The Defence Will State Their Case

[[...]]

Therefore I am asking... Was Operation Braid to do with a Serial killer??

A Killer who could have been responsible for some if not all of the Yorkshire Ripper attacks??

[[...]]

Reading this passage again, made me re-think the condition of the Flat we have seen the images of the front room and the tour..

Patricia Atkinson..

I followed her into the flat, she closed the curtains, and I hung my coat on the hook on the back of the door. She took her coat off and sat on the bed, her back was slightly towards me. I went up to her and hit her on the back of the head with the hammer. She fell off the bed onto the floor. I picked her up and put her back on the bed. That was the first time I had noticed the red blood, before it had always been dark, but this time in the light I saw lots of blood on the bed and on the floor. When she was on the floor I hit her another twice, or three times, before I put her on the bed. I pulled the bedclothes back before I put her on the bed."

In the Flat of Joanna Yeates, the living room curtains were closed on the images we have seen, it has never been revealed how this happened...



* Where they not drawn back in the morning?

* Did Joanna Yeates close them?

* Did Dr Vincent Tabak close them?

* Did Greg close them before he left for Sheffield?

* Were the curtains closed on Greg's return from Sheffield?

* Did the Yeates close them when they arrived?

It's a small detail, but it could be of great importance,.. As we have been made aware Joanna Yeates was more or less attacked when she arrived home, or within ten minutes, there is no mention at trial that I am aware of that Dr Vincent Tabak closed the living room curtains. So who closed them should be of interest. The prosecution nor the Defence mention this detail...

If Greg did not close them, it was then conceivable that someone saw Joanna Yeates in her living room, through the open curtains.. The hedge at the front of the garden and the window being very low, would make it difficult for someone from the road to see into the Flat.. If they stood at the small gate they would get a better view.



Joanna Yeates TV was switched off, which suggests she must have turned it on.. We do not know for sure she did, but with Dr Vincent Tabak saying he turned the TV off, unless Greg or someone else turned the TV on, how do we know that it was an action that Joanna Yeates made??

If someone was outside the living room window and someone walked passed the window via the small patio, Joanna Yeates would not see whom it was, as the light inside was far greater and he outside at the front is in darkness..

So it was feasible for someone to look into this Flat without being seen, especially if the curtains were open...

We are told the blind stayed up all the time, we are also told by David Yeates that Tanja and him were walking across the grass, he also notes that there are diagonal foot prints going across the grass in the snow...

So it is feasible that anyone who lived, or visited Canygne Road could have made the diagonal foot prints.. Making me query the idea that it was also possible for Joanna Yeates curtains to be opened.. A room with a better view of a person at home..

In the documentaries The Yeates do not mention the curtains as far as I can remember.. In Fact the only reason I know the curtains are closed is because of the images that come from the tour of Joanna Yeates Flat..

Why were the curtains not taken for forensics??

Consider this... The killer could see her through her front room window... The killer did attack her in the kitchen with the kitchen door open blocking any visual from the front room curtains being drawn back... The killer could then have turned the lights off (or not)and closed the curtains, and then carried on cleaning up and removing the body without anyone seeing into the room...

If the killer had touched the curtains, there could either be blood evidence or fibre evidence on said curtains... So what stopped the Police collecting them for forensic testing... They in fact shouldn't have still been hung up (imo) going from every other item that was removed, stripping the Flat bare...

They had no idea who closed the curtains, but shouldn't they still have tested them for elimination purposes and to make sure the killer hadn't touched them??

The questions have to be who closed the curtains and why didn't the Police remove them for testing... We have seen the doing Forensics on the actual windows inside and out so why aren't the curtains removed??


Or am I back to the idea that the Flat in the tour belonged to Dr Vincent Tabak, And if that is the case, why aren't the curtains from the Flat with the bay window removed??  Either way the curtains should have gone for testing...(imo)

It reminded me of that "Washing Pile" no-one mentions other than David Yeates...

If they thought someone had gained entry through a window for instance, then again the curtain are of evidential value... even if they didn't , the curtains still should be of evidential value...

Don't try telling me they tested them and put them back.... Because that doesn't happen... So why are the living room curtains still hung upon the pole in Joanna Yeates living room??

[[...]]

If Greg did not close them, it was then conceivable that someone saw Joanna Yeates in her living room, through the open curtains.. The hedge at the front of the garden and the window being very low, would make it difficult for someone from the road to see into the Flat.. If they stood at the small gate they would get a better view.

Mentioning the only view from the gate as to whether or not these curtains were closed has me revisiting what CJ stated.. he saw 2 or 3 people at the gate...

Well did any of these 2 to 3 people close Joanna Yeates curtains in her front room... Did any of these 2 to 3 people notice whether or not the curtains were open or closed? Did any of these 2 or 3 people notice whether Joanna Yeates living room light was still on??

Did CJ notice whether the curtains of Joanna Yeates front room were open or closed when he arrived back from the gym? Did CJ notice whether or not Joanna Yeates living room light was still on when he arrived from the gym??

We do not know what was in CJ's witness statements, either of them, well not the full content... Was he asked about the living room curtain and the living room main light?

Were any of these 2 to three people ever identified???

Edit.... If the curtains were not closed or the living room light on, when CJ returned home from the gym, that would maybe indicate that Joanna Yeates was killed later, Or, she had never returned home at all and it had been suggested that someone returned the items..

So was the Flat in darkness on CJ's return from the gym??

[[...]]

Joanna Yeates is a Missing person, a Missing person for days...

Did Greg get removed from the Flat on the Monday morning when he had reported her Missing... ??

So didn't he open the curtains on the Monday Morning if he stayed at home that evening??

Why would the curtains of a Flat of a Missing person not be opened??

It reminds me of when people are in mourning and they close the world off and do not open the curtains.....

But Joanna Yeates is only Missing.. So if the Police suspect foul play, why didn't they take the living room curtains for forensic testing??

[Caroline]

Just back to the article in the Telegraph for a moment...

How illiterate was Peter Sutcliffe?

Were the interviews transcribed?

A Yorkshire man would write differently from how he speaks, the extent would be dependant on his education, even if he attended a secondary school, he would have been taught English, therefore writing in a different manner.. ..

So Ellis having these people from around the country filling in questionnaires is pointless really... (imo) no 1300 page document would really show anyone where these people came from, as the dialect would not be written that way, and only the way in which someone wrote a paragraph would determine their level of education and not where they came from... (And a bell rings again... Sally Ramage is now in my head..... )

So that exercise I am unsure of it's usefulness....

Therefore questioning whether Peter Sutcliffe's interview was transcribed or it was what Peter Sutcliffe actually stated is important.... And who actually wrote said statement...

