The Defence Will State Their Case

[[...]]

I never cease to be amazed...

William Clegg QC: "Under the Wig - A Lawyer’s Stories of Murder, Guilt and [...]" | Talks at Google

At 2:45 of video:..

And..  Cases I've done 'Rough Justice' a program that worked on BBC trying to correct Miscarriages of Justice , one quite bemusing case, involving a man being convicted on the bases of an ear print, erm.. which was  completely and utterly debunked in a subsequent trail, where he was found erm, to be not guilty.

I wasn't aware that WC had any input in these programs, it sheds a different light on what I think about them.. I had always been under the impression that they were independently investigated, buy a group of individuals, who were trying to highlight Miscarriages of Justice cases... I must ask the question, why is WC involving himself in a BBC program.. I am slightly surprised... What other programs if any has WC been apart of??

At 3:54 of the video..

And erm, reverting to the,.. theme of todays talk, Murder... Erm.. I've defended in my career  over a hundred people, charged with murder. And I presume the first question really to ask is who is likely to kill you. Statistically, it is not going to be the stranger in the street, grabbing you on the way home and killing you, or a man or woman, breaking into your house, with a sawn of shotgun to commit a burglary and shooting you.

The person most likely to kill you, is your partner, your parent, or your child and that is I'm afraid, a statistical fact....Murder by stranger is actually very rare.... they are in fact, for lawyers the most interesting cases, because so often, murder in the family, doesn't require a great deal of work to solve. And hence they don't provide for a challenge, as far as us lawyers are concerned,so.. erm.. the ones that we find interesting, the ones in this book, are erm.. all but one I think,erm.. examples of stranger murders. Statistically they are very rare..

, murder in the family, doesn't require a great deal of work to solve So what work was put into Dr Vincent Tabak's case?? Or is he a member of the family?

At 5:58 of the video:

Most Murders...  Most people who kill have no previous convictions of any kind, they are not people who have been in trouble with the police in the past, they haven't been stealing and fighting during the course of their live, most occasions they are people who have just snapped for one reason or another and struck out.With terrifying results.And I do subscribe to a theory

I'm carefully watching this video, something that has become apparent to me,(I may be incorrect) when he talks about war crimes, which lets face it he goes into great depths, it comes across almost like it's a personal experience... As if a member of his family were actually there...

The more I watch, the more I believe the war story he is sharing, is indeed personal... The detail attributed to this story above all others, he appears passionate about that particular case, he sits arms folded, without any prompting ,relives in minute detail every aspect of the case.

At 26:48 of the video:

He sadly developed altzimers and was before the case could be heard and unfit to stand trial and died very shortly afterwards and that caused a slight change of approach by the prosecution, they had picked him because they thought he was in a position of command, they didn't just want to go for a private in the army and prosecute him, they wanted someone in command to make the process worth while in their eyes, and I can see the logic of that

Whilst he has been allowing the audience to understand this case, he has made it clear that this man was not in a position of power and was akin to a lowly Sargent...

You have to understand that these are my observations, And it has been interesting to watch this video...  The first point I will make, is when did WC first become aware and defend this man??

I have a couple of issues, firstly how did he know in such detail, what had happened in this mans life? i say this because WC admits that this man has altzimers and his recollection must be flawed, his recollection may be confused, his recollection realistically cannot be relied upon...

Yet WC with passion for his client, defends a man he has no evidence to prove one way or the other what his role in the war was? He defends a man who could have committed atrocities, but no proof either way must exist.. I cannot understand the passion that WC shows in this case, when he quickly fluffs over others. And the only conclusion I can come up with, is it is personal in some way to him...

He then goes on to speak about the Balkens war, where even though it is a bigger stage, his recollect appears not to be as precise as his recollection of the other war criminal, referring to the book to point him in the right direction.

At 32:58 of the video:

I went to see him, I meet Taditch in the united nations detention facility, which was a jail within a jail, inside the hague. I had to go through a Dutch jail to get to the detention centre, where the security would provide by UN guards, it smelt of stale cabbage, like all other prisons I had visited, but it was more peaceful than a normal prison with plenty of time for visits, when families could make the journey, the relaxed atmosphere was fostered by the Irish governor, who had managed to house prisoners on opposite side of the conflict, without any animosity that I could detect.

