The Defence Will State Their Case

[jixy]

How do these thoughts get into your head?

[Myster]

I hope you understand my doubts mrswah... After cross referencing so much information that makes no sense, The only conclusion I keep coming too is he real or not real...

Virtually everyone here believes he is guilty, now I can only base that on his apparent confession and Manslaughter plea...

Nothing supports this plea, everything about this case is out in the open before a trial, nothing new or different came to trial,

The evidence that was used, ie searches and texts could quite easily have been challenged, the low copy DNA could have been challenged, the fact that the forensic company can apparently turn around in 48 hours all of the testing including suspects clothes, when at that point in time they cannot have had Dr Vincent Tabak's clothing, where even if the DNA matched anyone from that building, it could be explained away, based on the fact they used gates, doors, hallway to main entrance, all making it possible for everyone DNA to be anywhere, plus Bernard the cat went into flat's, he could have picked up DNA from people stroking him...

The evidence at trial, is.... easy to explain away.... The story on the stand, is.... easy to disbelieve, seeing as it all comes from information already reported at the time in one form or another...

Over 20 witness statements read out, again hearsay evidence... The two most important people missing from trial, that being his girlfriend Tanja Morson whom lived with Dr Vincent Tabak and was with him for most part that weekend.. And CJ... whom as I have said many times, by his own admission conversed with Dr Vincent Tabak on two occasions that weekend... And that fact alone makes me ask why he was allowed to be a core participant at the Leveson...

It's like a bad dream, always there, but nothing changes... Nothing makes sense at all...

So, I come back to the fact that I am unsure about who Dr Vincent Tabak is... I do not understand his silence, I do not understand why his family do not say anything... After all this time and nothing....

Therefore i wonder if this trial is just a story, I wonder if Joanna Yeates is a cold case, as I was lead to believe..

With no-one within the justice system appearing to bat an eyelid about this case, when the chain of command is first broken, when people are allowed on the second scene of crime, before forensics have been completed... That they wouldn't at least be a little curious to know what happened, I am sure many lawyers are aware, people plead guilty for many reasons when it is not them or cannot be them,..

Who checked all the evidence?

And all still believe he is guilty? Without question.... Odd that, not even one lawyer being a little inquisitive about a case that all the evidence was out in the media before trial.... And it not registering one little bit....

So that is partly why I do not know if Dr Vincent Tabak is a real person, or whether he is known by another name....

This case is impossible, it's like trying to plait piss....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmali3F29Ss

That quote is from CJ... Murder at Christmas program,  the date it is published is the 29th October 2010, yet Sky News used it prior...

How are you being interviewed by SKY News on the very day, Dr Vincent Tabak is being sentenced, when the clip is from the commissioned program meaning it had to be made before, (imo),...

Because that is how it appears to me...

I find it odd, the making of this program and CJ's involvement, when he didn't appear at trial as a witness, I do not know why, and i do not know CJ's reasoning for his many appearances...  I have said before i do not know if he is doing it to keep the case alive for Dr Vincent Tabak or whatever other reason....

Therefore the trial and anything to do with Dr Vincent Tabak comes across to me as a complete fabrication, a story, jackanory...

And that's why I do not know if he is real anymore... Maybe he is and maybe he is in prison.... And if that is the case, this case needs looking at again... (imo)

Why don't you stop winding everybody up here.  Just write to William Clegg QC and see what he thinks of your ludicrous ideas, if he can be bothered to reply.

[[...]]

How do these thoughts get into your head?

Cannot answer that question... Thoughts in anyone head are just that,.. thoughts, uncontrollable mostly, unless a person choses to concentrate on said thoughts..

[[...]]

Why don't you stop winding everybody up here.  Just write to William Clegg QC and see what he thinks of your ludicrous ideas, if he can be bothered to reply.

And what would that actually achieve? If representing Dr Vincent Tabak didn't throw up any questions in the first place, then it won't make any difference now, will it...

[[...]]

Why don't you stop winding everybody up here.  Just write to William Clegg QC and see what he thinks of your ludicrous ideas, if he can be bothered to reply.

Here's a thought, what did Clegg do? I mean , whom did he interview about Dr Vincent Tabak, ?? any of the neighbours including CJ?.. Tanja Morson??