Every area has its own slang and dialect, interpretation of what something means to one small area and the whole country in general could be quite different and that could be the difference in what a jury may understand in any case...  And that surely is dependant on the interviewers interpretation and maybe their age.....

Example: When I was younger, when someone stated that they had got off with someone, it meant that the person of the opposite sex had taken an interest in them, they may have held hands, or even had a sneaky kiss.. But when asking someone how they would interpret the statement 'Got off with someone".. they interpreted that as they had sex... Which wasn't the case at all....

So interpretation of  language in cases can change the view of anyone... understanding dialect and the nuances within dialects and meanings of said dialects, can change the complexion of any statement...

I am finding the expert quite interesting, because the written word of someone from any region within the UK, would not determine where they came from.... Making the tape from the Ripper inquiry even more interesting, no-one would have known that the Ripper was a Geordie if it hadn't been for the tape, As something written would not make this obvious...

Therefore who sent the Ripper Tape? And why would he?? It would only be of use to someone trying to steer the investigation in another direction...(imo)

No-one at any point at that time could 100% state that the Ripper was a Geordie.... and what was to say, that a Geordie man didn't live in Yorkshire... They don't all live there.... So why not look for a Geordie Man in Yorkshire instead of venturing up to Geordie land??

I'm just listening to the tape.. 'The Hoax Tape'...  It sounds like he is reading it off something... Well (imo) anyway..

I'm serious... whoever is on that tape is reading that message from something that is written, and it (imo) is not someone speaking naturally...

Why would a person need to write down what he would say to George Oldfield, when he should know the case inside out...  The vids I am adding are the Tape from the Hoaxer and 2 videos from a Geordie Lady, whom explains a little about the accent... She admits she has softened her accent, and another point of interest is that Geordies speak fast..

The Hoax Tape is deliberate and slow speaking which also makes me think it was something that a person had read from a script that had be written, otherwise anyone may have difficulty in understanding everything that was stated... Therefore, what was the point of the tape from The Hoaxer? If he wanted to be understood all he needed to do was to send a letter and the postcode marked on the envelope would show the region that it had originated from..

The idea, that The Hoaxer had to prove he was a Geordie, by making the tape is strange to me... If he was making a tape, it should have sounded more natural, he wouldn't need to be reading something, and the Police would have had a more difficult time in understanding the tape, as the speed of how a natural Geordie talks, is fast... And  why would The Hoaxer really care whether or not he spoke so someone could understand his accent...  Especially as it was supposed to be a Hoax anyway...

This is why no-one could identify the Geordie accent of the tape... (imo) Because a Geordie reading something at a slow pace, is different from a Geordie talking naturally and certain words written, would be pronounced differently than certain words naturally spoken, as I have explained about The Yorkshire Accent...

So was The Hoax tape really a Geordie speaking  or a person trying to sound like a Geordie, reading from a script??

That shoves the cat amongst the pigeons... Something else to contemplate....

Edit.. Are there any taped interviews of Dr Vincent Tabak speaking?? We are told he is a Dutch National and his command of the English Language is excellent, but his accent would still be noticeable even if he could speak perfect English.. .. I would be interested to hear any Interview tapes... Even if he states "No Comment"!!
Those two words alone would clearly indicate whether or not he had been born and lived in Holland his whole life... And whether or not it was Dr Vincent Tabak being interviewed... (imo)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2woc46LXkw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22DUclUZiX4

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/tv-radio-obituaries/6608130/Stanley-Ellis.html

You do know that they caught the guy who made the Ripper Hoax tape? By the way, he's NOT a geordie! He's from Sunderland BUT yes, he was speaking in his own dialect. Wearside Jack turned about to be a man called John Humble. He's been convicted, served his sentence and is now a free man https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211217/Yorkshire-Ripper-hoaxer-Wearside-Jack-released-prison-weeks.html

[[...]]

You do know that they caught the guy who made the Ripper Hoax tape? By the way, he's NOT a geordie! He's from Sunderland BUT yes, he was speaking in his own dialect. Wearside Jack turned about to be a man called John Humble. He's been convicted, served his sentence and is now a free man https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211217/Yorkshire-Ripper-hoaxer-Wearside-Jack-released-prison-weeks.html

Yes I am aware of this... But I found oddities that was all..

* Not original, obviously, Humble’s letter was in his own hand writing.

** The reference to Preston ’75 was about a murder of a woman, However, in the end, had nothing to do with the Yorkshire Ripper case. So, perhaps this was guess work. Nonetheless, it was clear that John Humble or Wearside Jack as he now dubbed, had an unhealthy interest in the Yorkshire Ripper case. Indeed, Humble sent two more letters before he sent in the audio tape.

Why would a Hoaxer even mention Preston '75?? He wouldn't have a clue about it..

Joan Harrison, 26, who was found dead in a derelict garage in Preston in 1975, was once thought to have been killed by the Yorkshire Ripper.

But the lifeless and battered body was that of Joan Harrison who had been the victim of what the second-in-command of Lancashire CID, Detective Superintendent Wilf Brooks, described as a "savage attack" with no obvious motive.Murder squad detectives later made inquiries in other areas to see if there were any other violent crimes which may be linked to the attack on Mrs Harrison. But their inquiries, at that stage, drew a blank.There were a few strange things about the murder of Mrs Harrison. Her body had lain undiscovered for more than 48 hours and a post-mortem examination revealed she had had sex shortly before she was killed.There was also a bite mark on her left breast and experts in forensic ondontology were able to ascertain that whoever bit her had an eighth-of-an-inch gap in his top two front teeth.

The Gap in the teeth was another reason that they arrested and charged Peter Sutcliffe, and Josephine Whitaker was also had a bite mark

After the trial in 1981, the Sunday Times ("Did The Ripper Have An Accomplice?"- May 24 1981) reported that they had "learned that Sutcliffe's tenth victim, Josephine Whitaker, was found with a bite-mark on her left breast. It had been made, shortly before her death, by someone with a gap between the two upper front teeth. Sutcliffe has just such a gap. In the course of his interrogation by police, Sutcliffe admitted killing Whitaker, but he denied categorically that he had bitten her. Ripper Squad detectives on the other hand are convinced that Sutcliffe did."

But composite photo of The Ripper doesn't show A Gap..



I cannot find any Newspaper reports of the time, which makes it difficult to know whether The Hoaxer would be aware of this victim or not... But someone was... And someone needed to know about the bite Mark on Joan Harrison, for her to be considered a victim till later, when it was shown she wasn't.... How many victims had bite marks?

Why did The Hoaxer pull Joan Harrison out of a hat???

