The Defence Will State Their Case

[Nicholas]

David Yeates could not have known how long the Washing was there for, as you say unless he had been into the flat prior.... But we are not talking of when David Yeates was in the Flat,.... We have and I have assumed it was when they went to Bristol after the phone call from Greg Reardon......

You now are questioning The Yeates, you now are questioning when and on what day David Yeates saw said washing.....  You are now bringing into question another possibility about said washing.... I do not know when David yeates saw said washing.... Did the Police ask him when he saw said washing???

It is not something I contemplated... Did David Yeates mention said washing to the Police at all??? I do not know...

Now said "WASHING" Is significant no matter how you look at it..... said WASHING is important to this case..... It is always something that seems insignificant and innocent that turns a case around... Something that no-one thought of the implication of something could actually mean.....

So yes.... said "WASHING" is of massive significance  which ever way you want to look at it..... said "WASHING" maybe the key to unravelling this case....

Said "WASHING" could be the clue that has been ignored....

Was said WASHING Dirty... Was said Washing folded in neat piles... Was said WASHING Ready for the drying....

Said WASHING could have stunk to high heaven.... Said WASHING, could be neat and tidy... Said WASHING, could have evidence of Dr Vincent Tabak upon it.. Said WASHING, could have an item of the Killer amongst it...

Said WASHING, might have belonged to someone else... Joanna yeates might have been WASHING someone elses clothes... Said WASHING, could have been dropped of by the people at the gate..

Said WASHING, could contain any item of clothing Joanna yeates had worn that day...


To say that I do not know when David Yeates saw said WASHING, is true... I don't... I don't know why said WASHING hasn't been mentioned before, at trial by Dr Vincent Tabak or by Greg...

If said WASHING has only been sitting there for a day... Who left said WASHING THERE?? Who had access to leave said WASHING THERE?? Dr Vincent Tabak has closed the door behind himself apparently on Friday 17th December 2010 and had not re-entered, if there was a possibility of this surely Tanja Morson would have needed to take the  stand... To explain, how Dr Vincent Tabak kept disappearing that weekend....

But it is the appearance of said WASHING we need to understand.....  And whether or not Said WASHING was clean or Dirty.... Or wet or Dry....

We have conflicting statements that I do not know if what to make of them..... We have Piles of said WASHING, that David Yeates decribes in his interview a detail that is significant.....

We have Greg apparently searching through piles of clothes and finding an earring in said PILE of clothes and in underneath the duvet....

Is the PILE of clothes that Greg found said earring in the WASHING pile that David Yeates speaks of... Or is it a different PILE of clothes....

I do remember David Yeates saying before that he found an earring and when it came to trial, It was Greg that found both earrings... Which throw me a little....

So is the pile of WASHING, where Joanna Yeates earring was discovered?? Where there more than one PILE of Clothes??

Is the PILE of clothes.... clean...  dirty... wet... folded or what??  Why didn't Greg describe the clothes he had searched through.... He had tidied up... pottered about with ever increasing levels of stress...  So why not mention said WASHING... Was it in the way?? Did it add to the pungent smell the cat had left???

Said WASHING is significant... And I mean significant.... Said WASHING conjures up all sorts of problems... and questions... Said WASHING and where said washing was, has questions attached to it no matter what you think of this case....

Why was Said WASHING not mentioned at trial??

Now looking at what Greg describes at trial.... he doesn't mention WASHING!!!

He doesn't describe the clothes on the floor as WASHING... He doesn't indicate that these clothes were in a neat pile... Or that the clothes on the floor were indeed a PILE of clothes....

So to me that indicates what David Yeates observed was a pile of WASHING, that must have been near a WASHING Machine...  No WASHING machine in the bedroom we can see in the video tour of Joanna Yeates flat... No need to remove a WASHING Machine from said flat... Dr Vincent Tabak hasn't notice said WASHING Machine in said bedroom either...

So is David Yeates description of a Pile of WASHING incorrect.... I do not think so.... Are we really gonna start questioning David Yeates about when he saw said WASHING Pile??