Most notable in this case , he is using his book to reiterate this story, it is not clearly implanted in his brain as the other war crime case, he reads from the book of the smell of stale cabbage, a memory I would have imagined he would not forget.

But again the detail and empathy he shows is surprising when compared with Dr Vincent Tabak, where on page one of his topic, he devalues his own client with the comments he makes..

Back to the video.. at 36:59

Called Goran Jelisic.. erm who had been erm, convicted of war crimes, but in fact acquitted of genocide, who was in charge of one of the concentration camps where he would, it would appear for his own pleasure, torture and kill , inmates who were muslims.. he was a slightly different individual, I erm, I would suspect was really a psychopath, he was really a cold, difficult to reason with individual, as opposed to Tadich who had a delightful family who would come to visit him, gave me a bottle of the most disgusting plum vodak I have ever had in my life as a christmas present one year.. Where as Jelisic was not such an attractive individual..

Whilst Talking of Taditch , he talks as if he is almost a friend accepting a gift of vodka for christmas, but apparently Jelisic lacking support for his family and with empty hands was not an attractive proposition. And he concludes that this man was a psychopath.. I'm bemused... Did he defend or prosecute Jelisic? I don't know...

He has spoken for over 30 minutes on war crimes and relayed details that he hasn't as yet shown to other cases he has been apart of... His next quote is interesting...

At 40:12

Just reflect on that as we come to Christmas, which is always statistically a high time for Murder ( he says with a smile)... which is more business for me..

That comment should have lead into Dr Vincent Tabak and The Murder of Joanna Yeates, a case that was at Christmas, a young woman found Murdered on Longwood Lane on Christmas day...

He misses the opportunity to talk of this high profile case and sips his water then says..

I'm keeping an eye on the clock, coz I know you have all got jobs to do this afternoon and I haven't and there's about 15 mins left and I am very keen erm, to take some questions, I

He talks of programs, he contradicts what he believes, he thinks that war crimes the evidence is lost and makes it difficult to prosecute, because of time past and evidence lost, yet in another breath he believes crimes against children where there is no difference in evidence lacking and time passed similar to the war crime issue for prosecutions...
He further goes on to say at 44:33 of the video talking about crimes against children..

We're dealing with paedophile cases going back some 40 years and more in the courts at the moment, it's a one of the growth area's for criminal justice

Growth area's?? It sound like stocks and shares, how can it be a growth area? Crimes perpetrated against children, should be dealt with, but in revisiting historic cases, WC is in fact correct, this type of crime has become a growth area, with the difficulties associated with passage of time, witness's etc....

Questions from the audience about forensics and DNA and I am sat with bated breath... at last I will hear what I have been waiting for,.... But does he take the opportunity to give me what I want.... No... although he does surprise..

At  45:20 of the video..

DNA has been a fantastic aid, to criminal investigations.. erm.. I mentioned briefly the Rachel Nickell Murder, in um, 1974 I think it was..

I'll give him a mo... he did look left which could have been for a prompt, but where the hell did 1974 come from??

He further goes on to state about the case with the ear print and he shows his  distain of another professional..

96 year old widow, smothered by a pillow and the Police found a perfect ear print on the outside window of the house, and the theory was that the burglar had put his ear to the window and couldn't hear anything and had broken in.. And.. er..... rather idiotic policeman, from Holland called Van der Lugt, if you believe it, had given evidence that ear prints were unique and it was Dallaghers ear print, well he was convicted of murder on this daft evidence and spent about 8 years there, before I got involved with the case.

I had to look up why Van Der Lugt's name would be something Clegg would comment on the 'if you could believe it'... Yes I used google translator and yes it may be incorrect, but in English it means 'EAR.'..