I do not know what evidence was collected by the defence, and it should have been, and if that didn't happen, the only reason I can think of was Dr Vincent Tabak confessed he killed Joanna Yeates sooner to Clegg....  But if that was the case, why do we not know about it?

No-one knows anything until, May 2011 when Dr Vincent Tabak apparently pleads guilty to manslaughter..... So what took place before with the defence and them interviewing people whom knew Dr Vincent Tabak?? What was cross referenced?

Edit... I say confessed...... changed his plea would be more accurate...

[Myster]

Here's a thought, what did Clegg do? I mean , whom did he interview about Dr Vincent Tabak, ?? any of the neighbours including CJ?.. Tanja Morson??

I do not know what evidence was collected by the defence, and it should have been, and if that didn't happen, the only reason I can think of was Dr Vincent Tabak confessed he killed Joanna Yeates sooner to Clegg....  But if that was the case, why do we not know about it?

William Clegg will tell you all you need to know, either that or to stop being an interfering fuddy-duddy...

https://www.2bedfordrow.co.uk/barrister/william-clegg-qc/

[[...]]

William Clegg will tell you all you need to know, either that or to stop being an interfering fuddy-duddy...

https://www.2bedfordrow.co.uk/barrister/william-clegg-qc/

And what makes you believe he would do that? He's had ample opportunity, to says something and of course he is not going to is he...

Fuddy Duddy? I thought I was just a concerned citizen, but apparently you cannot even be that these days...

[APRIL]

I hope you understand my doubts mrswah... After cross referencing so much information that makes no sense, The only conclusion I keep coming too is he real or not real...

Virtually everyone here believes he is guilty, now I can only base that on his apparent confession and Manslaughter plea...

Nothing supports this plea, everything about this case is out in the open before a trial, nothing new or different came to trial,

The evidence that was used, ie searches and texts could quite easily have been challenged, the low copy DNA could have been challenged, the fact that the forensic company can apparently turn around in 48 hours all of the testing including suspects clothes, when at that point in time they cannot have had Dr Vincent Tabak's clothing, where even if the DNA matched anyone from that building, it could be explained away, based on the fact they used gates, doors, hallway to main entrance, all making it possible for everyone DNA to be anywhere, plus Bernard the cat went into flat's, he could have picked up DNA from people stroking him...

The evidence at trial, is.... easy to explain away.... The story on the stand, is.... easy to disbelieve, seeing as it all comes from information already reported at the time in one form or another...

Over 20 witness statements read out, again hearsay evidence... The two most important people missing from trial, that being his girlfriend Tanja Morson whom lived with Dr Vincent Tabak and was with him for most part that weekend.. And CJ... whom as I have said many times, by his own admission conversed with Dr Vincent Tabak on two occasions that weekend... And that fact alone makes me ask why he was allowed to be a core participant at the Leveson...

It's like a bad dream, always there, but nothing changes... Nothing makes sense at all...

So, I come back to the fact that I am unsure about who Dr Vincent Tabak is... I do not understand his silence, I do not understand why his family do not say anything... After all this time and nothing....

Therefore i wonder if this trial is just a story, I wonder if Joanna Yeates is a cold case, as I was lead to believe..

With no-one within the justice system appearing to bat an eyelid about this case, when the chain of command is first broken, when people are allowed on the second scene of crime, before forensics have been completed... That they wouldn't at least be a little curious to know what happened, I am sure many lawyers are aware, people plead guilty for many reasons when it is not them or cannot be them,..

Who checked all the evidence?

And all still believe he is guilty? Without question.... Odd that, not even one lawyer being a little inquisitive about a case that all the evidence was out in the media before trial.... And it not registering one little bit....

So that is partly why I do not know if Dr Vincent Tabak is a real person, or whether he is known by another name....

This case is impossible, it's like trying to plait piss....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmali3F29Ss

That quote is from CJ... Murder at Christmas program,  the date it is published is the 29th October 2010, yet Sky News used it prior...

How are you being interviewed by SKY News on the very day, Dr Vincent Tabak is being sentenced, when the clip is from the commissioned program meaning it had to be made before, (imo),...

Because that is how it appears to me...

I find it odd, the making of this program and CJ's involvement, when he didn't appear at trial as a witness, I do not know why, and i do not know CJ's reasoning for his many appearances...  I have said before i do not know if he is doing it to keep the case alive for Dr Vincent Tabak or whatever other reason....

