ‘Love you’.
Text answer from Tanja: Love you too. Pretty snow.
Entry 11 doesn't have to be chronological.... we are assuming it is..... But I don't think it is..... The rest of the information could well be true, but not together... Clegg has made statements from information given to him...
Tanja would have left for work, not just how Clegg allows us to believe..(imo)
If Dr Vincent Tabak was seen at 9:05 .... what or who was he seen by??? They didn't bring the CCTV footage of Canygne Road to trial..... So how can they establish that he was seen.... And if that was the case
I think 9:05 is "pm"....... I believe this is the time that CJ saw someone leaving the Flat.... (imo)
Nothing is simple in this case ... They way in which the information is given, we fill in the pieces ourselves....
We decide it is in the morning because of what follows.....
Defence Counsel: What time do you leave for work?
Tabak: 9.00 am.
That is subtle.... That is what makes us believe that the two statements are connected... But I do not believe that they are....
To further establish in our minds that these two events are connected.. the following happens...
Defence Counsel: Do you always access weather reports on the Internet?
Tabak: I always access the Internet for weather reports even whilst in Los Angeles. I had
my computers set up for that.
That has taken the Juries mind away for a second, they are NOT concentrating..... Clegg then follows with...
Defence Counsel: Let us look at your movements on Friday 17 December:
Time line 11- left for work
Timeline 12- Cycled to Bristol T Stn
Timeline 13- Train to bath
Timeline 16- Arrive Bath 9.41
Timeline 17- Accessed Internet for weather- at work
Timeline 18- Accessed weather report.
Timeline 19- Accessed weather report.
Timeline 20- Telephone call to Tanja.
Timeline 21- Another telephone call to Tanja.
So the jury would have noted he left for work at 9:00 ... When Clegg reiterates the sequence of events he doesn't state the actual time that Dr Vincent Tabak left for work on that day..... It's missing..... Dr Vincent Tabak only stated that he normally left for work at 9:00am not that he left for work at 9:00am on Friday 17th December 2010.... And the first time Clegg mentions Entry 11... He states it says he was "seen past the flat", not that he was leaving for work...
seen past the flat has to be a visual identification (imo)... but no-one comes forward to verify this .... No CCTV footage putting Dr Vincent Tabak past the Flat....
I had always assumed that being seen past the flat had to be the Private CCTV, but that wasn't shown at trial.... So the only way to be seen other than that is identification by someone....
Is this time of 9:05 when CJ told the Police he saw people past the Flat??... 9:05 could very well be 9:05pm... which I am of the belief is extremely possible... We know CJ arrives homes a little after 9:00pm on Friday 17th December 2010.. So has part of CJ's witness statement been brought to trial unbeknown to anyone ??? That is something to contemplate... Because I really would like to see how they confirmed that Dr Vincent Tabak was apparently seen past the flat without any person appearing at trial or CCTV showing Dr Vincent Tabak past the flat
I do believe that the time of 9:05 is 9:05 pm and not 9:05am.... Because I cannot see Clegg having a legal document with the incorrect time.... Therefore it makes me wonder why the document didn't say AM ?? Or Clegg didn't say AM in Court...
Question.... does 9:05 refer to CJ's second witness statement of seeing someone leaving the flat?? would someone like to clarify this!
And If my belief is correct.....if this is the case... is 9:05 from CJ's second witness statement?? It coincidentally fits in with CJ's timeline for the evening... Have the defence revealed something that has been starring us in the face all this time ??? Did part of CJ's second witness statement get used at trial???
Edit.. Is Entry 11 and Timeline 11 two different events ?? Why say "Entry" and not Timeline??
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
part Two.....
I still have the problem of Clegg managing to put a timeline together for Dr Vincent Tabak... when Dr Vincent Tabak didn't say anything.... And (imo) The only place I can see that Clegg could have got a timeline from was the disclosure from the prosecution....
Clegg always refers to "OUR" timeline.... Is it?? ...I think we believe it to be the Defences very own Timeline that they sourced the details for themselves.... Our Timeline could mean anything..... here's Cleggs last timeline number....
Defence Counsel: Our Timeline 113 – your car was seen on the road and so you must
have reached your flat around 10 minutes past midnight. At 18 minutes past we can see on
the timeline, a text from you to Tanja- ‘Are you on the bus?’ Then your landline call to
Tanja. What did you do?
Tabak: I realised that I still had the bicycle cover in my car and the pizza and sock in my
flat.
Timeline 113.... That is interesting... Because when the prosecution start to question Dr Vincent Tabak, they start at timeline.. 118...
At Line 118 of the prosecution chart
Tabak accessed the Internet and performed some Google searches
On 18 Dec 2010, Tabak searched at
1.26 am- ‘BBC news’ and ‘weather forecast’
1.46 am- ‘weather forecast’
1.47 am- ‘BBC Bristol news’
Showing (imo) that the timelines are from the same source.... why did the prosecution start at timeline 118??
So the Prosecutions "Timeline" starts at 1:26am on the 18th December 2010 ..
If their timeline starts at 1:26 am on the 18th December 2010.. why doesn't that timeline start at number "1"?? or number 50??