Does he speak Dutch , had he just like me looked it up? He can remember that Lugt means Ear yet cannot remember when Racheal Nichol was murdered and refers to a date of 1974... A date for me that screams another murder which had been connected to the Joanna Yeates Case and that is The Murder of Glenis Carruthers...

I am bemused, disappointed having wasted over an hour wanting answers to my questions and he totally managed to avoid this high profile case that I hoped he would cover, I hoped an explanation of how he represented Dr Vincent Tabak and what advice he had given him...

It obvious his passion is war crimes, but I was waiting for ground breaking statements that once and for all would stop me questioning this case... But not even a mention in the video... Of course it could have been edited and omitted from the recording, I do not know how long this talk was for....

going back to this: 96 year old widow, smothered by a pillow and the Police found a perfect ear print on the outside window of the house, and the theory was that the burglar had put his ear to the window and couldn't hear anything and had broken in.. And.. er..... rather idiotic policeman, from Holland called Van der Lugt, if you believe it, had given evidence that ear prints were unique and it was Dallaghers ear print, well he was convicted of murder on this daft evidence and spent about 8 years there, before I got involved with the case.

Daft evidence.... It rings in my Lugt... I want to know what evidence they had against Dr Vincent Tabak before he apparently confessed? which I don't believe for a moment, but lets put that aside and ask the question... If we accept May 2011 as his confession, then what had been done to release Dr Vincent Tabak from custody, what evidence up until then had the prosecution have in their possession that Dr Vincent Tabak was unequivocally guilty of this crime? What solid evidence was there that it was indeed Dr Vincent Tabak? Had the idea that DNA had been found been enough to cast doubt on what Dr Vincent Tabak stated... Why didn't WC attack this case with the same passion he has shown for the war crimes?

Lets go back to his initial statements...

The person most likely to kill you, is your partner, your parent, or your child and that is I'm afraid, a statistical fact....Murder by stranger is actually very rare.... they are in fact, for lawyers the most interesting cases, because so often, murder in the family, doesn't require a great deal of work to solve. And hence they don't provide for a challenge, as far as us lawyers are concerned,so.. erm.. the ones that we find interesting, the ones in this book, are erm.. all but one I think,erm.. examples of stranger murders. Statistically they are very rare..

If he believe the person most likely to kill is related or connected to you as in partner, then that in itself should have had alarm bells ringing... Why would a complete stranger Murder Joanna Yeates?/ Statistically according to WC, it is extremely low..

He astounds me with this statement: Most Murders...  Most people who kill have no previous convictions of any kind, they are not people who have been in trouble with the police in the past, they haven't been stealing and fighting during the course of their live, most occasions they are people who have just snapped for one reason or another and struck out.With terrifying results. And I do subscribe to a theory

How could one attribute that statement to Dr Vincent Tabak? 

Dr Vincent Tabak was not related to Joanna Yeates, he did not know Joanna Yeates, the window of opportunity was minute, yet he acted completely out of character, calmly strangling Joanna Yeates for what reason?? He didn't snap? It was cold and calculated apparently... He had no previous convictions he was a model citizen... So explain why he went rouge??

Dr Vincent Tabak is the opposite of everything that WC states, there is no hole/ box he can be put in... Yet to me it appears that not all that could have been done for Dr Vincent Tabak was done! Why??

[[...]]

continued....

If no forensic evidence came to court, considering the fact that they stripped the flat bare, where was the argument, that nothing forensically other than low copy DNA, which considering they lived in the same building and could be attributed to transfer, how did WC not argue the case for that... The proof has only ever been the statement made on the stand... A statement on the stand that explained the way in which Joanna Yeates was apparently murdered, a statement made in its fullest at his own trial....

Why was he not advising his client against self incrimination? why had he not questioned the lack of forensics or witness's in this case... He with affection recalls Taditch's family and must have exchanged pleasantries and gifts of appreciation... But anyones background or family should I say , should not be an indication as to whether someone should be defended or not, where you are judged on your families social skills and not on the evidence of any case...

Families may provide evidence in support of an action or a reference, but ultimately unless they are witness's to the case, their status as citizens is irrelevant, their social skills are not on trial....