There must have been many victims at the time many victims who were not connected at the time, so why believe the Hoax letter talking about the Preston woman from '75

Other woman whom had been Murdered around that time and reports in the media having been made... It's almost like The Hoaxer was aware the Police might have looked for a connection.. But why would he know?

The apology for Jayne Macdonalds Murder in itself should have had the Detectives of the time knowing it was a hoax.. Where it originated from is another matter...

But the oddity I find that the hoax letter apologises for Jayne MacDonald and the Yorkshire Ripper apologises for the murder of Jayne MacDonald is a strange coincidence..



Why would Peter Sutcliffe feel sorry for Jayne MacDonald?? He never felt guilt for any of his victims that were younger than Jayne MacDonald whom survived his attacks??

He never felt sorry for Josephine Whitaker when he discovered that she wasn't a prostitute nor Jacqueline Hill....

I find it coincidental, that The Hoax letters and the information that Peter Sutcliffe tells the Police bare the same apology...

I cannot remember at the time if the press told the public that Jayne macDonald wasn't a prostitute, but the reports suggested that she was..



So why would The Hoax letter apologise for killing a 16 year old girl??  And Peter Sutcliffe himself do the same...

At 9:45 am two children made their way into the adventure playground between Reginald Street and Reginald Terrace and discovered the body of Jayne MacDonald near a wall. Spots of blood on the pavement at the entrance of the adventure playground quickly established where she had first been attack. Her body was found lying face down, her gingham skirt disarranged, and her blue and white halter-neck sun top pulled up to expose her middle. She had been hit on the head three times with a hammer and had been stabbed about twenty times in the chest and on the back. There was repeated stabbing through one wound in her chest and and one wound in her back. Blood smears on her back revealed that Sutcliffe had tried to wiped his knife clean. When the police turned over her body, they discovered a broken bottle with the screw-top still attached had been embedded into her chest. Sutcliffe would later claim that he did not deliberately embed the bottle into her chest, and that it must have happened as he dragged her through the rubble on the playground. A post-mortem examination showed she had not been drinking, but had only had soft drinks that night.

I found A copy of what was the official Police report,( If it is correct) doesn't mention being stabbed, or a broken bottle...


The report clearly states that no links should be made and no information should be given to the press, so it appears they had a field day...

From reading the report I get the impression that the killer dragged her from behind and the blood that transferred from Jayne MacDonalds head would be on the suspects clothing... The information from the press has come from somewhere, but not directly from the report (imo). I believe that extra details were added..

So what proved that The Hoaxer was John Humble who was sentenced for this crime?

Apparently it was DNA... DNA that had survived the best part of nearly 40 years,

A major breakthrough came during 2005 when senior officers from West Yorkshire Police's Homicide and Major Inquiry Team (HMIT), headed by Det Chief Supt Chris Gregg, decided to review the case. A small piece of the gummed seal from one of the envelopes was located in a forensic laboratory and following publicity about the cold case review the hoax tape was retrieved from a retired scientist who had worked on the original investigation.[9]As a result of this cold case review, DNA from envelopes sent by Humble as part of the hoax were matched in the United Kingdom National DNA Database with samples police had obtained from Humble in an unrelated incident in 2000, when he had been arrested and cautioned for being drunk and disorderly.[10] By this time Humble had become an alcoholic loner.

Was there nothing else that connected this man other than the envelope? His hand writing for instance.. Did they not get him to do a reconstruction of the tape that he sent??

Did they not find John Humbles finger prints on the tape he sent?? His finger prints on the envelope?? Or on the letters?

According to this article John Humble was already in the system..

In part, he was motivated by a hatred for police. In 1975, aged 19, he was convicted of actual bodily harm for kicking an off-duty policeman in the head at Sunderland's Locarno ballroom, and sentenced to three months at a young offenders institution. Two years earlier, he was convicted of burglary and theft.

Therefore they should have already have had a set of his finger prints..

So I cannot say for sure what I think about john humble and his arrest, charge and sentence, if all they had was some DNA.. which should have degraded over the years... (imo)

Question.... Why do we not see the original letter that John Humble sent to the Police? And why don't the letter and the tape sound like it came from the same person? In fact the letter says he posts the letter on his way through Sunderland.. It's the tape with the accent that changes the direction of the investigation... So the letters and the tape should match and they don't...

Humble was remanded on 20 October 2005.[11] He was tried at Leeds Crown Court on 9 January 2006, and initially pleaded not guilty. He admitted to being Wearside Jack on 23 February 2006, and on 20 March 2006, changed his plea to guilty on four counts of perverting the course of justice.[12]

Another confession... Why am I not surprised...


https://wearsideonline.com/wearside-jack/

http://www.yorkshireripper.com/2011/12/28/jayne-macdonald/

https://www.execulink.com/~kbrannen/victim11.htm

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-12396506

https://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/is-jack-a-killer-too-1-1083732

https://www.execulink.com/~kbrannen/victim18.htm

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/wearside-jack-i-deserve-to-go-to-jail-for-evil-ripper-hoax-6106028.html

[[...]]

Here's another thought... Would the term "Sluts' be used by someone with a Sunderland accent, or would they have used the term "Slags"?? Or even another name....?? Prossies?? How would a Sunderland man talk about prostitutes?? And at the time...

Dialect and district do make a difference...

Edit... "Warn whores to keep off streets cause I feel it coming on again.
Sorry about young lassie."

Would a Geordie or a Sunderland man say young lassie? Or Whores? Or would the term be closer to a Scottish term and wee lassie be used?

On the tape we have plenty of phrases Missing that someone from Sunderland would use... 'The word 'like" for instances is used virtually in every sentence.. And according to the young man in the video I have linked... Like needs to be used in a sentence at least twice even if it is not needed...

This makes me question the tape even more...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwVYoA2NyAU

[Caroline]

Yes I am aware of this... But I found oddities that was all..



Why would a Hoaxer even mention Preston '75?? He wouldn't have a clue about it..

The Gap in the teeth was another reason that they arrested and charged Peter Sutcliffe, and Josephine Whitaker was also had a bite mark
But composite photo of The Ripper doesn't show A Gap..



I cannot find any Newspaper reports of the time, which makes it difficult to know whether The Hoaxer would be aware of this victim or not... But someone was... And someone needed to know about the bite Mark on Joan Harrison, for her to be considered a victim till later, when it was shown she wasn't.... How many victims had bite marks?

Why did The Hoaxer pull Joan Harrison out of a hat???

There must have been many victims at the time many victims who were not connected at the time, so why believe the Hoax letter talking about the Preston woman from '75

Other woman whom had been Murdered around that time and reports in the media having been made... It's almost like The Hoaxer was aware the Police might have looked for a connection.. But why would he know?

The apology for Jayne Macdonalds Murder in itself should have had the Detectives of the time knowing it was a hoax.. Where it originated from is another matter...