He had never been to the flat before he and Mrs Yeates arrived after Greg's phone call, so he cannot have mistaken it for a different time...  A significant piece of information that you observed when you entered your daughters flat... A significant piece of evidence that will not leave your mind...

A significant clue, that adds only to the many many questions in this case..... So where did this said WASHING disappear too??  How much of said WASHING was there?? Where Greg's clothes amongst said WASHING?? Who touched said WASHING??

Lets not forget Joanna Yeates is only a Missing Person at this point.... But The Yeates believe differently.... The Yeates believe that their daughter has been abducted.... They must have searched through said WASHING, even if Greg had already looked... The y must have wanted to see if there was any clue any indication in said WASHINg as to the whereabout of their daughter....

So why is it only know the questions of said WASHING are coming to the fore... Why is it only Now  that said WASHING could be significant.... Why have we not heard before of said WASHING in any capacity....

What is so significant about said WASHING, that it takes until I have looked at documentaries to spot this comment and the significance of this comment about said WASHING... Why has said WASHING not been mentioned before...

They say that Dr Vincent Tabak wore gloves.... Well did one one his gloves end up in the pile of said WASHING??

Had someone else enter the flat and looked through said WASHING?? not knowing the significance of there entry to said flat..

No-one needs to point fingers... about said WASHING pile... But everyone needs to take into account the significance that said WASHING Pile should have in this case.... No matter from what angle you want to look at it....

No matter whether or not you believe a conspiracy had taken place... No matter whether you think Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty or not....

You should question the evidence of said WASHING Pile, that clearly David Yeates had witnessed it being at Joanna Yeates home and consider, why it's relevance has been ignored....

An independent witness, whom only wants his daughter returning to him, out of the blue gives us information that was not part of anyone elses witness testimony... and on video, so much so, that he appears to have slipped when he told us this... he has divulged something no one else knew at trial... no-one else in the country who had been following every twist and turn of this case.... No-one at trial told us of this information... Not a Policeman/woman.... not Dr Vincent Tabak, and not even Greg Reardon....

A piece of evidence that everyone should consider as being a vital piece of evidence...(imo).. Because it shapes our minds to how the crime scene may have really looked like... It changes our opinion as to whether or not Joanna Yeates was actually getting on with mundane chores such as WASHING... Or if shapes our minds in to questioning if the killer staged the Flat to make it look like Joanna Yeates was about to WASH her and Gregs clothes...

And then baking seems a little less important as no-one can prove that Joanna yeates did in fact turn on the oven to bake... We only have the story of Dr Vincent Tabak, that he turned OFF said oven.. .... Because that was an assumption, that was a task she was apparently doing.... But evidentially, we have David Yeates being able to tell us that he witnessed a pile of WASHING in his daughters flat when he entered it...

We have David Yeates on video revealing for the first time that there was something different that we didn't already know....

So being me and being as blunt as I am, I would question why the evidence that David Yeates witnessed was not talked about on the stand by himself or anyone else... I would question why he didn't take the stand to tell us about said WASHING.... I understand it must be painful, to talk when one has lost a child....

But the jury should have been made aware of this fact... The jury should have had a fuller picture of what the flat looked like when it was entered by various people...  The jury should have been furnished with the truth...

By not having The Yeates take the stand in Dr Vincent Tabak's trial, we do not know of there observations.... we do not really know what made them question and believe that their daughter had been abducted... we do not know what made Mrs Yeates bang on car boots.... We do not know why Greg's phone call made them believe that something terrible had happened to their daughter....

And we do not know why a comment of a pile of WASHING might be really significant.....  I am not trying to be unfeeling about The Yeates or the difficulties they may have had and still have to deal with to this day....

I am trying to understand why.... what I see as a significant piece of evidence was never brought to the juries attention.... I am trying to understand how GREG didn't also see this PILE of WASHING...  I am trying to understand whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak noticed this pile of WASHING or even knew of it's existence....

Because as far as I am concerned, it is the only tangible piece of evidence that has come to light that we were not informed of before or during trial... The only tangible piece of evidence that brings even more questions to its existence....