Is it just coincidences that it follows exactly the same timeline as the defence..???
Before it mentions timeline 118 we have this without a timeline..
The prosecution’s Internet evidence
On 17 December 2010 at 7.45:54 am
Tabak performed a Google search on the words
‘Weather’
‘Bristol’
‘Bath’
There are no other timelines from the Prosecution before 118.... why?? I find these timelines quite creative... they say very little, they allow for everyone to fill in the gaps....
Timeline 113 reveals something else....
Defence Counsel: In our Timeline 113, when your car is seen at Clifton Down- after a
period of 20 minutes or so. How did you feel?
Tabak: In a state of despair; panic; unbelief at what had happened.
Again how was this car seen at Clifton Down?? By whom was this car seen at Clifton Down?? If it was CCTV, then surely there should have been images of Joanna Yeates journey home... Surely these images would have been brought to trial??
But the way in which that is stated make me believe that it is "someone" who has seen this car at Clifton Down....
So is there another witness that we don't know about???
I do not believe that it is coincidence that the Defences Timeline and The Prosecutions timeline tally.. right up until the exact time..... I am not taking into account what the defence says after timeline 113, because Clegg doesn't give a timeline for this... which I find strange....
Clegg repeats timeline 113... But there is a definate flaw in the information...
Defence Counsel: Our Timeline 113 – your car was seen on the road and so you must
have reached your flat around 10 minutes past midnight. At 18 minutes past we can see on
the timeline, a text from you to Tanja- ‘Are you on the bus?’ Then your landline call to
Tanja. What did you do?
Tabak: I realised that I still had the bicycle cover in my car and the pizza and sock in my
flat
We have this next quote.....
Defence Counsel: Tanja phoned on the landline. Why did you go for Tanja in the car?
Tabak: I didn’t want her to walk home in the cold.
Why would Tanja call if she was on the bus and Dr Vincent Tabak had just rung her ... Also... why would Tanja be walking home at night on her own in the dark at that late hour... ??
The information in this trial as far as I am aware comes from the Prosecution.... Dr Vincent Tabak never said anything, so how can they have this information from him??? he only signed an enhanced statement in late September 2011 and the trial started at the begining of October 2011... So where did Clegg get the information from to make such a timeline... If Dr Vincent Tabak wasn't talking??
Again... Defence Counsel: You were on the Internet later. Why did you do that? Constant contact
with Tanja by phone. At I.38 am, 18 December, you were leaving again in the hatchback.
Is this to collect Tanja from the Coach?
Tabak: Yes.
How was this hatchback seen and by whom???
We appear to have a mystery witness?? because I cannot see how they established that Dr Vincent Tabak was seen on more than one occasion ... No CCTV footage was brought to trial to substantiate those claims... as far as I am aware ...
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
Here Clegg states...
Defence Counsel: We can see the video of you going out of Park Street. Then you made a
call to Tanja. That was to ask her directions as to where to collect her?
Clearly showing a distinction between CCTV been shown to the jury......
Defence Counsel: We can see that you travelled to a burger bar. Why did you go there?
Tabak: Tanja was hungry- she wanted something to eat.
So who is the mystery witness, that see apparently saw so much of Dr Vincent Tabak's movements??
‘Entry 11- seen past the flat at 9.05
That has to be a witness... The jury do not appear to "see" any evidence of this....
This witness didn't appear in court, the evidence that The Defence had, came from The Prosecutions timeline (imo)... Was CJ's second witness statement ever part of The prosecutions evidence ??? Be an interesting question to ask....
And there is no way we can cross reference CJ's second witness statement because it has been sealed... But could it be unsealed if as I believe the possibility of CJ's second witness statement, being used at the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak??
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
Following the Timeline for the defence.......
Defence Counsel: Can you look at item where you sent message to Tanja ‘missing you’
Can you remember if you sent it before you decided to go to Asda.
Recapping- you come off the Internet at 7.37pm (our entry 47) & remain in your flat until
9.29pm (our entry 88).
Then
Defence Counsel: Look at our timeline 89. Did you drive with the body in the boot of your
car?
Tabak: Yes.
Ok... Timeline 88 and 89 are close together... Clegg has Dr Vincent Tabak in his flat till 9:29pm... Then the following events take place until entry 89...
Defence Counsel William Clegg, QC, asked Dr Tabak about what happened in Joanna
Yeates flat.
Tabak: She invited me in.
Defence Counsel William Clegg: Did she open the door?
Tabak: Yes
Defence Counsel: Did you take off your coat?
Tabak: Yes.
Defence Counsel: What room did you go into?
Tabak: Kitchen- both of us.
Defence Counsel: What did you talk about?
Tabak: Being bored. About the cat- she was flirty- she said ‘the cat went into places she
shouldn’t go- a bit like me’; Los Angeles and the sunshine; etc.
Defence Counsel: How long did you converse for? Did you decide to do something?
Tabak: Yes, I did.
Defence Counsel: What did you decide to do?
Tabak: To make a pass at her.
Defence Counsel: Did you think she would respond?
Tabak: Yes.
Defence Counsel: Did she offer you a drink?
Tabak: Yes. I declined.