But the oddity I find that the hoax letter apologises for Jayne MacDonald and the Yorkshire Ripper apologises for the murder of Jayne MacDonald is a strange coincidence..



Why would Peter Sutcliffe feel sorry for Jayne MacDonald?? He never felt guilt for any of his victims that were younger than Jayne MacDonald whom survived his attacks??

He never felt sorry for Josephine Whitaker when he discovered that she wasn't a prostitute nor Jacqueline Hill....

I find it coincidental, that The Hoax letters and the information that Peter Sutcliffe tells the Police bare the same apology...

I cannot remember at the time if the press told the public that Jayne macDonald wasn't a prostitute, but the reports suggested that she was..



So why would The Hoax letter apologise for killing a 16 year old girl??  And Peter Sutcliffe himself do the same...

I found A copy of what was the official Police report,( If it is correct) doesn't mention being stabbed, or a broken bottle...


The report clearly states that no links should be made and no information should be given to the press, so it appears they had a field day...

From reading the report I get the impression that the killer dragged her from behind and the blood that transferred from Jayne MacDonalds head would be on the suspects clothing... The information from the press has come from somewhere, but not directly from the report (imo). I believe that extra details were added..

So what proved that The Hoaxer was John Humble who was sentenced for this crime?

Apparently it was DNA... DNA that had survived the best part of nearly 40 years,

Was there nothing else that connected this man other than the envelope? His hand writing for instance.. Did they not get him to do a reconstruction of the tape that he sent??

Did they not find John Humbles finger prints on the tape he sent?? His finger prints on the envelope?? Or on the letters?

According to this article John Humble was already in the system..
Therefore they should have already have had a set of his finger prints..

So I cannot say for sure what I think about john humble and his arrest, charge and sentence, if all they had was some DNA.. which should have degraded over the years... (imo)

Question.... Why do we not see the original letter that John Humble sent to the Police? And why don't the letter and the tape sound like it came from the same person? In fact the letter says he posts the letter on his way through Sunderland.. It's the tape with the accent that changes the direction of the investigation... So the letters and the tape should match and they don't...

Another confession... Why am I not surprised...


https://wearsideonline.com/wearside-jack/

http://www.yorkshireripper.com/2011/12/28/jayne-macdonald/

https://www.execulink.com/~kbrannen/victim11.htm

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-12396506

https://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/is-jack-a-killer-too-1-1083732

https://www.execulink.com/~kbrannen/victim18.htm

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/wearside-jack-i-deserve-to-go-to-jail-for-evil-ripper-hoax-6106028.html

He had an unhealthy interest in the YR case>  Doesn't that remind you of someone? 

[[...]]

He had an unhealthy interest in the YR case>  Doesn't that remind you of someone? 

Nothing springs to mind...

All I have been saying is there's so much fake news... And I do not know whether The Joanna Yeates case is any different.. I do not know if Leveson 2 would have been about fake news and that would open up a whole can of worms...

This post is the last time I will mention The Yorkshire Ripper, it is not a case I know much about, but imaging in the papers of that case shows just how the media allow us to believe what we see..

An image that has been seen all over the media..



A clearer image of Peter Sutcliffe at the wheel of his truck..



Peter Sutcliffe looking slightly different in his truck



Then i found this from Getty...

Details
Restrictions:   Contact your local office for all commercial or promotional uses.The following uses are prohibited in the territories indicated: Retail Print, Poster; Worldwide.
Credit:   Bettmann / Contributor
Editorial #:   517721812
Collection:   Bettmann
Date created:   05 January, 1981
Licence type:   Rights-managed
Release info:   Not released. More information
Source:   Bettmann
Object name:   u2031728.jpg
Max file size:   4986 x 3528 px (42.21 x 29.87 cm) - 300 dpi - 4.83 MB

Drawing of Yorkshire Ripper
(Original Caption) January 5, 1981 - Bradford, England: This retouched photo shows Peter Sutcliffe, 35, at the wheel of his truck. It is a file photo. Sutcliffe was arrested by police January 2, 1981 and charged with the slaying of Jacqueline Hall, the last of the victims of the so-called 'Yorkshire Ripper.'

The point proven that the altering of images to support statements people believe is nothing new.....

I have stated many times that the images related to the Joanna Yeates Case have been photoshopped ... The whole Case was played out in the papers/online..

Do I know the case is true.?...   I do not

Do I know a man named Dr Vincent Tabak is in prison for this crime?....  I do not

As I said from the start.. I didn't believe that Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty.. What I knew about the case and subsequently found does not add up..... I was a concerned citizen hoping to get someone to look at the case and see what could be done...

But I do not know for sure if Dr Vincent Tabak is in prison...

I do not know or sure whether this case is real or not

I do not know for sure if a woman called Joanna Yeates was Murdered

I do not know for sure if it is fake news

I do not know for sure if I have wasted my time

All I know is that it never made any sense to me and I tried to understand why, having a forum to post on gave me an opportunity to have all of the information in one place, where I could cross reference points of interest. It also meant that by looking at the case and writing about it on here,it posed more questions than I originally started with...

And being inquisitive, I looked further at the case... That is all...

The Joanna Yeates Case is what?  I honestly have no idea.... It is not about what we have been lead to believe. I can say I believe that..

[Caroline]

Nothing springs to mind...

All I have been saying is there's so much fake news... And I do not know whether The Joanna Yeates case is any different.. I do not know if Leveson 2 would have been about fake news and that would open up a whole can of worms...

This post is the last time I will mention The Yorkshire Ripper, it is not a case I know much about, but imaging in the papers of that case shows just how the media allow us to believe what we see..

An image that has been seen all over the media..



A clearer image of Peter Sutcliffe at the wheel of his truck..



Peter Sutcliffe looking slightly different in his truck



Then i found this from Getty...




The point proven that the altering of images to support statements people believe is nothing new.....

I have stated many times that the images related to the Joanna Yeates Case have been photoshopped ... The whole Case was played out in the papers/online..

Do I know the case is true.?...   I do not

Do I know a man named Dr Vincent Tabak is in prison for this crime?....  I do not

As I said from the start.. I didn't believe that Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty.. What I knew about the case and subsequently found does not add up..... I was a concerned citizen hoping to get someone to look at the case and see what could be done...

But I do not know for sure if Dr Vincent Tabak is in prison...

I do not know or sure whether this case is real or not

I do not know for sure if a woman called Joanna Yeates was Murdered

I do not know for sure if it is fake news

I do not know for sure if I have wasted my time

All I know is that it never made any sense to me and I tried to understand why, having a forum to post on gave me an opportunity to have all of the information in one place, where I could cross reference points of interest. It also meant that by looking at the case and writing about it on here,it posed more questions than I originally started with...