 A piece of evidence that should bring questions... whether or not you want to question David yeates about it... whether or not you want to know how long this piece of evidence was there for....

It clearly is evidence that is real... It clearly is evidence that was witnessed.... What really needs to be established... Is what it's significance really is..... (imo)



https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/boyfriends-panic-over-missing-joanna-yeates-2371910.html

What do YOU think the significance of the washing was Nine?

[Nicholas]

Ok... Lets try being simple, and explain to me why there are so many contradictions:

(1): Colin Port: At The Leveson Colin Port stated that CJ SAW people at the gate
       CJ: On the other hand tells the Leveson, he heard people at the gate....

( There must be a written statement that conclusively proves who is telling an untruth....)


(2): Greg Reardon: Tells the court, that it was he who found the earring Belonging to Joanna Yeates
       David yeates: Said he found an earring under a pile of clothes (i Believe)

       ( Adding to his later statement about the washing pile)

(3): At trial: we are told a Police Officer and Greg went around to Dr Vincent Tabak home to ask if they had noticed
       anything
      Mrs Yeates: States that they went around to Dr Vincent Tabak's house to ask if they new anything


(4): It was reported: That the first time The Yeates set eyes on Dr Vincent Tabak was in court
       David and Theresa Yeates: have stated they met Dr Vincent Tabak on the grass at the front of the house, they
       even describe that the couple walked across diagonally... They both agree that the man took a step back, they
       identify Tanja Morson with this man

(5): The Police: State it was they who found the Receipt from Tesco's
       Theresa Yeates: say's it was she who found The Tesco's receipt

(6): Colin Port: say the last known CCTV image of Joanna Yeates is at The Hophouse Pub
      DS Mark Saunder: Reveals there is CCTV of Canygne Road on Friday 17th December 2010, showing cars and
      people Milling around...
     ( Bringing me to the conclusion she didn't walk home, or didn't even reach home... )

(7): Greg: tells us of looking through clothes at trial, he does not describe said clothes as WASHING
       David Yeates tells us he saw a pile of WASHING

(8):  Dr Vincent Tabak: States that he and Joanna Yeates saw each other through kitchen window..
       Nobody: Confirms which light may have been on inside or outside the house,

( If kitchen light is on and outside light is off, there is no-way Joanna Yeates saw Dr Vincent Tabak)

(9): The Leymans: Hear Scream on the night of the 17th December 2010
       Kingdon: States he heard someone cry "Help me".. mid morning of the 18th December 2010

(10): A blurry image of a car driving on Park Street on the 18th December 2010, is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak
        driving
       No CCTV: Of Dr Vincent Tabak leaving Canygne Road in the Megane that they say he drove and used.... No
       CCTV from DS Marks Saunders CCTV footage, proving when Dr Vincent Tabak left or arrived at Canygne Road ,
       whether in car, on foot or riding bike.....  No CCTV footage of any of Dr Vincent Tabak's journeys anywhere.

(11): Chris Yeates: puts on the family website, helpfindJo, that he was in a state of despair on the 19th December
        2010
        Greg Reardon: Doesn't contact the Police about his concerns until 12:45am on Monday the 20th December
        2010

(12): BDP: put on their website that Joanna Yeates body has been found.. The date of the article is the 24th
        December 2010
        Joanna Yeates: Was not officially found until the 25th December 2010

(13): Two bottles: of Cider were purchased one was open
         Greg: Drank from stale open bottle of cider...

( We do not know if Greg finished drinking said bottle of cider, Did he spit it out ,or continue drinking it?? Was the fact that the Cider was flat another concern to Greg as to where Joanna Yeates could be??)

(14): The first: persons to contact Rebecca Scott were The Police
         Greg: stated he had rung around her friends

( Are we to conclude from that statement that Rebecca Scott and Joanna Yeates were no longer friends?? Or Greg
  didn't ring Rebecca Scott?)

I could keep going with this but, I have chores to do...... 
     

Where can I find the evidence for this? And what is the relevance of whether he drank it or spat it out? Can you explain?

