Mr and Mrs Yeates, it has been said, already knew that Dr Vincent Tabak was going to plead guilty to Manslaughter on the 5th May 2011.... Now I wonder who else had this information....
When I wrote about what the attorney General had said about CJ and how he had been proven innocent because Dr Vincent Tabak had pled Guilty to manslaughter, therefore CJ because of this plea, was wholly Innocent...
But.... I was under the impression that because Dr Vincent Tabak had pled guilty to Manslaughter, that had paved the way for CJ to take legal action against said Newspapers....
It would be extremely difficult to take action against a National Newspaper, without any evidence to support your claim... Before Dr Vincent Tabak's apparent Confession, no-one could prove or disprove anything... And any person may find themselves the subject of tabloid gossip.... You would need plenty of clout to even consider taking on the National Newspapers, never mind a man whom had no money to speak of and was simply a retired teacher and of no real consequence to anyone...
Yet CJ manages to elicit the services of Lawyers who really shouldn't touch him with a barge pole... (imo) He's a nobody, he hasn't got any standing , he's no celebrity nor politician... He's a nobody.... He in my belief should not be courting an lawyers at this juncture.... Think about it.... There should be a high profile case about to take place for The Murder of Joanna Yeates.... CJ, for all intense and purposes
Should be a witness at trial.... But we find him all over the media and everyone is happy to see his face splashed about without question....
I am coming to it...... CJ.. the man who witnessed people at Canygne Road entering or leaving said premises at around 9:00pm on Friday 17th December 2010... should (imo).. be concentrating on what should be his appearance at trial and not courting lawyers to fight newspapers in apparent libel claims.... maybe after the trial he could pursue it, but not before..... And therefore lies my issue.....
Statements were released as early as 21st April 2011 by solicitors acting for CJ in relation to these Newspapers....
21ST APRIL 2011
SM&B act for Christopher Jefferies in libel and privacy claims against national and local newspapers
Mr Christopher Jefferies has today given notice of libel and privacy claims against a large number of national and local newspapers in relation to articles published by them in December 2010 and January 2011.
The newspapers include The Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, Daily Express and Daily Star among others. Mr Jefferies will be seeking vindication of his reputation for the terrible treatment he received. Mr Jefferies will not be making any statement about these claims until their conclusion, which he hopes will be in the very near future.
Simons Muirhead & Burton partner, Louis Charalambous, who also represented Robert Murat, leads the team representing Mr Jefferies in these libel and privacy claims.
A Press Release is available here.
Why would Louis Charalambous, be representing and issuing statements about CJ before a trial in which CJ shoukd be a witness commences??
This is the 21st April 2011... No apparent plea had been given... Dr Vincent Tabak had said nothing.... CJ is connected to an ongoing investigation.. an investigation that centres around the property he owns and he is a potential witness.... never mind potential.. he is a witness, he tells us at the Leveson....
CJ Leveson quote..
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.
He like the Lehmans heard something, he could tell us if Dr Vincent Tabak's car was parked on the road or not.... He is a witness... And to the public was probably still considered a suspect... The Police had made no Official statement that CJ was no- longer a suspect... And until either a trial had taken place or some evidence supported CJ was wholly Innocent, I do not understand why anyone would take him on as a client in this respect....
We all know about this trial happening... we know of CJ's association with said Murder Inquiry... Yet without Dr Vincent Tabak's plea to Manslaughter, I do not understand why any action was taken before the conclusion of trial.... I do not understand why Louis would consider taking this to court.....
Yes there was name calling..... But that has happened for eons by the tabloids, but what we all seem to forget is what brought CJ to everyones attention.... And that is what he witnessed..... Never mind a blue rinse... I don't care if he has 3 heads.... He's a witness and as such should not be touting himself through any courts.. (imo)... Till after the trial has finished....
By the 21st April 2011, there was nothing to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak was "Their Man"... But no evidence supports this claim.... So why would Louis take on CJ, when Newspaper gossip is just that?? It doesn't state to fact anything about CJ... apart from an image with a blue rinse.... Why touch a potential suspect/witness at all??
I would have thought they would have stayed well clear until after trial.... But everything is in place....
From CJ's Interview on the 30th December 2010..
Jefferies reported the sighting to police and they confirmed they were examining the evidence.
But speaking outside his home yesterday, Jefferies denied he had told police he saw Miss Yeates with the unidentified pair.
He told Sky News: "It is a serious distortion of what I said to the police and I have no further comment to make as that, no doubt, will be distorted.
"I made some comment which was very, very, very much vaguer than that.