And being inquisitive, I looked further at the case... That is all...

The Joanna Yeates Case is what?  I honestly have no idea.... It is not about what we have been lead to believe. I can say I believe that..

And you are helping to create it!

[[...]]

And you are helping to create it!

No positive response Caroline?? Nothing else coming from you?? Do you care Caroline?? Do you like fair caroline? I'm just asking, having spent the best part of my time on here not having any positive responses about much I have said... And thats not about ego either...! And you are not being singled out, many have been as unresponsive in a positive way from the very beginning...

[[...]]

I will now give you my full frank, honest opinion....

What this case has highlighted to me, is how INJUST our legal system is.... As a citizen I never really thought about the true cost of The System. I never thought about the conditions that prisoners were forced to live in, where the punishment is supposed to be about their loss of liberty and not a draconian system, that degrades, humiliates and serves to cause mental anguish... Not just for the prisoners, but for their families and loved ones..

A system that from the start of your arrest if you haven't the financial backing, you haven't got a hope in hell of Defending yourself to the fullest.

Over 2 years I have written about this case, pointing out discrepancies, 2 years were at my own leisure, I have been able to cross reference and point out inconstancies that have played out in the media.. 2 years when on my own I have questioned virtually everything I know of this case..

Now try put that into man hours... The point being, for someone who cannot afford a FULL Defence, they will only ever get a Bronze level of service if they are lucky, they will and would have been vilified in the media, a public baying for blood at an atrocity that has taken place, leaving the Defendant at a clear disadvantage from day one.. Never mind if he is guilty or not....

You have the full weight of the Police, with umpteen Investigators, forensic scientist, pathologists and every expert known to man. Plus the CPS, making a small army of people putting together a case against you.. Many educated people by their title alone giving them an immediate upper hand, as no-one would ever question their, honesty and values.

You have a system that needs to show it's citizens that they are in control of the situation and monsters locked away... And as they cannot find any more monsters, they then add extra time to the existing monsters they locked away and bring them forward for the public to revisit in newspapers.

So what chance would anyone have if they cannot afford to defend themselves, where they have to rely on one person and the money he/she is allowed to claim for their services whilst looking into a defendants case.. Where the defendant has no realistic input or understanding of the system, to maybe ask the correct questions..

And then you arrive at court... You are separated from your Defence, you may be in a box surrounded by guards, it already is having a dramatic impact upon the jury and general public alike, without a word even been spoken..

"He must be guilty"..

" Look he's caged already"

" He must be dangerous, look at all those guards"

The visual impact alone has already put the defendant at a disadvantage, why is he not sat next to his counsel? Why has he not got the opportunity, to confer with his counsel throughout his trial, where he may hear or see a discrepancies himself that he would like his counsel to challenge?

No.. make him look guilty, then it will make it easier for a jury to convict...

The idea of Innocent until proven guilty is a fallacy, when images are just as powerful as words.. When the public and jury are presented with the accused and make a judgement on their 'First Impression'.. As we know and we are taught first impressions count..

So the uphill battle has begun in the court... You were already disadvantaged by the media, before you reached trial
and now the jury who lets face it in a high-profile case, could not have failed to have heard about it, they could not have failed to have already been prejudiced by what they read or heard.

And to let them truly remember just how dangerous said defendant is, we will place him in a dock and encompass him with guards, so the jury will be reminded that what they had read or heard of this defendant in the media, must be true..

Realistically, at this point the prosecution do not need to even open their mouths, the imagery has done the job for them...

If you as a defendant are feeling disadvantaged at this point, it is only going to get far, far,worse... What has proven at this point that the defendant is guilty?... Nothing really, a case is just that, information gathered and evidence, that will be presented to show guilt or innocence.

Now we come to the time of the prosecution, where what they are actually doing is proving their case... Does that mean that the information they have is complete, or does it mean that they can present  pieces of information that may have holes in it, to a jury to convince them, that the defendant they have already made their mind up about with their first impression, is now well an truly going to show them just what a deviant, monster etc.. he or she is...

Now this is were it becomes really unfair.... The defence can counter-act what the prosecution have presented, but only if they have themselves fully investigated the case for their defendant, based on the payment they may be entitled too and time they have available....

Lets just think about that for a minute... To start with you have had 80 Officers plus civilian staff working on this investigation, you have had forensic staff other experts and many people from the CPS working on this case.. And you are a party of one..

A party of one hoping against hope that the person who is dealing with your case, isn't working on any other case at the same time, you are hoping that the person dealing with your case is turning over every stone, you are hoping against hope, that the person dealing with your case will find that piece of evidence that will shoot holes in the prosecutions case, you are hoping that the person dealing with your case will shoot down in flames, what the prosecution have prepared against you... What a dedicated team of Police have spent, months, years collecting evidence of these cases... And the only dedicated person in your case is YOU...

Your freedom is at stake, your liberty, your friends and family will never be the same... So you on your own have the most to loose, and you the defendant have the least at your disposal to prove your innocence.. But that makes the price high... higher than any cost of trials and investigation, because how does anyone put a price on liberty and life?

I am not saying that defence lawyers etc do not try their best, I am saying that the odds are stacked against them before they even start...

Where prisons are run in a private capacity it will only ever be about the shareholder... (imo) The prisoner is convicted, the prisoner is no longer seen as human, the prisoner no matter what they may or may not have done, will be treated no better than an animal.. But we care about animals, we apparently have empathy for animals, so what does that therefore say about prisoners? cramming more and more into prisons that are not fit for purpose and where having personal space isn't valued..

I was brought up to believe that prison was about reform, but that doesn't appear to be the case, punishment and inhuman acts are perpetrated, but why should the public care.. They are monsters after all...

The Justice System needs a complete overhaul, we are nearly in 2020 a time were the future was supposed to be rosy, a time when we had advanced so much that everything would be different from a hundred years prior.. But there are no real differences, the poor are still poor, they will never have the ability to launch a full defence for themselves, and if they are ill educated, it will make the task even more difficult as they would have to just sit there and take what is stated, by either side, having no idea how to challenge the charges..

I stated I like fair, it's simple really, but unfortunately I have found that the system isn't fair, it cannot be fair in it's present state. It cannot be fair when the odds are stacked against you from the outset..

I am sure that there are many good people within the Justice System, many good people who must be frustrated, with the state of said system, who cannot openly discredit the systems failings, without making life difficult for themselves.

Having started with wanting to defend what some may see as the undefendable, and make a real difference to society, the tools and money they have isn't equal to the states tools and finance.

But how would they be able to change the system? I don't know... It's almost like there needs to be an amnesty, A line drawn, a new approach, a huge change.. And an admission of an old system that is broken...