Defence Counsel: Doing as best you can describe to the court exactly what you did.
Tabak: I put my hand in the small of her back and went to kiss her.
Defence Counsel: Did you kiss her?
Tabak: Noooo.
Defence Counsel: What did she do?
Tabak: She started to scream quite loudly.
Defence Counsel: What did you say?
Tabak: I’m sorry. Please stop. I kept my hand to her mouth.
Defence Counsel: When you took your hand away what happened?
Tabak: She continued to scream.
Defence Counsel: What did you do then?
Tabak: I put my hand around her neck. I panicked.
Defence Counsel: What did Joanna do?
Tabak: Nothing at all.
Defence Counsel: Why did you put your hand around her neck?
Tabak: I was just trying to stop her screaming- to calm her down.
Defence Counsel: How long did keep your hand there?
Tabak: Only for a short time.
Defence Counsel: I will tell you to start to remember what you did and when you took
your hand away from Joanna's neck. Now. When you took your hand away, what did she
do?
Tabak: She went limp and fell.
Defence Counsel: Did she hit herself as she fell?
Tabak: I can’t remember- I was still in a state of panic.
Defence Counsel: What did you do?
Tabak: I put her on her bed in her bedroom.
Defence Counsel: Where did you go?
Tabak: I went back to my flat.
Defence Counsel: How did you leave her door?
Tabak: Open.
Defence Counsel: How long were you in your flat?
Tabak: Only a couple of minutes maybe.
Defence Counsel: Where did you go then?
Tabak: I went back to Joanna’s flat.
Defence Counsel: What did you do?
Tabak: I was hoping she was alive but clearly she wasn’t.
Defence Counsel: Accepting that she was dead, what did you do?
Tabak: After a couple of minutes I lifted the body and carried it over to my flat.
Defence Counsel: Your hand being on what part of her body?
Tabak: One arm was underneath her knees.
Defence Counsel: Were you able to carry her to your flat?
Tabak: No she was too heavy. I tried again.
Defence Counsel: Where did you take her body?
Tabak: To my flat.
Defence Counsel: Did you leave Joanna’s door shut or open?
Tabak: Open.
Defence Counsel: What did you do next?
Tabak: I decided to put her body in my bicycle cover.
Defence Counsel: Was it your bicycle cover or Tanja’s?
Tabak: No- it was mine.
Defence Counsel: How easy was it to put the body in the bicycle cover?
Tabak: Very difficult but eventually I did it.
Defence Counsel: Why did you put her body in the bicycle cover?
Tabak: I didn’t want anyone to find out and I put the body in my car.
Defence Counsel: Was Joanna’s door still open?
Tabak: Yes.
Defence Counsel: After you put the body in the boot of your car, what did you do next?
Tabak: I went back to Joanna’s flat and switched off the TV and the oven; I took away the
sock and the pizza.
Defence Counsel: Why did you take the pizza and sock?
Tabak: I was not thinking straight.
Defence Counsel: Where did you take the pizza and sock?
Tabak: In my car.
Defence Counsel: You decided to take the body away. How were you going to do that?
Tabak: In the car.
Defence Counsel: Where was the car?
Tabak: On the street.
Defence Counsel: Then you took the body out to the street?
Tabak: No. I backed the car into the drive.
Defence Counsel: Was the car facing Canynge Road?
Tabak: No. The back of the car was facing Canynge Road.
Defence Counsel: Then what did you do?
Tabak: I went back to my flat.
Defence Counsel: Then what did you do?
Tabak: I put the body into the car.
Defence Counsel: Was it easy to put the body into the car?
Tabak: No.
Defence Counsel: How many attempts did you make at placing the body into the boot of
the car?
Tabak: I think two.
Defence Counsel: Then when you put the body into the boot of your car, what did you do?
Tabak: I went into the car.
Defence Counsel: Look at our timeline 89. Did you drive with the body in the boot of your
car?
Tabak: Yes.
There is NO Timeline for all of that event that took place at Joanna Yeates Flat and Dr Vincent Tabak's apparent subsequent actions... NO Timeline for when he was in his Flat... No Timeline for anything....
They were trying to establish when Joanna Yeates died... Yet there is no Timeline for this?? why ??
Timeline 89 in itself doesn't explain what happened.... Clegg asks Dr Vincent Tabak to look at Timeline 89
Defence Counsel: Look at our timeline 89. Did you drive with the body in the boot of your
car?
Tabak: Yes.
What was in timeline 89 ?? what did timeline 89 reveal?? Cleggs question is in two parts.....
"Look at Timeline 89"
'Did you drive with the body in the boot of your car?"
Two seperate events.... Just like when Clegg mentions Entry 11.. by linking events together it makes us believe that it is one event ... When I do not believe it to be the case..... as the Entry for Timeline 89 demonstrates...
Clegg doesn't reveal what is in Timeline 89, and it isn't revealed in court either... So what information was in timeline 89?? And did the jury see what was in the entry of Timeline 89 when in the Jury room??
Also what was the Timeline number for all of the events that lead to Joanna Yeates Murder and body being moved?? If Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to be in his Flat for an hour before moving Joanna Yeates to the boot of his car, then that should have created another timeline... Yet it is strangely missing as is all of the Timeline to do with events leading up to the murder of Joanna Yeates ....