[Nicholas]

Ok... Lets try being simple, and explain to me why there are so many contradictions:

(1): Colin Port: At The Leveson Colin Port stated that CJ SAW people at the gate
       CJ: On the other hand tells the Leveson, he heard people at the gate....

( There must be a written statement that conclusively proves who is telling an untruth....)


(2): Greg Reardon: Tells the court, that it was he who found the earring Belonging to Joanna Yeates
       David yeates: Said he found an earring under a pile of clothes (i Believe)

       ( Adding to his later statement about the washing pile)

(3): At trial: we are told a Police Officer and Greg went around to Dr Vincent Tabak home to ask if they had noticed
       anything
      Mrs Yeates: States that they went around to Dr Vincent Tabak's house to ask if they new anything


(4): It was reported: That the first time The Yeates set eyes on Dr Vincent Tabak was in court
       David and Theresa Yeates: have stated they met Dr Vincent Tabak on the grass at the front of the house, they
       even describe that the couple walked across diagonally... They both agree that the man took a step back, they
       identify Tanja Morson with this man

(5): The Police: State it was they who found the Receipt from Tesco's
       Theresa Yeates: say's it was she who found The Tesco's receipt

(6): Colin Port: say the last known CCTV image of Joanna Yeates is at The Hophouse Pub
      DS Mark Saunder: Reveals there is CCTV of Canygne Road on Friday 17th December 2010, showing cars and
      people Milling around...
     ( Bringing me to the conclusion she didn't walk home, or didn't even reach home... )

(7): Greg: tells us of looking through clothes at trial, he does not describe said clothes as WASHING
       David Yeates tells us he saw a pile of WASHING

(8):  Dr Vincent Tabak: States that he and Joanna Yeates saw each other through kitchen window..
       Nobody: Confirms which light may have been on inside or outside the house,

( If kitchen light is on and outside light is off, there is no-way Joanna Yeates saw Dr Vincent Tabak)

(9): The Leymans: Hear Scream on the night of the 17th December 2010
       Kingdon: States he heard someone cry "Help me".. mid morning of the 18th December 2010

(10): A blurry image of a car driving on Park Street on the 18th December 2010, is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak
        driving
       No CCTV: Of Dr Vincent Tabak leaving Canygne Road in the Megane that they say he drove and used.... No
       CCTV from DS Marks Saunders CCTV footage, proving when Dr Vincent Tabak left or arrived at Canygne Road ,
       whether in car, on foot or riding bike.....  No CCTV footage of any of Dr Vincent Tabak's journeys anywhere.

(11): Chris Yeates: puts on the family website, helpfindJo, that he was in a state of despair on the 19th December
        2010
        Greg Reardon: Doesn't contact the Police about his concerns until 12:45am on Monday the 20th December
        2010

(12): BDP: put on their website that Joanna Yeates body has been found.. The date of the article is the 24th
        December 2010
        Joanna Yeates: Was not officially found until the 25th December 2010

(13): Two bottles: of Cider were purchased one was open
         Greg: Drank from stale open bottle of cider...

( We do not know if Greg finished drinking said bottle of cider, Did he spit it out ,or continue drinking it?? Was the fact that the Cider was flat another concern to Greg as to where Joanna Yeates could be??)

(14): The first: persons to contact Rebecca Scott were The Police
         Greg: stated he had rung around her friends

( Are we to conclude from that statement that Rebecca Scott and Joanna Yeates were no longer friends?? Or Greg
  didn't ring Rebecca Scott?)

I could keep going with this but, I have chores to do...... 
     

Again, what's the relevance, can you explain?

[Nicholas]

Ok... Lets try being simple, and explain to me why there are so many contradictions:

(1): Colin Port: At The Leveson Colin Port stated that CJ SAW people at the gate
       CJ: On the other hand tells the Leveson, he heard people at the gate....

( There must be a written statement that conclusively proves who is telling an untruth....)