Therefore the trial and anything to do with Dr Vincent Tabak comes across to me as a complete fabrication, a story, jackanory...

And that's why I do not know if he is real anymore... Maybe he is and maybe he is in prison.... And if that is the case, this case needs looking at again... (imo)

It's your own mind set which prevent any of it from making sense. You keep saying "They can't have..........." and "There wasn't time for them to..............." is about how YOU see it. You continually make it about what YOU think "they'd" be capable of. It would appear to follow, that if we go along with one of your ludicrous suggestions, and there never was a Tabak, in all likelihood, there was no murder and Joanna is living happily in LaLa Land -have you ANY idea just how bloody cruel and insulting is such a suggestion? and begs the question WHY would such a scenario be set up. Do you think the police and judiciary got bored with lack of serious crime and therefore set the whole thing up, complete with faux participants, to alleviate......................and if you think this post reads like a load of **** you should try imagining what your own read like.

[Caroline]

Nothing supports this plea, everything about this case is out in the open before a trial, nothing new or different came to trial,

BECAUSE THE MONSTER PLEADED GUILTY

[Caroline]

And what makes you believe he would do that? He's had ample opportunity, to says something and of course he is not going to is he...

Fuddy Duddy? I thought I was just a concerned citizen, but apparently you cannot even be that these days...

What makes you believe he wouldn't when you haven't attempted to even ask?

Perhaps you would be served better by being concerned about the victim instead of the perpetrator!

[[...]]

Rupert Evelyn
‏
 
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
Jo Yeates : Attorney General's office confirm to me they're considering contempt proceedings against man arrested before Yeates trial.
4:29 AM - 31 Oct 2011

https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/130969513888985088


Who is he referring to?
Who was arrested??
Contempt for what purpose?

Slightly puzzling tweet, not knowing any dates there is a range of dates to choose from.. The only contempt case I know of was that against the papers because what had been written about CJ...

So whom was this individual and what did they say?

Is this in reference to the porn? maybe, but nothing is clear in that tweet..

The attorney general is considering whether to take action over a tweet revealing Vincent Tabak's interest in hardcore pornography that was posted during his trial.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/31/attorney-general-tweet-tabak-porn

So which report is accurate??? Rupert or the Guardian, did it happen before the trial or during.... Or both?

Was a separate individual arrested before trial and could have been in contempt of court, revealing what information I do not know..
Also another individual was possibly having action taken against him/her, because of a tweet about porn during trial...

That still begs the question, who is Rupert Evelyn referring too?

Who was arrested before the trial??

[Real justice]

https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/130969513888985088


Who is he referring to?
Who was arrested??
Contempt for what purpose?

Slightly puzzling tweet, not knowing any dates there is a range of dates to choose from.. The only contempt case I know of was that against the papers because what had been written about CJ...

So whom was this individual and what did they say?

Is this in reference to the porn? maybe, but nothing is clear in that tweet..

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/31/attorney-general-tweet-tabak-porn

So which report is accurate??? Rupert or the Guardian, did it happen before the trial or during.... Or both?

Was a separate individual arrested before trial and could have been in contempt of court, revealing what information I do not know..
Also another individual was possibly having action taken against him/her, because of a tweet about porn during trial...

That still begs the question, who is Rupert Evelyn referring too?

Who was arrested before the trial??

Could have been a Tabak sympathiser trying to jeopardise the case, who knows but the Authorities acted accordingly.

Tanja’s brother also tweeted before Tabak was charged and spoken to by police, these things happen leaks within police, families and victims I’m afraid.  It’s hard to police the internet.

Jo Yeates - Cops quiz Tweeting brother
DETECTIVES are set to question the brother of Vincent Tabak’s girlfriend after he boasted he was “100% certain” who would be charged over Joanna Yeates’ murder.

[Real justice]

https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/130969513888985088


Who is he referring to?
Who was arrested??
Contempt for what purpose?

Slightly puzzling tweet, not knowing any dates there is a range of dates to choose from.. The only contempt case I know of was that against the papers because what had been written about CJ...

So whom was this individual and what did they say?

Is this in reference to the porn? maybe, but nothing is clear in that tweet..

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/31/attorney-general-tweet-tabak-porn

So which report is accurate??? Rupert or the Guardian, did it happen before the trial or during.... Or both?

