The Defence Will State Their Case

[[...]]

https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122175642/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf

As is publicly known, I am bringing a civil claim against Avon and Somerset ,
Constabulary (’ASC’) for false imprisonment, breach of my human rights and trespass to person and property. Whilst this is ongoing, I do not wish to speak in any detail about the police’s actions towards me. What I can do, however, is tell the Inquiry what the consequences were for me of certain known or possible inter-actions between the press and the police during this murder inquiry.

Not only is he a witness in a Murder, but he is also in the process of suing The Police, for false imprisonment etc etc...

What I can do, however, is tell the Inquiry what the consequences were for me of certain known or possible inter-actions between the press and the police during this murder inquiry.


Twice so far, we have reason for CJ NOT to be a core participant at Leveson 1... Information that may be relevant to Dr Vincent Tabak's prosecution, hidden from ALL...

If he is suing the Police.... why is he at the Leveson.... all connected to the case...

If Leveson said himself, leveson 2 was being delayed, because of investigations and prosecutions etc, and therefore some couldn't be part of Leveson 1... Why on earth is CJ a core participant..

The reasoning for the Police arresting him would be part of the private prosecution... But here is is happy as Larry at the Leveson, where no-one is concerned as to why he is participating....

breach of my human rights and trespass to person and property. Whilst this is ongoing, I do not wish to speak in any detail about the police’s actions towards me.

What is he saying here?? They had NO WARRANTS??  they just went onto his property without the correct authority?? Really... If that was the case, then was the warrants for Dr Vincent Tabak in order????

Twice The Leveson has given this man a platform to air his views , when cases are active...

What I can do, however, is tell the Inquiry what the consequences were for me of certain known or possible inter-actions between the press and the police during this murder inquiry.

What on god's earth is he talking about?

* Possible Interactions?? What happened to EVIDENCE???

How can he comment on something that he himself has stated is due to a court soon??

I'm not being funny, but this irks me.... He never should have been in Leveson 1 until everything had been completed, he should never have been made a core participant ....

We now have 3 occasions when the judiciary appear to have assisted CJ...

Firstly in July 2011, when the papers are taken to court for contempt.... By this time he wasn't a suspect or an apparent witness, so why contempt god only knows.... At that hearing in July 2011, Dr Vincent tabak's named is mentioned, in the virtual same breath as CJ...  But in the context that CJ is wholly Innocent because Dr Vincent Tabak pled guilty....(arrggghh)

If this was a game of football CJ would be winning 1-0 so far....

It is announced before trial he is going to be a core participant....

He should have been a bloody witness at trial , not the leveson...  2-0 CJ

Talk at the Leveson of civil action against the Police, for wrongful conviction etc etc...

By this time Dr Vincent Tabak is convicted, the papers have been sued, the Police look inadequate and everyone loves CJ

3-0 CJ

He doesn't take action, instead he receives a public apology of sorts and is interviewed on TV with a clip of CC Nick Gargan speaking of this... 4-0 CJ

This is why I get sarcastic ... A program is then made, to highlight his plight... My God many peoples lives have been ruined by the press, they didn't get this treatment....

5-0 CJ

He appears on various documentaries, and tells us what he knows and whom he conversed with.....

Was that an own goal....

5-1 CJ

Nobody seemed concerned in any shape or form to the treatment that Dr Vincent Tabak had.... No bail application... etc etc...

But CJ.... It's like they cannot do enough, and I do not get why...

Looks like it was CJ who got the trophy, he seems to have won the match........... (imo)

Edit.. And lets not forget that he was part of the discussion in parliament on 4th February 2011, they may not have mentioned him by name, but everyone knew whom they meant.... ( And all this whilst he was still on POLICE BAIL)....

Looks like the final score is 6-1 to CJ...

[[...]]

What on earth are you talking about? You have no idea how the legal system works! Of course he wouldn't have walked free! Had the jury found him not guilty, he would have been sentenced in accordance with manslaughter!

CJ's account of the weekend is irrelevant (and I don't know why you keep asking this because it is so simple!) ....... Tabak isn't denying causing JY's death. The ONLY relevant witness would be one who saw him end her life because perhaps then, they could say whether the death was accidental or not. Anything else - IRRELEVANT! Got it now? 

NO.........

IRRELEVANT .......  in your opinion maybe....

[Caroline]

NO.........

IRRELEVANT MY ARSE!.........  in your opinion maybe....

YES!



 Not my opinion - FACT!

[[...]]

AND YOUR ARSE IS ALSO IRRELEVANT. Not my opinion - FACT!

  Fair point..... 

[jixy]

Think Nine's posts are getting more and more shocking. Really should be removed based on previous guidelines what is and isnt acceptable to post!

[jixy]

https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122175642/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf

Not only is he a witness in a Murder, but he is also in the process of suing The Police, for false imprisonment etc etc...