"Anything that I have said I have said to the police and I'm not prepared to make any comments to the media."
He added: "I definitely cannot say that I saw Joanna Yeates that evening. No."
Sky News' crime correspondent Martin Brunt, in Bristol, said that after Jefferies had spoken to Sky News there were questions surrounding his claim.
This I believe is important... We have gone from 'Saw' to 'Heard'..... That is a massive leap and also of great importance....
Now again i will state... by the 21st April 2010 no-one other than the Police knew what was held within CJ's witness statement... or at least they shouldn't seeing as this was a live Murder Inquiry, and it is not until The Leveson that we find CJ saying he heard someone at the gate, etc etc ..... Now a denial on the 29th December 2010 to put their media in it's place would support the change we appear o have in whether CJ saw or heard something.... It would have been far simpler if CJ at the time stated he saw nothing.. Because as he tells us at The Leveson he heard something... But he makes us all believe that he did witness something at that time... and I mean visually....
He talks of great distortions.... Well what was the great distortion?? Heard or saw.... Not a great distortion really... He still witnessed something.... He witnessed the possibility of up to 3 people being at the small gate, he witnessed up to 3 people being at the property of Canygne Road at a time when a Murder had apparently just taken place....
So why was this NOT brought to trial?? Why do we find him wanting to sue papers for "HIS" own gain... shouldn't he be more concerned that his tenant has just been Murdered??? Shouldn't this Murder be the story and not a nobody whom happened to be called names by the press.... Yes i agree it isn't right the press vilify anyone... But I am talking about the time these solicitors were appointed.... A time when CJ shouldn't really be in the papers for anything... As he is the landlord who has witnessed the Potential Killers etc leaving the premises at a relevant time...
So I will return to my original question.... Who else knew that Dr Vincent Tabak would be making a Manslaughter plea in May 2011??
One last point.... By CJ taking this public stand, did this mean that he "couldn't" be a witness at trial??
Did The Media by reporting on the 29th December 2010 that CJ had witnessed people at the gate in Canygne Road actually scupper this trial?? They identified a "WITNESS".... yet they were not taken to task on this matter.... Surely they know not to be identifying potential witness's to a Murder before a trial had taken place...
It all seems irregular... Either CJ heard/ Saw people at the gate or he didn't...... Now the question has to be what was in this apparent second witness statement?? If the Police had decided to arrest CJ because of this second witness statement as CJ has stated, then I would ask, did the Police believe that CJ was telling an untruth??
I say this because of DS Mark Saunders statement that he had viewed the private CCTV of Canygne Road of Friday 17th December 2010... Which should have shown 2 to 3 people leaving Canygne Road...
Now did Louis Charalambous, check anything about CJ.... for all we know he could have been a fantasist at this time... And the papers talking about him shouldn't really have been of note... as i say he was a nobody... We at this time and to date only have the word of CJ that he did in fact see/ hear up to 3 people being at Canygne Road on the night of the 17th December 2010... Louis cannot be believing someone just on their say so..... (imo) He wouldn't shouldn't have access to any police statements in relation to this crime.... But on the word of a nobody, whom had no money according to CJ... He takes this man on as a client to take action against the media slap bang in the middle of a Police Investigation.... Why??
Everything about this case is backwards....
Just to reiterate...
Sky News' crime correspondent Martin Brunt, in Bristol, said that after Jefferies had spoken to Sky News there were questions surrounding his claim.
Question surrounding his claim.... now either the Police knew that Joannna Yeates hadn't reached home and CJ stated he saw her... Or they didn't believe his claim for another reason....
So was this claim proven??? And with what hasn't been released I would say NO.... (imo) So was CJ, ever really a witness?? Again I would say NO.... (imo) And I base this on the fact that his 2 witness's statements were never brought to trial or public view, he never appeared at the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak and the Private CCTV of Canygne Road that DS Mark Saunders viewed was not seen at trial either....
And why would the media identify a potential witness of a Murder Investigation especially as this witness had seen up to 3 people at the relevant address at the relevant time??
Edit.. Just realised I'd put 31st December in stead of 29th December when talking about CJ' denial of
seeing someone..... have amended it....
https://smab.co.uk/smb-act-for-christopher-jefferies-in-libel-and-privacy-claims-against-national-and-local-newspapers/https://smab.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/11.04.21-press-release-final-v2.pdfhttp://www.pressgazette.co.uk/jefferies-sues-sun-mirror-mail-express-and-others/http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122175642/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdfhttps://news.sky.com/story/joanna-yeates-landlord-held-over-murder-10490254[attachment deleted by admin]