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
Tabak: Yes- when the papers reported that police found DNA on Joanna’s body.23 I was
drinking serious amounts of alcohol.
Defence Counsel: When you were arrested on 20 January 2011, you were put in contact
with a duty solicitor. It was somebody you had never met before, is that correct?
Tabak: Yes.
Defence Counsel: You never answered any of the police questions except about the
telephone calls. Defence Counsel: Why was that?
Tabak: I was following the advice of my solicitor who told me not to say anything at all.
Defence Counsel: In your first statement, you lied. Why did you lie?
Tabak: I was hoping that they didn’t have enough evidence and I was hoping they would
let me go.
Defence Counsel: When did you realise that they had enough evidence?
Tabak: When I leant that they found DNA on the body.24
Two quotes.... Defence Counsel: You never answered any of the police questions except about the
telephone calls. Defence Counsel: Why was that?
Tabak: I was following the advice of my solicitor who told me not to say anything at all.
And.........
Defence Counsel: In your first statement, you lied. Why did you lie?
Tabak: I was hoping that they didn’t have enough evidence and I was hoping they would
let me go.
Which is the first statement??
The statement made at Canygne Road??
The statement made in Holland??
Either way that is not what that statement suggests... The First statement has to be a statement in connection with the disappearance of Joanna Yeates .... To say that "I was hoping they didn't have enough evidence"... suggests that the questioning was in direct relation to what had happened to Joanna Yeates (imo)..
For Dr Vincent Tabak to talk to the Police in the first instance when they visited Canygne Road when "Operation Briad " had begun, he would only have said of his movements for that weekend.... And that in no way would be incriminating ,even if he did leave his Flat to go to ASDA...
Apparently he forgot to tell them that piece of info... But that in itself is not evidence of a Crime.... Only evidence of being perhaps forgetful... But the he talks of being "held".... I was hoping they would let me go..
The only other time that the Police apparently Interviewed Dr Vincent Tabak was in Holland... And as that was not under caution he was free to leave at anytime.... Why would he use such a phrase??
To say that the Holland Interview was 6 hours long, The Defence do not refer to it... If Dr Vincent Tabak had never made a statement or answered questions, what apparentely did he say in Holland??? What incriminating Information was divulged at this Holland Interview??
I am always stuck between a rock and a hard place with this case.... I do not believe the searches are Dr Vincent Tabak's.. I do not believe the phone calls are Dr Vincent Tabak's... so why is anything that he stated at trial, the actions of Dr Vincent Tabak???
Defence Counsel: When you were arrested on 20 January 2011, you were put in contact
with a duty solicitor. It was somebody you had never met before, is that correct?
Tabak: Yes.
An odd statement... Why would Dr Vincent Tabak "EVER" have had the "NEED" to meet a "Duty Solicitor"??? As Dr Vincent Tabak had a clean record not even a parking ticket... why would he have very entered a Police Station before ???? There would be no need for such a statement...
So who is that referring too??
We have a person, whom is NOT Dr Vincent Tabak.. whom has.....
(1): Lied to the Police
(2): Whom has seen a duty solictor before
(3): Who's text messages were seen by the Police
(4): Who's computer was searched
(5):Appeared to have already been arrested and questioned....
(6): And who is this trial really about??? Because it was NOT Dr Vincent Tabak (imo)
I believe the Police know "WHO" killed Joanna Yeates.... I just do not understand why they Never did anything about it or arrest him/her for this murder..... Or maybe they did.... And that was the reason the "Duty Solicitor" is mentioned.... So why did they have to let them go????
Edit.... Question... who would be in a position to see a "Duty" Solicitor before???
(A): A Suspect that they have already questioned, in relation to this Murder
(B): Someone who works in the Police Service, whom would see several duty solicitors come and go...
(C): Someone whom has been arrested before...
Anyone else have an answer of that question??
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
Defence Counsel: You never answered any of the police questions except about the
telephone calls. Defence Counsel: Why was that?
Tabak: I was following the advice of my solicitor who told me not to say anything at all.
What telephone calls.... Apparently he only telephones Tanja to find out when she needs picking up from her Christmas party.....
So who's telephone calls is that statement referring too?? There is nothing at trial to indicate Dr Vincent Tabak made telephone calls of such great importance that the Police felt the need to ask him questions in relation to these calls....
These important "telephone calls" were never played at trial.... What "telephone calls" are being referred to by The Defence Council??
So lets go back to the..... Defence Counsel: In your first statement, you lied. Why did you lie?
Tabak: I was hoping that they didn’t have enough evidence and I was hoping they would
let me go.
If the "telephone calls" are all that was divulged in the statement to the Police, on the advice of the Solicitor.... what did Dr Vincent Tabak lie about???
We are talking "Calls" as in plural... Not the supposed phone call from Holland... Dr Vincent Tabak does not ever contact the Police apart from DC Karen Thomas saying he called from Holland... But there has been many questions about who actually called.... But that would only amount to one call...
So what are the "Telephone calls" that are mentioned at trial that "SOMEONE" lied about??? Because again I will say, it is not Dr Vincent Tabak that statement refers too....(imo)...
