The Defence Will State Their Case

[[...]]

Did anyone in Dr Vincent Tabak's defence team, know that Dr Vincent Tabak had conversed with CJ that weekend??

They may not have been aware of that fact..

Did CJ mention in either of his 2 witness statements that he had spoken to Dr Vincent Tabak that weekend??

He may not have done.. And he probably didn't, because it wasn't relevant at the time..

CJ... The Leveson...

My second statement to the police oil Wednesday 22 December 2010
,
On Tuesday 21 December 2010 1 provided a statement to the police who were at that
time 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 fine 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 fiat and took a second statement about this. The
officer asked me if one of tile 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 that 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 rite media.

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 fine 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.
,


CJ only accounted for what he thought was relevant at the time to what may or may not have happened to Joanna Yeates...

Dr Vincent Tabaks movements were not in question at the time... Therefore they may not be anything in either of CJ's witness statements that are relevant to Dr Vincent Tabak..

But subsequently CJ, has divulged that he in fact spoke to Dr Vincent Tabak that weekend on 2 occasions..

Maybe that relevant information was not only in CJ telling us, but what he stated when interviewed when he was under arrest...

So maybe CJ's statements about Dr Vincent Tabak could be viewed as new evidence??

Maybe that's the reason CJ wasn't called as a witness, he never stated that he'd spoken to him in his 2 statements...

But now we know differently....

[Caroline]

Who said it would help the prosecution??

Well it wouldn't help the defense given that Tabak admitted to killing Joanna and CJ wouldn't have known his motive. That's what the trial was about - it's a pity you don't understand that.

[Real justice]

Did anyone in Dr Vincent Tabak's defence team, know that Dr Vincent Tabak had conversed with CJ that weekend??

They may not have been aware of that fact..

Did CJ mention in either of his 2 witness statements that he had spoken to Dr Vincent Tabak that weekend??

He may not have done.. And he probably didn't, because it wasn't relevant at the time..

CJ... The Leveson...

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 fine 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.
,


CJ only accounted for what he thought was relevant at the time to what may or may not have happened to Joanna Yeates...

Dr Vincent Tabaks movements were not in question at the time... Therefore they may not be anything in either of CJ's witness statements that are relevant to Dr Vincent Tabak..

But subsequently CJ, has divulged that he in fact spoke to Dr Vincent Tabak that weekend on 2 occasions..

Maybe that relevant information was not only in CJ telling us, but what he stated when interviewed when he was under arrest...

So maybe CJ's statements about Dr Vincent Tabak could be viewed as new evidence??

Maybe that's the reason CJ wasn't called as a witness, he never stated that he'd spoken to him in his 2 statements...

But now we know differently....

Look, if Tabak had pleaded not guilty to killing Joanna and not guilty to manslaughter, the whole trial would have been different, the prosecution would have called different witnesses and so too would have the defence.  The fact that Tabak pleaded guilty to killing Joanna  this then would have changed the whole structure of the trial, it became about Intent or not intentional.

[Caroline]

Did anyone in Dr Vincent Tabak's defence team, know that Dr Vincent Tabak had conversed with CJ that weekend??

They may not have been aware of that fact..

Did CJ mention in either of his 2 witness statements that he had spoken to Dr Vincent Tabak that weekend??

He may not have done.. And he probably didn't, because it wasn't relevant at the time..

CJ... The Leveson...

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 fine 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.
,


CJ only accounted for what he thought was relevant at the time to what may or may not have happened to Joanna Yeates...

Dr Vincent Tabaks movements were not in question at the time... Therefore they may not be anything in either of CJ's witness statements that are relevant to Dr Vincent Tabak..

But subsequently CJ, has divulged that he in fact spoke to Dr Vincent Tabak that weekend on 2 occasions..

Maybe that relevant information was not only in CJ telling us, but what he stated when interviewed when he was under arrest...

So maybe CJ's statements about Dr Vincent Tabak could be viewed as new evidence??

Maybe that's the reason CJ wasn't called as a witness, he never stated that he'd spoken to him in his 2 statements...

But now we know differently....

FFS!!!!!! The reason he wasn't called as a witness is because such a conversation was IRRELEVANT!

[Caroline]

Look, if Tabak had pleaded not guilty to killing Joanna and not guilty to manslaughter, the whole trial would have been different, the prosecution would have called different witnesses and so too would have the defence.  The fact that Tabak pleaded guilty to killing Joanna  this then would have changed the whole structure of the trial, it became about Intent or not intentional.

Why is this so difficult to understand? 

[Real justice]

Why is this so difficult to understand? 

Prosecution, “right your honour, we’re going to spend three weeks showing the jury that Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates”.

Defence, “ Objection, my client has already admitted he killed her”

Prosecution “ We don’t accept his word, we’re going to prove it and hopefully he might get off”

 

[mrswah]

You have absolutely no idea whatsoever, what the hell would you bring a witness in for that’s going to help the prosecution.  Unbelievable, it just shows your lack of knowledge. 