It's an odd statement for him to make (imo), and anyone can read into it what they will, but I am trying to understand what makes WC tick....


And erm, reverting to the,.. theme of todays talk, Murder... Well war crimes and domestic crimes are somewhat different (imo), by domestic crimes i am referring to the act of Murder... Yet war crimes are what WC's talk is all about...

Statistically, it is not going to be the stranger in the street, grabbing you on the way home and killing you, or a man or woman, breaking into your house, with a sawn of shotgun to commit a burglary and shooting you.

Statistically.... statistically..??  I could repeat that time and again.... He's aware that it is extremely unusual for for a random stranger to attack someone in there home and Murder them... Someone without a criminal record of any type, who's professional standing and intellect goes before him, his Placid nature, his expertise in computers and engineering, whom had been in America up until 3 days prior to the Murder, was socially active, had friends and family and a loving relationship with his girlfriend, was respected in his profession, would out of nowhere and for no reason, wangle his way into his neighbours home, whom he had never meet, on the off chance she was in fact on her own, where he could work his magic and then strangler her...

Has he looked back at this case?? My God... What category would he put that in....

I can comprehend where he states depending on circumstances and conditions one who would never commit a crime may be bullied, or forced to act out of character, because of war etc....

But Dr Vincent Tabak was none of those....  Dr Vincent Tabak's Case in fact should have been at the forefront of that talk he gave, because he doesn't appear to fit anything that WC has come across before, he cannot be pigeon holed in any shape or form... yet the case of Dr Vincent Tabak leaves me speechless.... (obviously a figure of speech)

He states: The person most likely to kill you, is your partner, your parent, or your child and that is I'm afraid, a statistical fact....Murder by stranger is actually very rare

I'm like arrggghh.... I don't get it... He knows what is more likely, he understand what drives people to behave out of character yet.....
What did he do for Dr Vincent Tabak, what evidence did he collect in his defence..? What arguments did he pose to the prosecution as to why this case was flawed?? What evidence proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that his client was guilty, when he himself is equipped with statistics, which in themselves should have him asking questions...

I am at a loss... What made him beyond a shadow of a doubt think his client was guilty? I say this because I cannot understand where he came from in this case.... Yes , we have been told he watched porn apparently... There are many that do.... They are not all murders... The apparent child abuse images, were not admissible for Joanna Yeates case and not proven either at the time of trial, not that it was proven afterwards, when another admission of guilt puts it to bed....

It is rather peculiar in my opinion, that what appears as so little done to find witness's  in this case and evidence to support his clients innocence for months before trial we have an admission to manslaughter in its place.. We have no-one coming forward to support Dr vincent tabak, and no witness's either at trial in his support..
This master defender that he purports to be and has appeared in magazines as such has failed this Dutch National miserably (imo)...

His talk disappointing to me... Why did he not mention Dr Vincent Tabak?? Joanna Yeates a high profile case, that he was involved with??

The phrase 'Daft Evidence, is reverberating around my head, as I cannot comprehend the difference between the two cases, on the basis that we have. A Dutch national whom has apparently admitted guilt to manslaughter, whom throughout the trial is sat in the dock with glass panels surrounded by guards and whom is on a suicide mission to tell the world what he apparently did.... With The Jury aware that this Dutch national had admitted to Manslaughter ringing in their ears when they judge on whether or not he is guilty of Murder......

My little brain can not comprehend this... my little brain is in pain... my little brain is fighting with its very being as to what evidence this case was based on... What evidence proved that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates, when there were no witness's  no forensics and no confession upon arrest.... Nothing and I mean nothing put Dr vincent Tabak in the frame for this Murder, statistically nothing.... Nothing in December 2010 pointed to Dr Vincent Tabak being responsible.. No hard evidence supported this fact....

And then I find we are were we are.... me going around in circles not being able to comprehend this case as it makes no sense and has never made any sense.....