So when it comes to a defendant at trial, is it just a case of who can present the better story or a case of real evidence that beyond a shadow of a doubt, proves the guilt of the person in the dock...

Do we really need TV programs to convince us of a persons guilt after a trial? Where the facts are different from what may be known..

No-one should be seen by a court via video link, everyone has the right to FACE their accusers, and that should be in person.. Just because there is technology available doesn't mean we should use it... That also puts the defendant at a disadvantage...

" Oh Cheryl... they haven't even brought him to court, its via video link.... He must be a monster, he must be dangerous'!!!

Impressions matter, presentation matters, a level playing field matters....

Of course people should not be walking around when they can cause great harm to others, but we need to be sure the correct person is being prosecuted, the correct person is in prison facing a life sentence... If not all you have managed to do, is apparently put to bed the fear that the monster has gone, when the monster has been hiding in the cupboard all along... he hasn't gone and he will raise his head again, but if caught, would not be prosecuted for what has gone before, that would mean the system actually admitting it's failures...

So I do not believe the system is fair, it cannot ever be fair unless their are massive changes, and whether people chose to believe the guilt of any individual may depend on what they believe they know, or the evidence that has been presented, with other evidence being omitted...

If only part of a story is ever presented at trial, with the defendant in a box surrounded by guards, then the likely hood of guilt is greater, the likely hood that an admission of guilt happening is greater, the defendant may by this point be mentally worn down and has accepted his/her fate and hasn't the ability, education or strength to fight what has been put forward.

Lost within a legal system of jargon they cannot comprehend, and bamboozeled by the situation they have found themselves in...

I do not know the answer, but honesty is a good place to start.. fair is a good place to start...

As I have stated I am no-one, a citizen who came here concerned about a case, a citizen whom through looking at this case of Joanna Yeates /Dr Vincent Tabak, has found the justice system lacking greatly, a system that this country was once proud of, a system which should have moved with the times.. A system that obviously needed shaking, a system that should be progressive..

But it isn't it fails on many levels, it fails not only those in prison , but the free citizens who feel that they are being protected by the very same system, that would put someone in prison for not having a TV License.. A system that is closing courts, reducing police officers, using technology in a way that should not be used at court...

I think I am sad, sad that what I stupidly believe was the system, was fair... And an innocent person sent to prison was unusual and would be dealt with swiftly... But that is not the case, as we know, many many innocent people are in prison, many having lost the best part of their lives.. And if they are lucky enough to overturn the injustice perpetrated against them, who really cares? Not the public.. rarely do we these days see outrage, they do not show the outrage  they showed when these people were covered in a blanket and rushed into court or a police van, where the public banged on the side of the van shouting obscenities... There is little coverage in the media for these poor people and their families..

No body from the CPS, the Police etc are filmed apologising for what happened to them, no TV crews day in and day out explaining to the public how the system had failed these people....

No... Sweep it under the carpet and lets hope it goes away...

Until the media whom have extreme power everywhere, recognise the tragedies that have happened and appeal to the public to act, nothing will change.. But the media are not going to do that , it doesn't sell newspapers or TV time, it is not money making, I believe they think it is pointless.. (imo)

If the media want respect, let them Pro Bono and highlight cases of injustice, where money isn't at the forefront, lets face it they already made their money with the stories they sold before, during and after the trial... The defendant has made them a ton of money or should I say the victim... Because the victim isn't really of concern to the media, the victim and the way in which the victim died is a money spinner for the media.. Apparently everyone loves a juicy story...

So responsible reporting, on all sides needs to be established, and in the event of a Miscarriage of Justice, the same attention that brought this person into the public view in the first place, should be given upon their release or appeals..

I sometimes wonder why the courts stop reporters, reporting on events inside the court? What happened to transparency?

Therefore a skewed view and speculation, become rife, and after conviction any type of story is game... Any untruths , unfounded information can be laid on a platter for the hungry public..

The question is an apathetic public are easy to convince, an apathetic public and an Old System, that has cracks the size of Casumms are tearing it apart, and no sticking plaster will fix it anytime soon...

If nothing changes, it will only get worse, if no-one cares, who will fix it... If citizens like me are made to feel that we are either, crazy, obsessed, or having an unnatural interest in justice by questioning what we believe is unfair, then let me remind you all...

Anyone is one step away from being wrongly accused, everyone is one step away from enjoying the delights The System has to offer, and realistically, should it take for every individual in this country to find themselves at the wrong end of the system for them to understand it's failings, before people will change their minds...

So it is time for change, we need change, and it is time that people who have concerns are not tarred with a brush..

I suppose the reality of what I have learnt has disappointed me, I have been under the assumption that everyone likes fair.. I have gone through life believing fair is right and true.... Now for that you can call me delusional, for that idea that fair is the right way forward is so alien that nobody recognises it anymore, then I will accept being called a loony, I will accept the idea that I have an unhealthy interest, obsessed even... What ever you want to dress it up as to make me out to be a person you know nothing about or just to belittle me... I don't care...

I care about fair... and honesty... simple things really, and I care that The Justice System has become liken to a production line, where the value of it's clients many of them the poorest in the land, are all ready disadvantaged before the game has begun..

And if all that I have learnt about Dr Vincent Tabak, whether the story is true or not... I have learnt every citizen has a responsibility to challenge what they believe is an unfair system and every politician, and law maker of the land does what the public expect of them, seeing it is the public who are paying their wages....

But as always this is my opinion, my opinion based on what I have learnt and understood... And maybe everyone thinks I am wrong again... Well so be it.... I think therefore you should rename the whole site and call it "POINTLESS"... But thats just my opinion... Or maybe the Justice System could be renamed that.. I don't know..

I know I live in la la land hoping fair and honesty should come first... But I'd rather live in la la Land it's a fairer place to live..

NB: This post is just my opinion.....

[Caroline]

No positive response Caroline?? Nothing else coming from you?? Do you care Caroline?? Do you like fair caroline? I'm just asking, having spent the best part of my time on here not having any positive responses about much I have said... And thats not about ego either...! And you are not being singled out, many have been as unresponsive in a positive way from the very beginning...

Positive response to what? There is nothing you have written that I agree with. I will say that you're dedicated but in my opinion, you're dedicated to flogging a dead horse. Sorry, nothing against you, just your opinion on this topic.

[Caroline]

I will now give you my full frank, honest opinion....

What this case has highlighted to me, is how INJUST our legal system is.... As a citizen I never really thought about the true cost of The System. I never thought about the conditions that prisoners were forced to live in, where the punishment is supposed to be about their loss of liberty and not a draconian system, that degrades, humiliates and serves to cause mental anguish... Not just for the prisoners, but for their families and loved ones.