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
If Operation Braid was about a "Missing Person"... How did they have a crime scene??
Flat 1 cannot have been the Crime Scene... as Joanna Yeates was "Missing" from said address...
"Missing" indicates gone from where someone was last known to have been.... And no indication of a struggle at said address was ever indicated by the Police..... Therefore how can Flat 1 be the Scene of Crime if someone is "Missing" from said Scene??
-
Leonora.... You mentioned about "Braid" the video game and it was about a Princess being chased by a monster..You also thought that she may have been pregnant.
Well looking at the idea that it has something to do with a princess and a monster/ prince I came to find this interesting tale...
Sleeping Beauty is one of many classic tales that has many twisted versions. The most popular version, the one we are most familiar with is the one written by Brother Grimms in 18th century. The earlier versions are however full of shocking plots and various bizarre endings.
Grimm’s version of Sleeping Beauty story is the sweetest and most sanitized. This version is the one adapted by Disney. Long before Grimm Brother write their version, the story of a girl who falls asleep by a curse and wakes up by a kiss had been in oral circulation throughout Europe since13th century. This story is then written by Basile in 16th century and Charles Perrault in 17th century. These earlier versions contain harsh materials of raping and cannibalism.
The Curse - what put Sleeping Beauty to sleep?
In the Grimm’s version, an evil fairy curses Sleeping Beauty because she is not invited to the grand christening ceremony. The evil fairy says that on reaching adulthood sleeping beauty would die after pricking her finger on a spindle. One good fairy manages to soften this curse. Sleeping Beauty will not die; she will only sleep until a true love’s kiss wakes her up. This curse happens and sleeping beauty falls into her slumber.
In the earlier French version as recorded by Perrault in 17th century, Sleeping Beauty is put to sleep not by a curse but because some kind of a prophesy. In this version, Sleeping Beauty is not tricked by the evil fairy into touching the spindle, instead she does it voluntarily.
The Rape - what wakes sleeping beauty from her slumber?
In the Grimm’s version, a handsome prince kisses Sleeping Beauty and awakens her from her sleep. They marry and live happily ever after, how romantic.
In its 13th century version and the one written by Giambatista Basile in 16th century, it is not the kiss that awakens Sleeping Beauty, but the nudging of her children. So the story goes that while Sleeping Beauty lies unconscious, a prince charming comes, not to rescue her, but to rape her. Somehow, Sleeping Beauty is impregnated and giving birth to twins while still sleeping, even the pain of childbirth couldn’t wake her up. After birth, one
'Briar Rose" ... we have many symbols of Roses
"The Kiss"... Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have tried to kiss her.. and there was the article about DNA on her lips
This I found strange... In the Grimm’s version, an evil fairy curses Sleeping Beauty because she is not invited to the grand christening ceremony.
We have the christening mentioned... "Coincidence" ?? Twins at the christening,..
Sleeping Beauty is impregnated and giving birth to twins while still sleeping, even the pain of childbirth couldn’t wake her up
A little more that adds to this tale and that is Dr Vincent Tabak apparently placed Joanna Yeates on her bed not knowing if she was unconscious or dead.. (he says he thought dead)
From "Basile's narrative"
The king knocks, hoping to be let in by someone, but no one answers and he decides to climb in with a ladder. He finds Talia alive but unconscious, and "...gathers the first fruits of love." [3] Afterwards, he leaves her in the bed and goes back to his kingdom.
So we have :
* Roses
* Kiss
* Christening
* Twins
* A possible sexual assault.. or maybe not
* Foetal position/ possibly pregnant
* Frozen as in deep sleep
* Placed on bed and left
An alternative idea wouldn't you say leonora
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_Beauty
http://yovitasiswati.expertscolumn.com/article/dark-original-version-classic-fairytale-sleeping-beauty-curse-rape-and-ogress
-
To continue from my above post leonora....
Myth themes
Some folklorists have analyzed Sleeping Beauty as indicating the replacement of the lunar year (with its thirteen months, symbolically depicted by the thirteen fairies) by the solar year (which has twelve, symbolically the invited fairies). The basic elements of the story can also be interpreted as a nature allegory: the princess represents nature, the wicked fairy godmother is winter, who puts the Court to sleep with pricks of frost until the prince (spring) cuts away the brambles with his sword (a sunbeam) to allow the Sun to awaken sleeping princess (nature).
The images always say something... we have six pillows in the bedroom same in the front room....
The hostility of the king's mother to his new bride is repeated in the fairy tale The Six Swans,[16] and also features The Twelve Wild Ducks, where she is modified to be the king's stepmother. However, these tales omit the attempted cannibalism.
Are they all pointing to the tale of "Sleeping Beauty ??
I could never understand why the Sewing Box was in the front room... Now It makes sense... Sleeping Beauty pricks herself on a needle..
So leonora... Is it more about "Sleeping Beauty" than "Braid" the computer game!
"Braid could also come from" sewing....
