The Defence Will State Their Case

[Caroline]

I have been thinking for many years now!

I can't help thinking that VT was fitted up, despite the  apparent confession, DNA, and blood, etc.

I only hope that, one day, we will know for sure, one way or another.


I cannot believe VT killed Joanna.

What is 'apparent' about the confession?

Most of us do know for sure but there are people who even believe that Peter Sutcliffe is innocent. The FACT that Tabak isn't claiming he's innocent is surely evidence that he was involved?

[Caroline]

Yes you are correct he did not say that.... This is what was stated....

There is therefore no doubt about the identity of the man who killed Miss Yeates or that Mr Jefferies is innocent of any involvement in it. 

My statement is based on not knowing what is accurate, anymore.....

How can that statement be made?? i am not saying CJ is not innocent, I am saying how can they use Dr Vincent Tabak's name as the person who is guilty of the Murder before a trial had taken place???

I keep saying at any time he could have changed his plea before trial.... (imo)  There was no story on the 29th July 2011 bu Dr Vincent Tabak... No evidence supporting Dr Vincent Tabak being guilty, we don't get that until trial...

There are months away from trial... He could have changed his solicitor again... he could have done anything, but we get this..........

Whether it is CJ or anyone else.... They cannot say CJ is innocent because Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty..... THAT is ridiculous.... (imo)... CJ may well have been innocent.... But in July 2011, no-one had been convicted for The Murder of Joanna Yeates!!!!

This is why I say I do not know what is real or not...... No-one is Innocent because they say another is guilty, that cannot be right, especially when the purported guilty person hasn't faced trial.....

Thats why I say things like this case is ludicrous.......  Evidence could and should have come forward.... All the evidence cannot have been collected by this time.... How in the eyes of the LAW was Dr Vincent Tabak guilty of killing Joanna Yeates before he had a trial!!!

The System is wrong!!

See looks like they didn't need a jury.... done and dusted by July 2011..... Complete set of idiots!

What is this case really about..... !!!

What actually happened at The Old Bailey???  For them to unequivocally state, even before a trial... before Dr Vincent Tabak had said he retracts his plea, are we saying that Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty of killing Joanna Yeates!!!


Has it something to do with that unique number he apparently had at The Old Bailey U20110387

How does anyone have 2 different case numbers for the same case??


http://iclr.co.uk/document/2011201901/%5B2011%5D%20EWHC%202074%20(Admin)/html?query=tabak&filter=content-available%3A%22Transcript%22&fullSearchFields=&page=1&sort=relevance&pageSize=10

Of course they can say that VT is GUILTY of the killing because he ADMITTED IT! The only part that they were sure of, was his alleged 'diminished responsibility'. He wasn't 'innocent until proven guilty' of the killing but of whether he murdered her or not. Why can't you see this? It's simple!

[Caroline]

Thanks guys.... I love it when you take the pee out of me... Gives me a real sense of purpose, makes me feel a valuable member of the public....

I'll leave you lot to play tag, I'm off... I cannot do anything and nothing will change....  I would have said it's been a pleasure... But not really..... 

It's not a case of taking the pee! You make a claim (such as the CCTV stuff yesterday) and when it's explained, you make no further comment and just move onto something else. Why even bother to debate if you're not prepared to take the replies into consideration?

[justsaying]

Of course they can say that VT is GUILTY of the killing because he ADMITTED IT! The only part that they were sure of, was his alleged 'diminished responsibility'. He wasn't 'innocent until proven guilty' of the killing but of whether he murdered her or not. Why can't you see this? It's simple!

This could not have been made any clearer and has been explained many times on this thread, I do not think Nine would be convinced if Tabak confessed himself. Oh wait, he already has!

[Caroline]

Well the law is wrong.....  You cannot and should not start on the stand as a GUILTY PERSON......

I have made a complete fool of myself....  But it hasn't and will not change the fact that I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent... no matter what everyone thinks....


I am deflated...  But I can only blame myself for that.....

I'm sure you guys know the law better than me,... and what ever you have said hasn't changed my mind....

No-one should go to prison based on a confession that has no supporting evidence.... 

Anyone could say that they killed Joanna Yeates.... doesn't make it true! 

I had a Spartacus moment play in my head then.... Do we all start saying we did something we didn't... just to prove how crap our system is!!

   

I do not know why this case bothers me so much... I keep saying.... But it does.....
And i will never change anyones mind on it... I have no connections to do anything about it.... 

So I will go with my belief that he is Innocent.... And stop annoying you all......

Why do you keeps saying there was no supporting evidence when .....

"Tabak’s DNA was later discovered on her chest, while police also uncovered clothing fibres and blood spots linking Miss Yeates to his silver Renault Megane car."