I have again given my opinion on what I have viewed whether or not you agree with me... But on hearing WC speak about statistics and circumstance, doesn't it make anyone wonder what on earth The Joanna Yeates case was about, seeing as I cannot find anything that was apparently done to defend this Dutch National from a charge of Murder.... in my opinion of course..

My problem is I cannot quite work out whether WC is playing Dumb, like the Dutch Policeman he describes, about this case and his hands were tied, or he really didn't attack this case to the fullest from day one?

And with either proposition the question would be Why??

Edit..... " the ones that we find interesting, the ones in this book, are erm.. all but one I think,erm.. examples of stranger murders. "

Can someone tell me which one case he is referring to that is not a stranger Murder?
mrswah, any ideas??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLJLwID6Tso

[Caroline]

I never cease to be amazed...

William Clegg QC: "Under the Wig - A Lawyer’s Stories of Murder, Guilt and [...]" | Talks at Google

At 2:45 of video:..

I wasn't aware that WC had any input in these programs, it sheds a different light on what I think about them.. I had always been under the impression that they were independently investigated, buy a group of individuals, who were trying to highlight Miscarriages of Justice cases... I must ask the question, why is WC involving himself in a BBC program.. I am slightly surprised... What other programs if any has WC been apart of??

At 3:54 of the video..

, murder in the family, doesn't require a great deal of work to solve So what work was put into Dr Vincent Tabak's case?? Or is he a member of the family?

At 5:58 of the video:

I'm carefully watching this video, something that has become apparent to me,(I may be incorrect) when he talks about war crimes, which lets face it he goes into great depths, it comes across almost like it's a personal experience... As if a member of his family were actually there...

The more I watch, the more I believe the war story he is sharing, is indeed personal... The detail attributed to this story above all others, he appears passionate about that particular case, he sits arms folded, without any prompting ,relives in minute detail every aspect of the case.

At 26:48 of the video:

Whilst he has been allowing the audience to understand this case, he has made it clear that this man was not in a position of power and was akin to a lowly Sargent...

You have to understand that these are my observations, And it has been interesting to watch this video...  The first point I will make, is when did WC first become aware and defend this man??

I have a couple of issues, firstly how did he know in such detail, what had happened in this mans life? i say this because WC admits that this man has altzimers and his recollection must be flawed, his recollection may be confused, his recollection realistically cannot be relied upon...

Yet WC with passion for his client, defends a man he has no evidence to prove one way or the other what his role in the war was? He defends a man who could have committed atrocities, but no proof either way must exist.. I cannot understand the passion that WC shows in this case, when he quickly fluffs over others. And the only conclusion I can come up with, is it is personal in some way to him...

He then goes on to speak about the Balkens war, where even though it is a bigger stage, his recollect appears not to be as precise as his recollection of the other war criminal, referring to the book to point him in the right direction.

At 32:58 of the video:

Most notable in this case , he is using his book to reiterate this story, it is not clearly implanted in his brain as the other war crime case, he reads from the book of the smell of stale cabbage, a memory I would have imagined he would not forget.

But again the detail and empathy he shows is surprising when compared with Dr Vincent Tabak, where on page one of his topic, he devalues his own client with the comments he makes..

Back to the video.. at 36:59


Whilst Talking of Taditch , he talks as if he is almost a friend accepting a gift of vodka for christmas, but apparently Jelisic lacking support for his family and with empty hands was not an attractive proposition. And he concludes that this man was a psychopath.. I'm bemused... Did he defend or prosecute Jelisic? I don't know...

He has spoken for over 30 minutes on war crimes and relayed details that he hasn't as yet shown to other cases he has been apart of... His next quote is interesting...

At 40:12

That comment should have lead into Dr Vincent Tabak and The Murder of Joanna Yeates, a case that was at Christmas, a young woman found Murdered on Longwood Lane on Christmas day...

He misses the opportunity to talk of this high profile case and sips his water then says..