Was a separate individual arrested before trial and could have been in contempt of court, revealing what information I do not know..
Also another individual was possibly having action taken against him/her, because of a tweet about porn during trial...

That still begs the question, who is Rupert Evelyn referring too?

Who was arrested before the trial??

They didn’t eventually charge him, they dropped charges,  it happened during the trial

Contempt charges have been dropped over a tweet exposing Vincent Tabak's use of violent pornography.
A blogger allegedly ignored reporting restrictions and sent the tweet during the trial of the Dutch engineer who was found guilty of murdering Jo Yeates.
Because he co-operated and the message was swiftly removed, the Attorney General decided not to pursue the case.

[APRIL]

https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/130969513888985088


Who is he referring to?
Who was arrested??
Contempt for what purpose?

Slightly puzzling tweet, not knowing any dates there is a range of dates to choose from.. The only contempt case I know of was that against the papers because what had been written about CJ...

So whom was this individual and what did they say?

Is this in reference to the porn? maybe, but nothing is clear in that tweet..

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/31/attorney-general-tweet-tabak-porn

So which report is accurate??? Rupert or the Guardian, did it happen before the trial or during.... Or both?

Was a separate individual arrested before trial and could have been in contempt of court, revealing what information I do not know..
Also another individual was possibly having action taken against him/her, because of a tweet about porn during trial...

That still begs the question, who is Rupert Evelyn referring too?

Who was arrested before the trial??

"So which report was accurate?" Ha!! How long have you got? Ya pays ya money and takes ya choice. I cannot imagine that you're so ignorant of reporting by media, that you're oblivious to the fact that there's a huge diversity in the way they "slant" information. The more reputable will probably stick to the facts as they receive them whilst the less altruistic will pick up every titbit on offer, 'modify' and run with it. Two examples of this stand out. One was the reporting -by some publications- of an horrendous crime which occurred in Essex, and briefly made international headlines, in 1985, in which the most salacious things were written of the victims. The other, more recent -relatively- and infinitely more famous, was the reporting on the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in which the most lurid 'facts' were printed. Why you think a murderous paedophile deserves more courteous treatment is beyond me.

There is an immediacy about every item which is reported. Journo's have finite time in which to make their mark. The variables involved are virtually limitless in how they go about making that mark. In the end it may come down to the fact that where humans have a hand in anything, there will be errors.

[[...]]

They didn’t eventually charge him, they dropped charges,  it happened during the trial

Contempt charges have been dropped over a tweet exposing Vincent Tabak's use of violent pornography.
A blogger allegedly ignored reporting restrictions and sent the tweet during the trial of the Dutch engineer who was found guilty of murdering Jo Yeates.
Because he co-operated and the message was swiftly removed, the Attorney General decided not to pursue the case.

Yes... I went back to the report....

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/31/attorney-general-tweet-tabak-porn

During the four-week trial orders were in place to stop the media reporting Tabak's interest in pornography depicting women being strangled during sex.

It was feared that if the jury knew of Tabak's interest in such material it would be unfairly prejudiced against him and make a fair trial impossible.

It was feared that if the jury knew of Tabak's interest in such material it would be unfairly prejudiced against him and make a fair trial impossible.

What this one little tweet... One little tweet all on it own, prejudicing a trial.... Did they forget about the thousands upon thousands of tweets and retweets that stated day in and day out that Dr Vincent Tabak had pled guilty to Manslaughter

ITV News
‏
Verified account
 
@itvnews
 19 Oct 2011
More
Reporter @rupertevelyn is again tweeting from the Jo #Yeates murder trial in Bristol. Vincent Tabak denies murder, admits manslaughter.
0 replies 1 retweet 0 likes
Reply    Retweet  1   Like 

Jon Kay
‏
Verified account
 
@jonkay01
 19 Oct 2011
More
Jury told Tabak accessed internet topics inc: weather, Jo Yeates, police appeals, vehicles, recycling, prisons, murder, manslaughter.
0 replies 2 retweets 0 likes
Reply    Retweet  2   Like 

Emma Hallett
‏
 
@EmmaLHallett
 19 Oct 2011
More
Back at Bristol Crown for Vincent Tabak trial. He denies murdering Joanna Yeates, but admits manslaughter. Jo's parents and boyfriend here.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply    Retweet    Like 