"Horse Hair Braid" used on wedding outfit.... maybe SORCY didn't mean 'So Cry" But The Horse club "SORCY"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_Beauty
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
We know that this trial is almost a joke to some... These three tweets... It was DC Mark Luther, that has sent me mad... So I know how they have twisted everything in this trial and how the Public have all happily taken it in... But there are two things I noticed...
12:10 PM - 19 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Ten minute break in the trial of #VincentTabak. #joannayeates
ReplyRetweetFavorite
12:10 PM - 19 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
DC Mark Luther now giving evidence in the #Tabak trial. He is the officer in charge of the case.
12:12 PM - 19 Oct 2011Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
DC Luther talking through photographs from inside the flat #Tabak shared with his girlfriend.
Firstly... DC Mark Luther could be an anagram of Chalk T Murder.... Or Murder T Chalk....
Made me think of Chalk line , when in programs they chalk around the body.... Then you think.... No... Sky are not going to Do That.....
No they went one better.... Who is going to correct anything that The Sky News teams say about the trial???
A little error maybe... But NOT a Blatant SCREAMING ERROR ....
Look at the times....
* At 12:10pm she says that there is a ten minutes break...
* At 12:10pm She says that DC Mark Luther is now giving evidence.....
* At 12"12pm she says DC Luther talking through photo's.....
She tells us about DC Mark Luther in the 10 minute break!!!!
She's outside... She's not in the court at this time.... Sky are taking the piss!! They all know they can say what ever they want because no-one will say anything...... And no -one would have noticed really if we hadn't spent so much time on this.....
DC Mark Luther doesn't exist!! So who was watching sky live tweets to know about anagrams.. Murder and the chalk line!!!!
That was extremely bold of sky... Nearly missed a trick there !!!!!
They even show us a behind the scene snap shot of the news team reporting....
(http://images.scribblelive.com/2011/10/19/e44374ec-6df9-4709-8ea6-5499efa4b9bd_300.jpg)
Twitter
skynewsgatherer
@skynewsgatherer
Behind the scenes snap of Sky News team covering the Vincent Tabak trial. p.twimg.com
They were reporting from outside....
Did everyone report from outside the court... and I mean literally outside the court... !!!!
So where did they get there information from!!!
Arrrggggggg... Can no-one see what has been going on.....
http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Vincent_Tabak_Trial_Continues
-
"Operation Braid"...
I keep going over and over this case.... It's sent me bonkers...
Ok...The only information that tells us a trial happened is the media.... If the media don't talk about it for whatever reason.. I don't know... What actually happened at trial??
Was there even a trial?? We have people walking in and out of a building... We have tweets and reports.. But I'm begining to wonder if it was all made up...
Was it all pretend??
It might sound bonkers,.. but this case is bonkers...
Did a Genuine Trial take place in October 2011, with real witness's and a real defendant (Dr Vincent Tabak).. The Prosecution, The Defence and the Judge... Is the whole thing a sham..... It's shameful anyway,
But did it not really happen??
Did they genuinely take the oath?? No perjury can be committed if it wasn't real...
The lack of evidence... The lack of cross examination... The lack of substance... It's like a script... Did the media read off a script...??
What is this all about?? If there was no real trial , then Dr Vincent Tabak didn't get sentenced.... Judge Field cannot add 5 extra years for agravating features that do not exist in law...
You have journalists checking with other journalists if he heard correctly that the verdict was guilty... Now that just isn't done... And all you journalists know this... It's first to get the headline not ask Journalists from another
And we courtroom tweeters did help each other. Before I tweeted the guilty verdict, I double-checked that I had heard it correctly with a friend from a rival newspaper.
The fact that Tabak had admitted manslaughter helped a little but the central point of the trial – his intention when he killed Yeates
Since when does a journalist say that... Since when does a defendant admitting to Manslaughter in May 2011, 5 months before a trial, then get prosecuted and they tell the world he admitted Manslaughter at trial In October 2011.... Utter garbage..
Is the reason you all don't talk about it is because it wasn't real?? They wanted us to believe it was, but I am not so sure anymore... You cannot be so blatant about everything that happened in this case and no-one question it...
I am no expert as you can tell.. But it's full of S*i*.....
Did they all turn up Pro Bono?? Did they twiddle there thumbs for weeks... what happened???
The media shouldn't have been allowed in that Flat until trial was over at the very least... Why would The Yeates be happy for everyone to trounce around the Flat... why would they be happy for all the images to be all over the net of the flat...
Is it because it wasn't a true court case that they don't want to talk about it?? Did they fool the public more than they already have with what we have been told...
I just don't get why no-one will say anything about this case... They have tried to erase it... Who was actually inside the court room ..i mean the "PUBLIC ".. No-one from the public ever tweeted after the trial that they had been there... we were told apparently that someone did tweet from inside the court room... But I think that is Tosh as well..
Someone for Godsake tell me what the hell went on and why No-one will speak of the case of Dr Vincent Tabak!!!!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/nov/02/vincent-tabak-trial-tweeted
-
Trying to decipher what took place in this case is near impossible... But If between the smoke and Mirrors... there is a modicum of truth, then maybe the best place to start is what Dr Vincent Tabak said at trial...