(2): Greg Reardon: Tells the court, that it was he who found the earring Belonging to Joanna Yeates
       David yeates: Said he found an earring under a pile of clothes (i Believe)

       ( Adding to his later statement about the washing pile)

(3): At trial: we are told a Police Officer and Greg went around to Dr Vincent Tabak home to ask if they had noticed
       anything
      Mrs Yeates: States that they went around to Dr Vincent Tabak's house to ask if they new anything


(4): It was reported: That the first time The Yeates set eyes on Dr Vincent Tabak was in court
       David and Theresa Yeates: have stated they met Dr Vincent Tabak on the grass at the front of the house, they
       even describe that the couple walked across diagonally... They both agree that the man took a step back, they
       identify Tanja Morson with this man

(5): The Police: State it was they who found the Receipt from Tesco's
       Theresa Yeates: say's it was she who found The Tesco's receipt

(6): Colin Port: say the last known CCTV image of Joanna Yeates is at The Hophouse Pub
      DS Mark Saunder: Reveals there is CCTV of Canygne Road on Friday 17th December 2010, showing cars and
      people Milling around...
     ( Bringing me to the conclusion she didn't walk home, or didn't even reach home... )

(7): Greg: tells us of looking through clothes at trial, he does not describe said clothes as WASHING
       David Yeates tells us he saw a pile of WASHING

(8):  Dr Vincent Tabak: States that he and Joanna Yeates saw each other through kitchen window..
       Nobody: Confirms which light may have been on inside or outside the house,

( If kitchen light is on and outside light is off, there is no-way Joanna Yeates saw Dr Vincent Tabak)

(9): The Leymans: Hear Scream on the night of the 17th December 2010
       Kingdon: States he heard someone cry "Help me".. mid morning of the 18th December 2010

(10): A blurry image of a car driving on Park Street on the 18th December 2010, is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak
        driving
       No CCTV: Of Dr Vincent Tabak leaving Canygne Road in the Megane that they say he drove and used.... No
       CCTV from DS Marks Saunders CCTV footage, proving when Dr Vincent Tabak left or arrived at Canygne Road ,
       whether in car, on foot or riding bike.....  No CCTV footage of any of Dr Vincent Tabak's journeys anywhere.

(11): Chris Yeates: puts on the family website, helpfindJo, that he was in a state of despair on the 19th December
        2010
        Greg Reardon: Doesn't contact the Police about his concerns until 12:45am on Monday the 20th December
        2010

(12): BDP: put on their website that Joanna Yeates body has been found.. The date of the article is the 24th
        December 2010
        Joanna Yeates: Was not officially found until the 25th December 2010

(13): Two bottles: of Cider were purchased one was open
         Greg: Drank from stale open bottle of cider...

( We do not know if Greg finished drinking said bottle of cider, Did he spit it out ,or continue drinking it?? Was the fact that the Cider was flat another concern to Greg as to where Joanna Yeates could be??)

(14): The first: persons to contact Rebecca Scott were The Police
         Greg: stated he had rung around her friends

( Are we to conclude from that statement that Rebecca Scott and Joanna Yeates were no longer friends?? Or Greg
  didn't ring Rebecca Scott?)

I could keep going with this but, I have chores to do...... 
     

Do you mean he should have been asked during trial what light was or wasn't on?

Or are you concluding there are no witnesses to what he said?

[Nicholas]

"When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger"
https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/

"How motivated skepticism strengthens incorrect beliefs"
https://boingboing.net/2017/02/02/how-motivated-skepticism-stren.html

[justsaying]

(1): Colin Port: At The Leveson Colin Port stated that CJ SAW people at the gate
CJ: On the other hand tells the Leveson, he heard people at the gate....

I would believe CJ – he is the one who heard it. Give consideration for people making mistakes, they are after all, only human.

(2): Greg Reardon: Tells the court, that it was he who found the earring Belonging to Joanna Yeates
David yeates: Said he found an earring under a pile of clothes (i Believe)

Is it relevant who found the earring? What does it prove no matter who found it. You are reading news reports, they could have simply gotten the names mixed up...