He talks of programs, he contradicts what he believes, he thinks that war crimes the evidence is lost and makes it difficult to prosecute, because of time past and evidence lost, yet in another breath he believes crimes against children where there is no difference in evidence lacking and time passed similar to the war crime issue for prosecutions...
He further goes on to say at 44:33 of the video talking about crimes against children..
Growth area's?? It sound like stocks and shares, how can it be a growth area? Crimes perpetrated against children, should be dealt with, but in revisiting historic cases, WC is in fact correct, this type of crime has become a growth area, with the difficulties associated with passage of time, witness's etc....

Questions from the audience about forensics and DNA and I am sat with bated breath... at last I will hear what I have been waiting for,.... But does he take the opportunity to give me what I want.... No... although he does surprise..

At  45:20 of the video..
I'll give him a mo... he did look left which could have been for a prompt, but where the hell did 1974 come from??

He further goes on to state about the case with the ear print and he shows his  distain of another professional..

I had to look up why Van Der Lugt's name would be something Clegg would comment on the 'if you could believe it'... Yes I used google translator and yes it may be incorrect, but in English it means 'EAR.'..

Does he speak Dutch , had he just like me looked it up? He can remember that Lugt means Ear yet cannot remember when Racheal Nichol was murdered and refers to a date of 1974... A date for me that screams another murder which had been connected to the Joanna Yeates Case and that is The Murder of Glenis Carruthers...

I am bemused, disappointed having wasted over an hour wanting answers to my questions and he totally managed to avoid this high profile case that I hoped he would cover, I hoped an explanation of how he represented Dr Vincent Tabak and what advice he had given him...

It obvious his passion is war crimes, but I was waiting for ground breaking statements that once and for all would stop me questioning this case... But not even a mention in the video... Of course it could have been edited and omitted from the recording, I do not know how long this talk was for....

going back to this: 96 year old widow, smothered by a pillow and the Police found a perfect ear print on the outside window of the house, and the theory was that the burglar had put his ear to the window and couldn't hear anything and had broken in.. And.. er..... rather idiotic policeman, from Holland called Van der Lugt, if you believe it, had given evidence that ear prints were unique and it was Dallaghers ear print, well he was convicted of murder on this daft evidence and spent about 8 years there, before I got involved with the case.

Daft evidence.... It rings in my Lugt... I want to know what evidence they had against Dr Vincent Tabak before he apparently confessed? which I don't believe for a moment, but lets put that aside and ask the question... If we accept May 2011 as his confession, then what had been done to release Dr Vincent Tabak from custody, what evidence up until then had the prosecution have in their possession that Dr Vincent Tabak was unequivocally guilty of this crime? What solid evidence was there that it was indeed Dr Vincent Tabak? Had the idea that DNA had been found been enough to cast doubt on what Dr Vincent Tabak stated... Why didn't WC attack this case with the same passion he has shown for the war crimes?

Lets go back to his initial statements...

The person most likely to kill you, is your partner, your parent, or your child and that is I'm afraid, a statistical fact....Murder by stranger is actually very rare.... they are in fact, for lawyers the most interesting cases, because so often, murder in the family, doesn't require a great deal of work to solve. And hence they don't provide for a challenge, as far as us lawyers are concerned,so.. erm.. the ones that we find interesting, the ones in this book, are erm.. all but one I think,erm.. examples of stranger murders. Statistically they are very rare..

If he believe the person most likely to kill is related or connected to you as in partner, then that in itself should have had alarm bells ringing... Why would a complete stranger Murder Joanna Yeates?/ Statistically according to WC, it is extremely low..

He astounds me with this statement: Most Murders...  Most people who kill have no previous convictions of any kind, they are not people who have been in trouble with the police in the past, they haven't been stealing and fighting during the course of their live, most occasions they are people who have just snapped for one reason or another and struck out.With terrifying results. And I do subscribe to a theory

How could one attribute that statement to Dr Vincent Tabak? 

Dr Vincent Tabak was not related to Joanna Yeates, he did not know Joanna Yeates, the window of opportunity was minute, yet he acted completely out of character, calmly strangling Joanna Yeates for what reason?? He didn't snap? It was cold and calculated apparently... He had no previous convictions he was a model citizen... So explain why he went rough??