4.4. Defence counsel William Clegg, QC, also requested that the jury take a particularly
close look at the view from Miss Yeates' kitchen window, which looks on to the path to
the front door because Dr Tabak had made a statement that he and Miss Yeates first saw
each other through this window.
Now for Clegg to use the kitchen window as the place, they apparently saw each other, there maybe some truth.. But not in the way we think...
Remember the kitchen window that we see in the Photographs of the Flat.. I have said before that there appears to be a camera in the window... The camera would record anyone passing and anyone stopping.. If Joanna Yeates had some camera in the kitchen window then they would see the person on the pavement looking into the kitchen window and possibily waving...
He left his flat; was walking towards his car and went past her kitchen window.
Again if there was this camera in the kitchen window Dr Vincent Tabak would be seen walking past the window...
Vincent was walking towards his car when he passed Joanna’s kitchen window. She saw
him, there was a nod of acknowledgement and she beckoned him to come in. She had
opened the door and invited him in.
The acknowledgement could easily be someone else, whom she was expecting.... She invited the person in..
He took off his coat.
He hung it on her coat rack
Now the Forensic officer we have seen had a Black Coat over her arm... Did the killer leave his coat??
He put one hand in the middle of her back as if he was about to kiss her, and she screamed
fiercely.
He put his hand over her mouth and said sorry and when he moved his hand away she
screamed again.
He put his hand to her mouth and throat and she went limp. She was dead.
He had never touched her before other than to shake hands as he went into her flat.
Shake hands... I missed that before....
The person whom she let into the Flat she was expecting... I do not know in what context Joanna Yeates was Expecting this guest, whether it was sexual or whether it was some other type of business dealing, but she was expecting someone...
Did the person whom had entered the Flat maybe think it was a sexual encounter that they were getting??
There are huge chunks Missing from what took place in that flat, But there are descriptions of what apparently happened..
The bottle of cider that had been drunk from... Did it actually contain the DNA of the killer.. I know Greg also drank from the bottle, but you could still have 2 DNA profiles on the bottle... Maybe in the remains/dregs at the bottom of the bottle..
http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf
-
Continued......
One thing is certain. Joanna Yeates was killed between 21.00 and 21.30 pm on Friday 17
December 2010.
How can Clegg be certain that Joanna Yeates died between 9:00pm and 9:30pm??
There is little medical evidence about Joanna Yeates only that she was strangled and had a heart attack... The only two ways I can determine that Joanna yeates was dead between those times, are either there was a camera and voice recording device in the Flat and no more noise came from Joanna Yeates ... Or.....
She had a pace maker fitted.. She had been of ill for a few days before... It's a possibility... I'm sure that there would be data from the pace maker to estimate the time of death... I am not saying she did have a pace maker.. only trying to understand how they could be so sure of the time between which she died...
The pace maker would also give them the day in which she died... And they have always been sure of that piece of information ..That she was Missing from the 17th December 2010... And I could never understand why.... And why The Yeates knew that she was dead, even if they hadn't found her body... There had to be away in which they all talked about her in the past tense, whilst she was classed as a Missing Person...
And because she was not in the Flat.. That was where the foul play came into it.. Seeing as her belongngs were still in her Flat....
I there was a camera in the window.. Did it clearly show who passed?? Did they just lie that she wasn't on the Private CCTV... Well i won't say lie... Did hey omit that she was on the private CCTV on Canygne Road??
If that had been introduced into evidence it would show who else was on the CCTV..
Going back to the idea of the pacemaker.. Is the reason we see all the sporty photo's of Joanna Yeates to tell us she was physically fit?? So no-one would question her capabilities??
They seemed to have an exact time of her being dead.. Within seconds.. i could never understand how they came up with these times...
Second 15.72. Noose draws tight and fracture dislocation of the upper cervical vertebrae with crushing/severance of the spinal cord occurs. In other words it takes one fiftieth of a second for this to happen. The prisoner is now deeply unconscious.
The fastest execution on record was that of James Inglis at Strangeways on the 8th of May 1951, Albert Pierrepoint, assisted by Sid Dernly, had to almost run with Inglis from the condemned cell the few steps to the gallows. Just seven seconds later his lifeless body was dangling in the cell below.
Minutes 2 -3. Medical officer listens to prisoner’s chest with a stethoscope. Expects to hear elevated pulse rate caused by the noose constricting the carotid arteries and jugular veins and the heart beating faster to attempt to overcome the obstruction. Here are three Sphygmograph recordings of heart rate over time.
I have used the example of the hanging to show how the heart rate changes and the pulse rate.... (image attached)
Going back to the trial..
Defence Counsel: What did you do?
Tabak: I put her on her bed in her bedroom.
Defence Counsel: Where did you go?
Tabak: I went back to my flat.
We know from the trial text we have from Sally Ramage that Dr Vincent Tabak returns and takes Joanna yeates to his Flat... Which he sits with her apparently for an hour.. How was Dr Vincent Tabak to Know whether Joanna Yeates was alive or dead?? He's no medical expert... She could have been unconscious at the time.. Her heart rate and pulse may not have been easy to read..
Tabak: I was hoping she was alive but clearly she wasn’t.
Defence Counsel: Accepting that she was dead, what did you do?