(3): At trial: we are told a Police Officer and Greg went around to Dr Vincent Tabak home to ask if they had noticed anything Mrs Yeates: States that they went around to Dr Vincent Tabak's house to ask if they new anything

Could it not be the case that both parties did this?

(4): It was reported: That the first time The Yeates set eyes on Dr Vincent Tabak was in court David and Theresa Yeates: have stated they met Dr Vincent Tabak on the grass at the front of the house, they
even describe that the couple walked across diagonally... They both agree that the man took a step back, they identify Tanja Morson with this man

Yes it was REPORTED – which does not mean it was a truth – sensationalism Nine, it sells.

(5): The Police: State it was they who found the Receipt from Tesco's Theresa Yeates: say's it was she who found The Tesco's receipt

Does it matter who found the receipt? The fact is she was pictured on CCTV buying the pizza or whatever anyway-the receipt would have led them to Tesco...

(6): Colin Port: say the last known CCTV image of Joanna Yeates is at The Hophouse Pub DS Mark Saunder: Reveals there is CCTV of Canygne Road on Friday 17th December 2010, showing cars and
people Milling around...

The last footage of Joanna could not have been at the Hophouse pub considering they have footage of her in Tesco – A priest gave a statement saying he spoke to her near her home...

(7): Greg: tells us of looking through clothes at trial, he does not describe said clothes as WASHING
David Yeates tells us he saw a pile of WASHING

Who cares if he did not describe the clothes as “washing” it could be what he meant... He will have been upset Nine, undoubtedly.

(8): Dr Vincent Tabak: States that he and Joanna Yeates saw each other through kitchen window..
Nobody: Confirms which light may have been on inside or outside the house,

( If kitchen light is on and outside light is off, there is no-way Joanna Yeates saw Dr Vincent Tabak)

I agree – I think Tabak is lying about this!

(9): The Leymans: Hear Scream on the night of the 17th December 2010 Kingdon: States he heard someone cry "Help me".. mid morning of the 18th December 2010

Does not mean it was the same person they heard, no evidence of it being so either... Could have been people messing around...

(10): A blurry image of a car driving on Park Street on the 18th December 2010, is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak driving No CCTV: Of Dr Vincent Tabak leaving Canygne Road in the Megane that they say he drove and used.... No CCTV from DS Marks Saunders CCTV footage, proving when Dr Vincent Tabak left or arrived at Canygne Road , whether in car, on foot or riding bike..... No CCTV footage of any of Dr Vincent Tabak's journeys anywhere.

How do you know this? Just because it has not been made available online does not mean it does not exist. You were not at the trial, you do not know what was raised.

(11): Chris Yeates: puts on the family website, helpfindJo, that he was in a state of despair on the 19th December 2010 Greg Reardon: Doesn't contact the Police about his concerns until 12:45am on Monday the 20th December 2010

Maybe he was in a state of despair – parents tend to overreact do they not? Gregg may not have been as concerned as her father at that stage... People act differently...

(12): BDP: put on their website that Joanna Yeates body has been found.. The date of the article is the 24th December 2010 Joanna Yeates: Was not officially found until the 25th December 2010

Do you have a link of this? I've looked and cannot find it...

(13): Two bottles: of Cider were purchased one was open Greg: Drank from stale open bottle of cider...

Yes she bought two, opened one and did not get to finish it... What is your point on this?

(14): The first: persons to contact Rebecca Scott were The Police Greg: stated he had rung around her friends

Perhaps he rang around the friends whom he thought she could have been with... He may have just rang a few of them but not every single one of them... Perhaps the news reports are wrong... who knows?

I do not see anything sinister in any of this or anything that would lead me to believe Tabak must be innocent. I have said before you are getting your information from news reports, you should therefore allow room for some major inconsistencies - because they are news reports, not evidence...

[[...]]

I would believe CJ – he is the one who heard it. Give consideration for people making mistakes, they are after all, only human.

There is a written statement that the Police have from CJ.... That all illusive second witness statement... Said statement should have accurate information as to whether it was  CJ saw/ or CJ heard...