Our system isn't perfect but in THIS case a family received justice for their dead daughter who would have been alive today were it not for the fact that VT couldn't control his urges. Now THAT is INJUST!

A system that from the start of your arrest if you haven't the financial backing, you haven't got a hope in hell of Defending yourself to the fullest.

Over 2 years I have written about this case, pointing out discrepancies, 2 years were at my own leisure, I have been able to cross reference and point out inconstancies that have played out in the media.. 2 years when on my own I have questioned virtually everything I know of this case..

Now try put that into man hours... The point being, for someone who cannot afford a FULL Defence, they will only ever get a Bronze level of service if they are lucky, they will and would have been vilified in the media, a public baying for blood at an atrocity that has taken place, leaving the Defendant at a clear disadvantage from day one.. Never mind if he is guilty or not....

The only person that was vilified was Christopher Jefferies not Tabak!

You have the full weight of the Police, with umpteen Investigators, forensic scientist, pathologists and every expert known to man. Plus the CPS, making a small army of people putting together a case against you.. Many educated people by their title alone giving them an immediate upper hand, as no-one would ever question their, honesty and values.

Who would you like to investigate a crime? How do you imagine that a case would ever be solved if a bunch of idiots were left in charge?

You have a system that needs to show it's citizens that they are in control of the situation and monsters locked away... And as they cannot find any more monsters, they then add extra time to the existing monsters they locked away and bring them forward for the public to revisit in newspapers.

What would you like society to do with murderes?

So what chance would anyone have if they cannot afford to defend themselves, where they have to rely on one person and the money he/she is allowed to claim for their services whilst looking into a defendants case.. Where the defendant has no realistic input or understanding of the system, to maybe ask the correct questions.

Tabak admitted responsibility and the man isn't an idiot. The charges were pretty clear - nothing complicated about them.

And then you arrive at court... You are separated from your Defence, you may be in a box surrounded by guards, it already is having a dramatic impact upon the jury and general public alike, without a word even been spoken..

"He must be guilty"..

" Look he's caged already"

" He must be dangerous, look at all those guards"

The visual impact alone has already put the defendant at a disadvantage, why is he not sat next to his counsel? Why has he not got the opportunity, to confer with his counsel throughout his trial, where he may hear or see a discrepancies himself that he would like his counsel to challenge?

No.. make him look guilty, then it will make it easier for a jury to convict...

The idea of Innocent until proven guilty is a fallacy, when images are just as powerful as words.. When the public and jury are presented with the accused and make a judgement on their 'First Impression'.. As we know and we are taught first impressions count..

So the uphill battle has begun in the court... You were already disadvantaged by the media, before you reached trial
and now the jury who lets face it in a high-profile case, could not have failed to have heard about it, they could not have failed to have already been prejudiced by what they read or heard.

And to let them truly remember just how dangerous said defendant is, we will place him in a dock and encompass him with guards, so the jury will be reminded that what they had read or heard of this defendant in the media, must be true..

Realistically, at this point the prosecution do not need to even open their mouths, the imagery has done the job for them...

Realistically, Tabak admitted responsibility but for your observations to be factual, it would mean that no on facing such proceedings would ever be found 'not guilty. but that isn't the case - is it?

If you as a defendant are feeling disadvantaged at this point, it is only going to get far, far,worse... What has proven at this point that the defendant is guilty?... Nothing really, a case is just that, information gathered and evidence, that will be presented to show guilt or innocence.

Now we come to the time of the prosecution, where what they are actually doing is proving their case... Does that mean that the information they have is complete, or does it mean that they can present  pieces of information that may have holes in it, to a jury to convince them, that the defendant they have already made their mind up about with their first impression, is now well an truly going to show them just what a deviant, monster etc.. he or she is...

Now this is were it becomes really unfair.... The defence can counter-act what the prosecution have presented, but only if they have themselves fully investigated the case for their defendant, based on the payment they may be entitled too and time they have available....

Lets just think about that for a minute... To start with you have had 80 Officers plus civilian staff working on this investigation, you have had forensic staff other experts and many people from the CPS working on this case.. And you are a party of one..

A party of one hoping against hope that the person who is dealing with your case, isn't working on any other case at the same time, you are hoping that the person dealing with your case is turning over every stone, you are hoping against hope, that the person dealing with your case will find that piece of evidence that will shoot holes in the prosecutions case, you are hoping that the person dealing with your case will shoot down in flames, what the prosecution have prepared against you... What a dedicated team of Police have spent, months, years collecting evidence of these cases... And the only dedicated person in your case is YOU...

You're only hoping all of that if you're innocent - Tabak wasn't/isn't. He was hoping that they 'wouldn't' find the evidence he'd left behind!

Your freedom is at stake, your liberty, your friends and family will never be the same... So you on your own have the most to loose, and you the defendant have the least at your disposal to prove your innocence.. But that makes the price high... higher than any cost of trials and investigation, because how does anyone put a price on liberty and life?

I am not saying that defence lawyers etc do not try their best, I am saying that the odds are stacked against them before they even start...

Where prisons are run in a private capacity it will only ever be about the shareholder... (imo) The prisoner is convicted, the prisoner is no longer seen as human, the prisoner no matter what they may or may not have done, will be treated no better than an animal.. But we care about animals, we apparently have empathy for animals, so what does that therefore say about prisoners? cramming more and more into prisons that are not fit for purpose and where having personal space isn't valued..

Have you ever been inside a prison?

I was brought up to believe that prison was about reform, but that doesn't appear to be the case, punishment and inhuman acts are perpetrated, but why should the public care.. They are monsters after all...

The inhuman acts are generally perpetuated by other prisoners.

The Justice System needs a complete overhaul, we are nearly in 2020 a time were the future was supposed to be rosy, a time when we had advanced so much that everything would be different from a hundred years prior.. But there are no real differences, the poor are still poor, they will never have the ability to launch a full defence for themselves, and if they are ill educated, it will make the task even more difficult as they would have to just sit there and take what is stated, by either side, having no idea how to challenge the charges..

I stated I like fair, it's simple really, but unfortunately I have found that the system isn't fair, it cannot be fair in it's present state. It cannot be fair when the odds are stacked against you from the outset..

That's a matter of opinion - whatever Utopian ideal you have about the justice system won't suit other people and they will believe that to be 'unfair'. I guess it's a case of you can't please everyone. It's not perfect (fat from it) but if you feel that strongly about it do something about it. Think of all that time wasted that you could have used to make a stand.

I am sure that there are many good people within the Justice System, many good people who must be frustrated, with the state of said system, who cannot openly discredit the systems failings, without making life difficult for themselves.

Having started with wanting to defend what some may see as the undefendable, and make a real difference to society, the tools and money they have isn't equal to the states tools and finance.