[mrswah]

What changed your mind? You have claimed on this thread before that you do not suggest he is innocent...

I have always suggested that he might be innocent, but, of course, I cannot know for sure. Of course he could be guilty-------------------

[[...]]

It's not a case of taking the pee! You make a claim (such as the CCTV stuff yesterday) and when it's explained, you make no further comment and just move onto something else. Why even bother to debate if you're not prepared to take the replies into consideration?

Nobody is really debating on this topic......

Of course they can say that VT is GUILTY of the killing because he ADMITTED IT! The only part that they were sure of, was his alleged 'diminished responsibility'. He wasn't 'innocent until proven guilty' of the killing but of whether he murdered her or not. Why can't you see this? It's simple!

Shouldn't he be innocent until proven guilty!!

This could not have been made any clearer and has been explained many times on this thread, I do not think Nine would be convinced if Tabak confessed himself. Oh wait, he already has!

Yes, you have told me I am wrong.......

Why do you keeps saying there was no supporting evidence when .....

"Tabak’s DNA was later discovered on her chest, while police also uncovered clothing fibres and blood spots linking Miss Yeates to his silver Renault Megane car."

That can be explained away as any good defence lawyer, who believes that his client is Innocent could do....

______________________________________________________________________________________
                                                     

                                                   

   

After it became obvious that, with his day job, it would take a decade to write the book, a ghost writer was drafted in, in the form of the journalist John Troop, known as Troupy.

‘Troupy had been a fixture in Fleet Street for many years and had become the East Anglia correspondent of the Sun. He was caught up in Operation Elveden — the Metropolitan police’s campaign to stop journalists paying public officials for stories – and I was asked to defend him, having recently successfully defended the head of security of News International in the News of the World phone hacking trial’.

So I found who wrote the book........ Then I believe I have found my answer as to why I have no-one saying any different on this thread.....

You're all journalists, therefore cannot say anything on this subject that differs from the original narrative.... Even the journalist who wrote this book sticks to the narrative, I say that after he called me a wacko when I tried to point something out.....

So really I have still been talking to myself, because no-one will say anything anyway...... 

Again.... This is why I will never get anywhere... If no-one will say anything different from the narrative, for whatever reason, (gagged maybe), then I can get no further with this on here....

And it matters not what I think, because what ever I say everyone will deny it.....  Shame its taken me so long to cotton on.... Could have saved myself all this time....  But hey ho....



https://legalhackette.com/2018/10/05/legal-hackette-lunches-with-william-clegg-qc/

[jixy]

Each and every day people enter a court room and have pleaded guilty. It is perfectly normal and acceptable.

The innocent til proven guilty applies when someone either IS innocent or decides to chance it and see what happens

We dont have to be Journos to see that Tabak decided to give the best version he could about what happened that night.

I seriously doubt he was invited in... what was on his mind, we will never know! Either way, in he went and now Jo is dead!

No mistreatment no broken rules just a guilty man who thought he could either get away with his tale and manslaughter be the result or he seriously believed what happened was an accident and that is the sentence he deserved

Sadly as there were only 2 people there and one is dead,  Jo cannot tell us the full details of her death

You have blamed EVERYONE connected to this case, loosely or otherwise but never Tabak. Now i find that very strange!

[Caroline]

We're all journalists? 

[jixy]

I did always want to be a Journalist when I was at school and a drummer oh and a Police woman. So close 

[Caroline]

I did always want to be a Journalist when I was at school and a drummer oh and a Police woman. So close 

I used to write a TV critique for a local web based magazine - does that count? Hardly Pulitzer Prize stuff 

[Myster]

An' I'm more wino than journo... hic!!

[mrswah]

I see I'm communicating with some interesting people then!!

I was a secondary school teacher (now somewhat happily  retired) , for my sins!!

[John]

I know its the weekend so can we please avoid the usual conflicts.  Posts should be constructive but above all amiable. TY

[[...]]

DCI Gareth Bevan appeals for Pizza

Em.. ok... I believe Joanna reached her home address in Friday evening and this would have been at some time shortly after 8:30pm in the evening. This is because we have found within the flat her coat, her mobile phone and keys.

Erm... I know that from CCTV she went to Tesco's in Clifton Village and she purchased a Pizza ...erm... I have here the pizza that is similar in all respects to the one we believe she purchased which is a Tesco's finest erm.. tomato and mozzerella ,basil and pesto pizza.

Within the flat we can find no evidence of this Pizza, or any of the wrappings and so, I would like to make an appeal, firstly for anyone who has any information where Joanna was is now, or any information to can indicate whats happened to her, but would also like to make an appeal for anyone who knows where this pizza is or where any of the wrappings are or where the box is.