Is it relevant who found the earring? What does it prove no matter who found it. You are reading news reports, they could have simply gotten the names mixed up...

Yes it is important for a trial that the correct witness gives the correct testimony.... David and Theresa Yeates do not take the stand....  But its they on video who mention who found said earring....

Could it not be the case that both parties did this?

It indeed could be true... But therefore, what The yeates thought of Dr Vincent Tabak being evasive, would give a jury a fuller picture, They could also confirm if the man in the dock was the man they saw at the door with Tanja Morson

Yes it was REPORTED – which does not mean it was a truth – sensationalism Nine, it sells.

Indeed it does.....  But unless The Yeates explain to us who they saw on the grass they talk of at canygne Road, we do not know for sure if the man in the dock is the man who was with Tanja Morson on the grass...

Does it matter who found the receipt? The fact is she was pictured on CCTV buying the pizza or whatever anyway-the receipt would have led them to Tesco...

Yes it does.....  Where there finger prints on said receipt??  Why would either the Yeates or Police lie about said receipt,... If said receipt is mentioned at trial, and the wrong person is saying they found it, the picture and ideas a jury may have might change... "Please put correct witness on said stand"!!

The last footage of Joanna could not have been at the Hophouse pub considering they have footage of her in Tesco – A priest gave a statement saying he spoke to her near her home...

Why Not?? Did she go back out, turn around, at what time is the Hophouse footage of Joanna Yeates last seen on??
Maybe she was given a lift close to her home.... The preist did not know Joanna yeates so could not positively identify the woman he spoke to on that evening as Joanna yeates....

Who cares if he did not describe the clothes as “washing” it could be what he meant... He will have been upset Nine, undoubtedly.

Unset yes.... But details are important and significant no matter how small they appear to be... They can change the reflection of a Crime Scene... They may change a Juries mind... A jury may ask where all the blood was said washing... They may draw their own conclusion from Washing in neat piles, when a violent assault was supposed to have taken place...

I agree – I think Tabak is lying about this!

I think he was lying about this too... I cannot see why he would gain access to a home of a woman not happy to be on her own... She had a spy hole in which to view who was outside her door... She could have talked through the intercom

Does not mean it was the same person they heard, no evidence of it being so either... Could have been people messing around...

The screams in deed may not be connected to Joanna yeates murder... when their is no definative prove of the time of death and on which day Joanna Yeates died... Dr Vincent Tabak lies as you have pointed out... So at what time and what day did Joanna Yeates meet her fate???

How do you know this? Just because it has not been made available online does not mean it does not exist. You were not at the trial, you do not know what was raised.

No I was not at trial true... But even if they pretend it is Dr Vincent tabak car, he is not on his way to ASDA to the dispose of Joanna yeates body.... The CCTV image is from the 18th December 2010... The Crime and disposal of Joanna yeates was on the 17th December 2010

Maybe he was in a state of despair – parents tend to overreact do they not? Gregg may not have been as concerned as her father at that stage... People act differently...

It was her brother Chris who was in in state of despair... When was he informed that Joanna yeates seeing as it was around 12:00 midnight that Greg phoned them...... How could he know the day before??

Do you have a link of this? I've looked and cannot find it...

From page:

JO YEATES
24/12/2010
Our thoughts are with the family and friends and colleagues of Jo Yeates, landscape architect in our Bristol studio, whose disappearance and tragic death over the Christmas period remain a mystery.

STATEMENT FROM KEITH PAVEY, HEAD OF BDP’S BRISTOL STUDIO
"We are struggling to come to terms with the tragic and untimely death of our colleague Jo Yeates. She was a very popular member of staff and a  talented and committed professional with a rewarding career in front of her. She will be sorely missed and our heartfelt thoughts go out to her parents, Teresa and David,  and to her long-term partner Greg, who is an architect with BDP, also in Bristol. We are currently considering the most appropriate way of remembering Jo and will issue a further statement in due course."

http://www.bdp.com/en/latest/news/2010/Jo-Yeates/

Yes she bought two, opened one and did not get to finish it... What is your point on this?