But how would they be able to change the system? I don't know... It's almost like there needs to be an amnesty, A line drawn, a new approach, a huge change.. And an admission of an old system that is broken...

It's not just the justice system that's broken!

So when it comes to a defendant at trial, is it just a case of who can present the better story or a case of real evidence that beyond a shadow of a doubt, proves the guilt of the person in the dock...

Do we really need TV programs to convince us of a persons guilt after a trial? Where the facts are different from what may be known..

No-one should be seen by a court via video link, everyone has the right to FACE their accusers, and that should be in person.. Just because there is technology available doesn't mean we should use it... That also puts the defendant at a disadvantage...

" Oh Cheryl... they haven't even brought him to court, its via video link.... He must be a monster, he must be dangerous'!!!

Impressions matter, presentation matters, a level playing field matters....

Of course people should not be walking around when they can cause great harm to others, but we need to be sure the correct person is being prosecuted, the correct person is in prison facing a life sentence... If not all you have managed to do, is apparently put to bed the fear that the monster has gone, when the monster has been hiding in the cupboard all along... he hasn't gone and he will raise his head again, but if caught, would not be prosecuted for what has gone before, that would mean the system actually admitting it's failures...

The correct person was prosecuted but you refuse to accept it. There is no change to the justice system that can help you with that.

So I do not believe the system is fair, it cannot ever be fair unless their are massive changes, and whether people chose to believe the guilt of any individual may depend on what they believe they know, or the evidence that has been presented, with other evidence being omitted...

If only part of a story is ever presented at trial, with the defendant in a box surrounded by guards, then the likely hood of guilt is greater, the likely hood that an admission of guilt happening is greater, the defendant may by this point be mentally worn down and has accepted his/her fate and hasn't the ability, education or strength to fight what has been put forward.

Tabak was none of those things!

Lost within a legal system of jargon they cannot comprehend, and bamboozeled by the situation they have found themselves in...

I do not know the answer, but honesty is a good place to start.. fair is a good place to start...

But you don't have a definition of what you believe 'fair' to be?

As I have stated I am no-one, a citizen who came here concerned about a case, a citizen whom through looking at this case of Joanna Yeates /Dr Vincent Tabak, has found the justice system lacking greatly, a system that this country was once proud of, a system which should have moved with the times.. A system that obviously needed shaking, a system that should be progressive..

Only because you refuse to accept he is guilty!

But it isn't it fails on many levels, it fails not only those in prison , but the free citizens who feel that they are being protected by the very same system, that would put someone in prison for not having a TV License.. A system that is closing courts, reducing police officers, using technology in a way that should not be used at court...

I think I am sad, sad that what I stupidly believe was the system, was fair... And an innocent person sent to prison was unusual and would be dealt with swiftly... But that is not the case, as we know, many many innocent people are in prison, many having lost the best part of their lives.. And if they are lucky enough to overturn the injustice perpetrated against them, who really cares? Not the public.. rarely do we these days see outrage, they do not show the outrage  they showed when these people were covered in a blanket and rushed into court or a police van, where the public banged on the side of the van shouting obscenities... There is little coverage in the media for these poor people and their families..

I don't think that's true - does Birmingham six ring a bell?

No body from the CPS, the Police etc are filmed apologising for what happened to them, no TV crews day in and day out explaining to the public how the system had failed these people....

No... Sweep it under the carpet and lets hope it goes away...

Until the media whom have extreme power everywhere, recognise the tragedies that have happened and appeal to the public to act, nothing will change.. But the media are not going to do that , it doesn't sell newspapers or TV time, it is not money making, I believe they think it is pointless.. (imo)

If the media want respect, let them Pro Bono and highlight cases of injustice, where money isn't at the forefront, lets face it they already made their money with the stories they sold before, during and after the trial... The defendant has made them a ton of money or should I say the victim... Because the victim isn't really of concern to the media, the victim and the way in which the victim died is a money spinner for the media.. Apparently everyone loves a juicy story...

Tabak isn't a case of injustice!

So responsible reporting, on all sides needs to be established, and in the event of a Miscarriage of Justice, the same attention that brought this person into the public view in the first place, should be given upon their release or appeals..

I sometimes wonder why the courts stop reporters, reporting on events inside the court? What happened to transparency?

Therefore a skewed view and speculation, become rife, and after conviction any type of story is game... Any untruths , unfounded information can be laid on a platter for the hungry public..

The question is an apathetic public are easy to convince, an apathetic public and an Old System, that has cracks the size of Casumms are tearing it apart, and no sticking plaster will fix it anytime soon...

If nothing changes, it will only get worse, if no-one cares, who will fix it... If citizens like me are made to feel that we are either, crazy, obsessed, or having an unnatural interest in justice by questioning what we believe is unfair, then let me remind you all...

Anyone is one step away from being wrongly accused, everyone is one step away from enjoying the delights The System has to offer, and realistically, should it take for every individual in this country to find themselves at the wrong end of the system for them to understand it's failings, before people will change their minds...

So it is time for change, we need change, and it is time that people who have concerns are not tarred with a brush..

I suppose the reality of what I have learnt has disappointed me, I have been under the assumption that everyone likes fair.. I have gone through life believing fair is right and true.... Now for that you can call me delusional, for that idea that fair is the right way forward is so alien that nobody recognises it anymore, then I will accept being called a loony, I will accept the idea that I have an unhealthy interest, obsessed even... What ever you want to dress it up as to make me out to be a person you know nothing about or just to belittle me... I don't care...

I care about fair... and honesty... simple things really, and I care that The Justice System has become liken to a production line, where the value of it's clients many of them the poorest in the land, are all ready disadvantaged before the game has begun..

And if all that I have learnt about Dr Vincent Tabak, whether the story is true or not... I have learnt every citizen has a responsibility to challenge what they believe is an unfair system and every politician, and law maker of the land does what the public expect of them, seeing it is the public who are paying their wages....

But as always this is my opinion, my opinion based on what I have learnt and understood... And maybe everyone thinks I am wrong again... Well so be it.... I think therefore you should rename the whole site and call it "POINTLESS"... But thats just my opinion... Or maybe the Justice System could be renamed that.. I don't know..

I know I live in la la land hoping fair and honesty should come first... But I'd rather live in la la Land it's a fairer place to live..

NB: This post is just my opinion.....

I couldn't quite get to the bottom of your post - it's too long

[Myster]

I gave up reading the perpetual BS weeks ago. There's something desperately wrong with a person who doesn't listen to reason and logic, but continues to live in this bizarre fantasy world of their own making.  Why am I not surprised that no-one, save Caroline with her endless patience, bothers to respond to your posts.