Heart Gloucs.
‏
Verified account
 
@HeartGlos
 19 Oct 2011
More
In court for Tabak trial ready to tweet the latest. Tabak admits manslaughter but denies murder
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply    Retweet    Like 

Heart West News
‏
 
@HeartWestNews
 19 Oct 2011
More
In court for Tabak trial ready to tweet the latest. Tabak admits manslaughter but denies murder
0 replies 2 retweets 0 likes
Reply    Retweet  2   Like 

Richard Payne
‏
 
@richardpayneitv
 19 Oct 2011
More
About to go into Bristol Crown Court for #Tabak trial. He admits manslaughter of Jo Yeates but denies murder. Follow my tweets.
0 replies 2 retweets 1 like
Reply    Retweet  2   Like  1

Jack Lannie
‏
 
@JackLannie
 18 Oct 2011
More
How can anyone inflict 43 injuries upon someone, strangle them for 20 seconds and then only plead manslaughter? Tabak is sick. #RIPJoYeates
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply    Retweet    Like 

And:..

Emma Hallett
‏
 
@EmmaLHallett
 21 Oct 2011
More
Vincent Tabak, 33, dutch national and Jo's next door neighbour. Admits the manslaughter of Miss Yeates, denies murder. #payeates
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply    Retweet    Like 

Rupert Evelyn
‏
 
@rupertevelyn
 21 Oct 2011
More
Bristol crown court Trial continues at 1000 with Vincent Tabak in the witness box. He denies murdering Jo yeates saying it's manslaughter
4 replies 5 retweets 0 likes
Reply  4   Retweet  5   Like 

Vickie
‏
 
@vicks_c
 20 Oct 2011
More
Been following the #Tabak trial -will be interesting to see if jury think murder or manslaughter. I thought murder but 50/50 after today!
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply    Retweet    Like 

Julia Henderson
‏
 
@_juliahenderson
 20 Oct 2011
More
manslaughter my f..king ass vincent tabak
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply  1   Retweet    Like 

Jacob Davies
‏
 
@JacobD93
 20 Oct 2011
More
In #Tabak trial, the media keep refering to him as the murderer, and he pleads guilty to manslaughter, what does that say about the trial?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply    Retweet    Like 

Esteban Juan
‏
 
@JTALJS
 20 Oct 2011
More
RT @KoolHwhip: How can this tabak guy claim manslaughter? But admitted strangling her? Strange guy> he says he was just cuddling her
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply  1   Retweet    Like 

Tacitus Gilmore
‏
 
@CurtisSays_
 20 Oct 2011
More
How can this tabak guy claim manslaughter? But admitted strangling her? Strange guy
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Reply  1   Retweet    Like 

Lynn Ede
‏
 
@LynnCherylEde
 20 Oct 2011
More
RT @rupertevelyn: asked about looking at the differences between murder and manslaughter tabak says 'it's no calculation'

Day in and Day out The word "MANSLAUGHTER" was tweeted across the twitterspher, day in and Day out the media were allowed to tweet this case, day in and day out thousands of followers saw the tweets and Retweets of many media reporters, day in and day out, friends and neighbours following this case tweeted about the trial...

Thousand upon thousand of thousands of tweets, telling the world that Dr Vincent Tabak pled guilty to manslaughter, a daily, hourly reminder that he was in fact guilty....

And apparently the only tweet anyone gives a damn about is a tweet about porn?????

Jurors like anyone may use twitter, they may have alerts/notifications set up on their phones, from whom ever they may follow, friends, family, news media outlets, flashing up on their screens telling them day in and day out that Dr vincent Tabak pled guilty to Manslaughter,... Reminding them everyday, that he had to be guilty...

Anything to do with this case, that was tweeted at the time of trial Is PREJUDICIAL to the case..

Any aspect of a case given this much air time will find it's way to the jury, The tweeting of the Assange appearance was different, in as much as the jury were not there as it was a magistrates court...

But Dr Vincent Tabak's case, was a full blown trial, that was high profile, with people from Bristol on the jury who could  not fail to have an opinion about this case...

You are trying to tell me one little insignificant tweet would prejudice a trial, but hundreds of thousands of tweets about the case would not???

Tweets reminding us daily that Dr Vincent Tabak pled guilty to MANSLAUGHTER...

And I am supposed to accept this as ok... Everyone is supposed to accept this as OK???