Can just see it, W Clegg, “we’ve bought this witness in your honour, to prove to the court that my client is dishonest and doesn’t tell the truth, Mr Tabak admits he tried to set this poor gentleman up for a crime he didn’t commit named Christopher Jefferies, which resulted in a witch hunt by the press”   

Tabak had nothing to do with the fact that  CJ  was hounded by the press.

[jixy]

Tabak had nothing to do with the fact that  CJ  was hounded by the press.

You are being just like .... again! all the points raised and thats what you say! Real Justice said it resulted in a witch hunt not that it was ALL Tabaks fault!

[jixy]

Did anyone in Dr Vincent Tabak's defence team, know that Dr Vincent Tabak had conversed with CJ that weekend??


So maybe CJ's statements about Dr Vincent Tabak could be viewed as new evidence??

And? he pleaded guilty, said sorry and has never battled to change either his conviction or sentence. That should tell you something!

[Real justice]

Tabak had nothing to do with the fact that  CJ  was hounded by the press.

Tabak was 100 per cent responsible, if he hadn’t killed JY, this would never have happened. It really is that simple.

[jixy]

Tabak was 100 per cent responsible, if he hadn’t killed JY, this would never have happened. It really is that simple.

What a very strange way they have at looking at this whole case. Fingers can be pointed in every direction but never in his!

People are wrong for running, searching commenting not commenting but him with his disgusting porn lies and his inability to control himself however he came to be in Jo's flat that is ok because for some reason they want to think he couldnt possibly have done this.

No one knew that side to him that was eventually revealed. He knows he is a monster and that is why he never challenged his conviction, he just thought he was smart enough to get away with it!

[Real justice]

What a very strange way they have at looking at this whole case. Fingers can be pointed in every direction but never in his!

People are wrong for running, searching commenting not commenting but him with his disgusting porn lies and his inability to control himself however he came to be in Jo's flat that is ok because for some reason they want to think he couldnt possibly have done this.

No one knew that side to him that was eventually revealed. He knows he is a monster and that is why he never challenged his conviction, he just thought he was smart enough to get away with it!

Don’t let it worry you Jixy. I can live with the fact that I battle for the truth and the honour of such a beautiful young girl taken from her family by a perverted sex crazed monster,

[jixy]

Don’t let it worry you Jixy. I can live with the fact that I battle for the truth and the honour of such a beautiful young girl taken from her family by a perverted sex crazed monster,

Dont lose that way of thinking...this thread is crazy! whenever a vaild point is raised it is just overlooked with huge posts to follow that have no connection to the points, just deflecting!

[[...]]

What a very strange way they have at looking at this whole case. Fingers can be pointed in every direction but never in his!

People are wrong for running, searching commenting not commenting but him with his disgusting porn lies and his inability to control himself however he came to be in Jo's flat that is ok because for some reason they want to think he couldnt possibly have done this.

No one knew that side to him that was eventually revealed. He knows he is a monster and that is why he never challenged his conviction, he just thought he was smart enough to get away with it!

Ok Jixy... lets say he viewed porn.... 

I am trying to establish how it was even possible for him to kill Joanna yeates...

People have many disgusting habits, we can't put them all in prison for that reason.... If they have done an act that constitutes a custodial sentence, then prison it will be...

But you cannot and should not put someone in prison for a crime they have not committed..

Ok lets say the child images are true.... (Shocking that type of behaviour)

He needs to be charged for that....

If he is charged for a crime he didn't commit, it means whom ever really committed said crime has gotten away with it...

And that's the point....  Just because he said a story on the stand that doesn't really add up and everyone has accepted said story, doesn't mean it is true ...

Thinking of reasons why he may have admitted responsibility...

* He could have been covering for someone else....

* He could have been tricked into believing he was responsible

* He could have hacked computers in another country and didn't want to be extradited (unlikely)

* He  may know who did it

* He could have been arrested and to be charged under joint enterprise (killers was a term used)

* Or he maybe just that geek whom has done nothing and got wrapped up in this... and doesn't know his arse from
  his elbow, unable to answer over 80 questions..


There may be other reasons, I do not know... But really my point being, you need to have the right person in prison for the right crime.... The Case isn't therefore done and dusted... Justice has not been done...

As the real killer is walking around free, and may do it again, knowing that they have already gotten away with it...
It doesn't make the streets safer, and it doesn't make someone elses daughter safer..

Yes, it may help to clear the crime rate up, but that is just a fallacy...(imo)

[jixy]

I have to say i find your views on this crime unbelievable. For one porn isnt just pictures. When its consenting adults yes but when it is not that is a whole different situation. Im sick and tired of people who look at child porn being defended with the words its only pictures, they never touched a child etc. They did with their eyes, their need to view it is why its created and new victims suffer!

You can go round in circles saying he covered for someone, he was brainwashed etc in fact you can put whatever spin on it you like! that does not make it true!

He may be a geek who got wrapped up in this? yes with that I have to agree. When he went into her flat and killed her, he got a bit more than wrapped up in this!

There is NO evidence to say he admitted to a crime he didnt do but yes i fully believe he didnt give a full accurate account of exactly what took place. He is an intelligent man and gave a watered down version to help his attempts at getting away with murder

So you are saying ALL the evidence is one huge conspiracy and the killer(s) are still walking free . Really?