What I can do, however, is tell the Inquiry what the consequences were for me of certain known or possible inter-actions between the press and the police during this murder inquiry.


Twice so far, we have reason for CJ NOT to be a core participant at Leveson 1... Information that may be relevant to Dr Vincent Tabak's prosecution, hidden from ALL...

If he is suing the Police.... why is he at the Leveson.... all connected to the case...

If Leveson said himself, leveson 2 was being delayed, because of investigations and prosecutions etc, and therefore some couldn't be part of Leveson 1... Why on earth is CJ a core participant..

The reasoning for the Police arresting him would be part of the private prosecution... But here is is happy as Larry at the Leveson, where no-one is concerned as to why he is participating....

breach of my human rights and trespass to person and property. Whilst this is ongoing, I do not wish to speak in any detail about the police’s actions towards me.

What is he saying here?? They had NO WARRANTS??  they just went onto his property without the correct authority?? Really... If that was the case, then was the warrants for Dr Vincent Tabak in order????

Twice The Leveson has given this man a platform to air his views , when cases are active...

What I can do, however, is tell the Inquiry what the consequences were for me of certain known or possible inter-actions between the press and the police during this murder inquiry.

What on god's earth is he talking about?

* Possible Interactions?? What happened to EVIDENCE???

How can he comment on something that he himself has stated is due to a court soon??

I'm not being funny, but this irks me.... He never should have been in Leveson 1 until everything had been completed, he should never have been made a core participant ....

We now have 3 occasions when the judiciary appear to have assisted CJ...

Firstly in July 2011, when the papers are taken to court for contempt.... By this time he wasn't a suspect or an apparent witness, so why contempt god only knows.... At that hearing in July 2011, Dr Vincent tabak's named is mentioned, in the virtual same breath as CJ...  But in the context that CJ is wholly Innocent because Dr Vincent Tabak pled guilty....(arrggghh)

If this was a game of football CJ would be winning 1-0 so far....

It is announced before trial he is going to be a core participant....

He should have been a bloody witness at trial , not the leveson...  2-0 CJ

Talk at the Leveson of civil action against the Police, for wrongful conviction etc etc...

By this time Dr Vincent Tabak is convicted, the papers have been sued, the Police look inadequate and everyone loves CJ

3-0 CJ

He doesn't take action, instead he receives a public apology of sorts and is interviewed on TV with a clip of CC Nick Gargan speaking of this... 4-0 CJ

This is why I get sarcastic ... A program is then made, to highlight his plight... My God many peoples lives have been ruined by the press, they didn't get this treatment....

5-0 CJ

He appears on various documentaries, and tells us what he knows and whom he conversed with.....

Was that an own goal....

5-1 CJ

Nobody seemed concerned in any shape or form to the treatment that Dr Vincent Tabak had.... No bail application... etc etc...

But CJ.... It's like they cannot do enough, and I do not get why...

Looks like it was CJ who got the trophy, he seems to have won the match........... (imo)

Edit.. And lets not forget that he was part of the discussion in parliament on 4th February 2011, they may not have mentioned him by name, but everyone knew whom they meant.... ( And all this whilst he was still on POLICE BAIL)....

Looks like the final score is 6-1 to CJ...

A game of football and CJ winning . How offensive and disrespectful are your posts?

[[...]]

Think Nine's posts are getting more and more shocking. Really should be removed based on previous guidelines what is and isnt acceptable to post!

Get rid if you want, makes no difference.... nothing about this case will ever makes any difference... i will not change my mind, and if others are happy with how things are then, nothing has changed, so my posts are pointless....

Forgot people aren't allowed to ask questions... Should have remembered my place!

[Caroline]

Nine - read this and educate yourself! It clears up quite a lot of your confusions.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-manslaughter

[jixy]

Get rid if you want, makes no difference.... nothing about this case will ever makes any difference... i will not change my mind, and if others are happy with how things are then, nothing has changed, so my posts are pointless....

Forgot people aren't allowed to ask questions... Should have remembered my place!

Ask questions? how aggressive are you? Tabak doesnt want you asking the same questions over and over again. He isnt asking them so what gives you the right to disrespect all concerned ?

[Caroline]

Get rid if you want, makes no difference.... nothing about this case will ever makes any difference... i will not change my mind, and if others are happy with how things are then, nothing has changed, so my posts are pointless....

Forgot people aren't allowed to ask questions... Should have remembered my place!

Its not that you're not allowed to ask questions but when answers are provide, then have the decency to bloody read and acknowledge them. The article I posted clarifies the law in respect to manslaughter v's murder. Read it, then you might not repeat the same silly questions.

[[...]]

A game of football and CJ winning . How offensive and disrespectful are your posts?