How stale was said Cider?? Why didn't said cider bottle get forensically tested, Could there be a mixture of the Killers DNA in said Cider bottle, besides Greg Reardon and Joanna yeates??

Perhaps he rang around the friends whom he thought she could have been with... He may have just rang a few of them but not every single one of them... Perhaps the news reports are wrong... who knows?

Greg had Joanna Yeates phone.... Greg could have checked who she had been in contact with... I know Greg had said phone, because when Rebecca Scott looked at the message from the Police, she immediately rang Jo's phone and Greg answered....

I do not see anything sinister in any of this or anything that would lead me to believe Tabak must be innocent. I have said before you are getting your information from news reports, you should therefore allow room for some major inconsistencies - because they are news reports, not evidence...

Inconsistences yes... But some of my information is from The Leveson Inquiry and video evidence of said people speaking.....



[attachment deleted by admin]

[Nicholas]

Another bug bare I have, was that we went straight to sentencing.... I thought sentencing reports were gathered first and a date would be set for sentencing?? The fact that no medical assessment appears to have been done and used in mitigation, has me wondering if there could have been anything in Dr Vincent Tabak's history that may have reflected a reason for him to behave as they are telling us, completely out of character...

Vincent Tabak, like the rest of us, is protected by human rights laws.

There's no doubt he would have had assessments and medical reports completed. He may even have been diagnosed with a personality disorder of some description?

Both the prosecution and defence teams would have been aware of said reports and of there findings. Which incidentally may well be why his barrister defended him the way he did during trial.

[justsaying]

As I say Nine, it is up to you if you accept the totally innocent explanations or not - nothing you have brought up proves anything one way or another...

For the record, I think the date on the DPB website was a mistake - they do happen...

[justsaying]

Not all cases are adjourned for pre-sentence reports...

Just saying...

[[...]]

There is a written statement that the Police have from CJ.... That all illusive second witness statement... Said statement should have accurate information as to whether it was  CJ saw/ or CJ heard...

I'll rephrase that.... There should be a written 2nd witness statement that CJ supplied to the Police, If not a recorded phone call from CJ to the Police....

Ah Ha..... is that why we haven't seen CJ's second witness statement.... Is it just a recording of a phone conversation that CJ rang about to add to his original statement??

Now that is a good possibility....

His second witness statement could just be a recording...  i'd have to look again...

Joanna Yeates’ murder and my arrest
6. As I have said, Ms Yeates went missing on Friday 17
December 2010. She was reported to the Police as
missing on Sunday 19 December 2010.

Here CJ tells The Leveson Inquiry that Joanna yeates was reported Missing to The Police on Sunday 19th December 2010..

Meaning before 12:00 midnight.... Meaning someone reported said crime possibily before The yeates had been informed... But it cannot have been Greg as he called the Police at 12:45am on Monday 20th december 2010

Unless Greg called The Police twice.... Where is the phone recording of the message the police recieved on the 19th December 2010??

  I voluntarily agreed to assist the Police by
providing them with two statements.

CJ does not expand in which form either of these statements were given....


http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122175126/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf

[justsaying]

No I do not agree with that... He could have said the 19th in error as she was reported missing within the hour after midnight... again Nine you need to stop taking things so literally, people make mistakes...

[justsaying]

I will never fully recover from the events of last year. The incalculable effect of what was written about me by these highly influential tabloid newspapers is something from which it will be difficult ever to escape


So much for him being able to move on - unsurprising when people still questions his actions...

[[...]]

No I do not agree with that... He could have said the 19th in error as she was reported missing within the hour after midnight... again Nine you need to stop taking things so literally, people make mistakes...

Who are you referring too??

CJ or Chris Yeates ?? 

CJ has signed a sworn statement for an Inquiry... would be lie??

[Nicholas]

Not all cases are adjourned for pre-sentence reports...

Just saying...

If you wish to confuse Nine further, that's your perogative.

As you've pointed out to me on numerous occasions, we are discussing Tabaks case - not "all cases"

He was on remand which would have given those assessing him an opportunity to compile reports before his trial and sentencing.