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/missing-woman-joanna-yeates-press-conference-with-news-footage/691670164

This next clip has the news anchor reporting.... same image same clip,

From there an unlikely looking piece of evidence might emerge, discarded receipt reveals that she bought a Pizza just like this one,on her way home

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/detective-chief-inspector-gareth-bevan-press-conference-news-footage/659294182

The reason I started  looking again was this clip, I wasn't sure if it was the same person.... looks similar in all respects but is it??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de4f8OqwJPU

Ok.... back to the first 2 clips....

I know that from CCTV she went to Tesco's in Clifton Village and she purchased a Pizza

Why didn't you know from the receipt?? The two items are seperate (imo)... The CCTV is one  and The Receipt is another and those to do not match (imo)

The information clearly comes from the CCTV, now they would have followed Joanna Yeates journey from The Ram and  seen on CCTV which direction she went in....  Followed her movements and seen the clip of her on CCTV purchasing a pizza...

Within the flat we can find no evidence of this Pizza, or any of the wrappings

Is he saying what i believe he is saying????  No evidence means NOTHING... No Pizza, not wrappings no box and NO RECEIPT!

discarded receipt reveals that she bought a Pizza just like this one,on her way home

Now the comment about a discarded receipt is interesting, we have always presumed it was found in the Flat, but that might not be the case.....  The reciept should indicate what type of Pizza she purchased, as there would be a code for said Pizza on the receipt... But DCI Gareth Bevan is unsure of the exact type of Pizza that Joanna Yeates purchased, he says: I have here the pizza that is similar in all respects to the one we believe she purchased

Why similar?? he should know.... We Believe she purchased?? They should know!!

So The discarded receipt shows that it is: Tesco's finest tomato and mozzerella ,basil and pesto pizza. But is it the type of Pizza that Joanna Yeates actually purchased.... It is like the actual receipt that Joanna Yeates should have had from buying the Pizza??

The idea that they found a discarded receipt has me thinking..... They searched tons of rubbish, we have all assumed that they were looking for the Pizza, which in itself would have been useless.... I think they were looking for the receipt...

It's the obvious answer (imo) why search for a pizza?? or box??  Searching for a receipt make much more sense...

We have had confusing info about this receipt, at trial I believe that it is The Police who find the receipt, yet  on video we have Mrs Yeates telling us it was she who found the receipt in Joanna Yeates coat pocket....

I do not know what to make of those claims by either, to be honest... I just try and untangle what the reports and video have stated and come to another conclusion....

Is the receipt that Mrs Yeates found not the correct receipt?? Is that why at trial we are told it is the Police who find the receipt?

Just going back to the discarded receipt, if the receipt was discarded, where was it discarded, is that why the Police were searching Joanna Yeates route home to find the original receipt ??

Am I misinterpreting what DCI Gareth Bevan is stating?? when he says that there was NO evidence of the Pizza?? Because No evidence to me means absolutely nothing stating that Joanna Yeates bought a Pizza from Tesco's... is this why they take the Pizza apart for us, to make it appear that it is an actual pizza that they are looking for?

When in reality it was to point out that not even a receipt for the Pizza was at the flat.... Mr and Mrs Yeates have stated some odd things and I do not know what to make of them... Again, Mr Yeates and his recollection of a pile of washing we never heard of..... Mrs Yeates and the Receipt.... were they deliberately trying to let us know something??

Because if my understanding of what DCI Gareth Bevan is saying, then they were never looking for the Pizza itself, they were looking for the evidence that Joanna Yeates bought the Pizza and which actual Pizza she purchased and the receipt of purchase....

We wouldn't then be talking of similar in all respects to the one we believe she purchased.... (imo)

We know the Police reveal what the choose at these press conferences, and invariably there's a purpose behind this ... So was the real purpose about of this appeal about the RECEIPT" and not the actual Pizza??? Where they letting someone know that was what they were actually looking for??

One more point..... if at trial the Police state it was they whom found the receipt, was the actual receipt ever disclosed??

Taking someones word is all well and good , but evidence should back it up.... What was said on the receipt that should have been in evidence?? And was it the correct receipt?? Because if i am correct in my conclusions... there should be two receipts..... (imo)

Edit....

here's a thought.... Does the receipt that Mrs Yeates found and The CCTV footage at Tesco's time stamps match??  Or does the receipt that the Police possibly found match the time stamp with the CCTV footage at Tesco's??... We know that the CCTV footage time stamp has been edited.... (imo)

They have changed the time that she went to Tesco's on many occasions... We have had a range of times..

So does the receipt match???


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeW_Jwn43g0