I used an analergy.... Take it as you will... I am pointing out inconsistencies, the order appearing incorrect... A man wanted to hide in the shadows yet he is all singing and dancing.... Just my opinion....

If you find it so offensive, get it removed....

Why am I being disrespectful to a man I have no idea whom he is.....

I was taught respect is earned....

I'll show him respect if he tells us exactly what was in his 2 witness statements, word for word....  And what was stated at the Police station when he was in custody, may have relevance to Dr Vincent Tabak...

Otherwise he has earned nothing (imo)!

[[...]]

Its not that you're not allowed to ask questions but when answers are provide, then have the decency to bloody read and acknowledge them. The article I posted clarifies the law in respect to manslaughter v's murder. Read it, then you might not repeat the same silly questions.

Introduction
Murder and manslaughter are two of the offences that constitute homicide.

Manslaughter can be committed in one of three ways:

Killing with the intent for murder but where a partial defence applies, namely loss of control, diminished responsibility or killing pursuant to a suicide pact.
Conduct that was grossly negligent given the risk of death, and did kill ("gross negligence manslaughter"); and
Conduct taking the form of an unlawful act involving a danger of some harm that resulted in death ("unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter").
The term "involuntary manslaughter" is commonly used to describe manslaughter falling within (2) and (3) while (1) is referred to as "voluntary manslaughter".

Reports
The role and expectation of expert witnesses is set out at Part 19 Criminal Procedure Rules.

In every murder case, the court will require a report about the defendant's medical condition. However, following the case of R v Reid (2002) 1 Cr App R 21, there is now no requirement for the Crown to obtain a medical report for the Court's benefit. Prosecutors should be aware of any local arrangements in the local Crown Court.

A murder case should not be sent without receipt of a pathologist's statement covering the cause of death. This should be released to the defence as quickly as possible so that they may arrange a second post-mortem if required or so that the coroner may release the deceased's body.

In most cases, the Crown's pathologist will only provide an interim report giving the likely cause of death. A full report will follow. Prosecutors are reminded that in cases involving head injuries, delays of up to 12 weeks can occur whilst neurological analysis is undertaken. Pathologists will generally complete their final report once all other studies have been completed, e.g. histology, toxicology etc.

In cases where a request is received for the removal of an organ for transplant purposes, refer the request to the CCP or designated lawyer.

 R v Reid (2002) 1 Cr App R 21, there is now no requirement for the Crown... How useful....

Murder
Introduction
Subject to three exceptions (see Voluntary Manslaughter below) the crime of murder is committed, where a person:

Of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane);
unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing);
any reasonable creature (human being);
in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs - Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority (1991) 1 All ER 801 and AG Ref No 3 of 1994 (1997) 3 All ER 936;
under the Queen's Peace (not in war-time);
with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH).

If they had no idea what happened to Joanna yeates, how did they know it was Murder in the first place, and the intent was to Kill..

Intent
The intent for murder is an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). Foresight is no more than evidence from which the jury may draw the inference of intent, c.f. R v Woollin [1999] 1 Cr App R 8 (HOL). The necessary intention exists if the defendant feels sure that death, or serious bodily harm, is a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that this was the case - R v Matthews (Darren John) [2003] EWCA Crim 192.

That is the legal requirement for it to be proved Murder and Not manslaughter....

How can you start a Murder case with a person saying they are guilty of manslaughter.... then go...

Go on... prove my intention...

Intention is not a charge...

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-manslaughter

This case is crapolla in my opinion....

[Caroline]

Ask questions? how aggressive are you? Tabak doesnt want you asking the same questions over and over again. He isnt asking them so what gives you the right to disrespect all concerned ?

There has been similar excuses made for Jeremy Bamber. When he has said certain things which contradict his previous comments, then according to some, this is because he doesn't remember things correctly and he doesn't know his case very well. The excuse made for Tabak is that he isn't talking because he's traumatised. No idea where this BS originates but there is no doubt that they are excuses to explain the unexplainable. In the case of Bamber, he contradicts himself because his version never happened and as such. As for Tabak, he's not talking because he has nothing to say - he said it all when he admitted to what he did.

[jixy]

I used an analergy.... Take it as you will... I am pointing out inconsistencies, the order appearing incorrect... A man wanted to hide in the shadows yet he is all singing and dancing.... Just my opinion....

If you find it so offensive, get it removed....

Why am I being disrespectful to a man I have no idea whom he is.....

I was taught respect is earned....

I'll show him respect if he tells us exactly what was in his 2 witness statements, word for word....  And what was stated at the Police station when he was in custody, may have relevance to Dr Vincent Tabak...

Otherwise he has earned nothing (imo)!

CJ owes you NOTHIING.

[Caroline]

I read them... acknowledge them... but don't always agree with them.....

You never acknowledge them and whether you agree nor not, quite a lot of what you don't agree with happens to be FACT. Read the article!