Tabak: After a couple of minutes I lifted the body and carried it over to my flat.
Why would he accept she is dead?? He would have to know something and examine her to know that she was dead.. he couldn't possibily know that information whatsoever..
The chart I have attached clearly shows that there is activity of the heart/pulse, but it is weak and if medical intervention doesn't take place after being unconscious then death WILL occur.. Dr Vincent Tabak could not be aware of these medical checks..
So back to the time and date of Joanna Yeates death... How could they determine that she was last seen on the 17th December 2010 and she died between 9:00pm and 9:30pm on that day??
My suggestion could be the answer... It would also show irregular and elevated heartbeats when she was attacked... Maybe she didn't struggle with her attacker because she had a pacemaker, I don't know... But it is something to consider along with everything else that has been left out of the medical evidence of Joanna Yeates autopsy..
Is that the reason we don't have a proper inquest?? They would have to divulge everything..!!
So we have one of two options... Either there is some type of recording that has the killers identity recorded... Or there was some type of medical reason for them having a rough idea of the time that Joanna Yeates died.. And certainly the day!!
And a pacemaker, is a possibility is all that I can say... Just a thought!!
-
I suppose the really BIG question is......
Why would The Yeates family keep quiet and go along with this sham???
There is so much evidence pointing to a cover-up and so much evidence that could really be used in an appeal.. Or at least to get CCRC to look at it....
Realistically The Yeates would NOT want anything to allow Dr Vincent Tabak to have any loop hole whatsoever to challenge his conviction... Yet there is so much on the Internet that puts in to question the validity of Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction...
So... what is it... That stops The Yeates family from screaming from the roof tops, that someone else killed their daughter???
What is so secretive that even the Yeates don't speak openly about the Murder of their daughter??
There has to be a lot more about this case and the deals that may have been done...(imo)..
because NO-ONE speaks of it!!!
What does Operation Braid really stand for???
I think that it is still an ongoing Operation personally!
-
Just thought i would look at what activity Avon and Somerset Police's Twitter account in regards to "Operation braid"..
And there's a big fat nothing!!
No results for @ASPolice #operationbraid
The term you entered did not bring up any results. You may have mistyped your term or your search setting could be protecting you from some potentially sensitive content.
https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&q=%40ASPolice%20%23operationbraid&src=typd
-
These two tweets from MTW
@mwilliamsthomas
Following Following @mwilliamsthomas
More
The Senior Investigating Officer from #JoannaYeates enq and the #MelanieHull murder SIO will have liaised throughout
10:04 AM - 26 Dec 2010
I was wondering if that was a typo and MWT had written "Hull" and not "Hall"
Mark Williams-Thomas
Verified account
@mwilliamsthomas
Following Following @mwilliamsthomas
More
@MissSorbeti -the investigation is still very much open -although a number of people have been arrested nobody has been charged #MelanieHull
9:57 AM - 26 Dec 2010
But he does it again.... Now is that a case that there is another Murder of a woman called "Melanie Hull" or is it a typo??
We know that Gareth Bevan was posing with the pizza and requesting information to its whereabouts.. He is on the Melanie Hall Murder Team... Jon Stratford said he was unaware of any contact between the two teams..
So if it is a typo and MWT meant to say 'Melanie Hall'... why did he assume that they would have been in contact throughout as early as the 24th December 2010??
I know he used to be a Police Officer and would have some idea of what happens and possibly has contacts still within the police force.. Which again make me question, why there always has seemed to be a link to these 'Murders'?
Therefore putting into doubt Dr Vincent Tabak's role....
And if it isn't a typo... what does "Melanie Hull" mean??
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/19091294080995328
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/19089549938393088
-
Braid does mean to interweave three or more strands I suppose. I don't know how PC Plod names his investigations though, could just be random out of a hat. I doubt if they have the intelligence to think up something sneaky, evcen as a collective.
AH
-
Braid does mean to interweave three or more strands I suppose. I don't know how PC Plod names his investigations though, could just be random out of a hat. I doubt if they have the intelligence to think up something sneaky, evcen as a collective.
AH
Yes AH.... Are those three strands:
* Joanna Yeates... found on a grass verge, No signs of sexual assault, strangled, fully clothed
* Glenis Caruthers.. found on a grass verge, No signs of sexual assault.. strangled full clothed
* Melanie Hall.... found on a grass verge... remains found can't comment.. But the Police would know if she was
clothed... And if blunt force trauma was used or not..
Is that what Operation Braid was really about... connecting all those Murder Cases??
-
Yes AH.... Are those three strands:
* Joanna Yeates... found on a grass verge, No signs of sexual assault, strangled, fully clothed
* Glenis Caruthers.. found on a grass verge, No signs of sexual assault.. strangled full clothed
* Melanie Hall.... found on a grass verge... remains found can't comment.. But the Police would know if she was
clothed... And if blunt force trauma was used or not..
Is that what Operation Braid was really about... connecting all those Murder Cases??
Funny that, my thoughts entirely. However, that’s a lot to expect. Melanie Hall was killed to order, the aim was to incriminate one bloke, and it nearly worked. The whole thing points to one particular individual, but he’s an informer and the police are relying on him still.