Dr Vincent Tabak is the opposite of everything that WC states, there is no hole/ box he can be put in... Yet to me it appears that not all that could have been done for Dr Vincent Tabak was done! Why??

There  you go again taking things literally ...... JUST because someone mentions that murder is (more often than not) committed by  family member or someone close to the victim, you have to apply it to all cases.

Tabak killed JY - bottom line!

[Myster]

This is a staged fake news report about a murderer who doesn't exist... https://www.channel4.com/news/tabak-so-sorry-for-killing-joanna-yeates

[Caroline]

This is a staged fake news report about a murderer who doesn't exist... https://www.channel4.com/news/tabak-so-sorry-for-killing-joanna-yeates

Indeed so creative, it's upsetting!

[[...]]

This is a staged fake news report about a murderer who doesn't exist... https://www.channel4.com/news/tabak-so-sorry-for-killing-joanna-yeates

I have just viewed the news report,

News desk Reporter: The man who killed Joanna Yeates has broken down in the witness box, as he recalled the moment she died. Giving evidence in his own defence Vincent Tabak apologised to her family who were there in court watching, but he said he hadn't meant ti kill her. our home affairs correspondent Andy Davis was there.

Andy Davis: This is the first time David and Teresa Yeates have listened to the man who killed their daughter talk about that night. They walked into a packed court room this morning, with Joanna 's brother Chris beside them.

They would sit in silence side by side as the tall bespectable figure of Vincent Tabak  walked within a few feet of them to take his place at the witness box.
In a dark suit and blue tie shoulders slightly hunched, the 33 year old who has a PHD in studying how people move within office spaces, spoke briefly about his upbringing in Holland, his move to the UK for work and then the night he killed his next door neighbour.

William Clegg QC for the defence here on the left at one point asked Vincent Tabak to close his eyes and try to relive those moments, in an attempt to time how long it took to strangle her. When I say start said the barrister to Vincent Tabak, I want you to say now, when you think the incident ended. Start said Mr. Clegg, Vincent Tabak shut his eyes the court fell completely silent. After a few seconds with his eyes still shut he started rubbing his forehead with his eyes still shut, leaning to the right slightly, a few seconds more passed in complete silence and then he said now. 15 seconds the jurors heard, seconds in which Tabak claimed he had tried to stop Joanna screaming , trying to calm her down.

He claimed she had invited him in that night, and then he went to kiss her after she made a flirtatious comment, he alleged, likening herself to her cat going into places she shouldn't. He never intended to kill her he said and then he panicked when he had. He claimed he felt guilt, that it would haunt him for the rest of his life and described his decision to abandon Joanna's body later that night in a country lane as horrendous.

"Whilst trying to lift her body, I was sin a state of total panic and stress and I just left her on the road side verge and I'm so sorry for doing that. I know I put Jo's parents  and Greg, through a week of hell and I still can't believe that I did that." he said.

Nigel Lickley QC closest to camera, in cross examination for the prosecution suggested to Tabak that there'd been no panic, that he was lying, that he had been calculating , manipulative and in complete control throughout.

"All you had to do Vincent Tabak, was to walk out of the flat. Correct?

"Yes" said Tabak " I didn't".

"No" said Nigel Lickley "because you decided to put a hand round her throat, did you not??"

"Yes"

"And you squeezed her throat?"

"Yes" Tabak replied.

"What was she doing?"

"I can't remember"

"Yes you can" said the barrister.  "What was she doing"?

"I can't remember".

Nigel Lickley went on, " She was fighting was she not, she was struggling"

Tabak replied. " She was not struggling"

And there was a point during the cross examination, when as Vincent Tabak was describing how he put his hand on Joanna Yeates neck. Nigel Lickley QC intervened and said. "Show us what you did".

And Vincent Tabak paused, he raised his hand to his head, very briefly,then he put his hand out like that, with his fingers slightly splayed and looked directly at the barrister questioning him,

There were other highly charged moments in that court today, particularly when some very graphic and harrowing images of Joanna's injuries were shown, to the court, to the family and to the defendant.

Nigel Lickley QC said to Tabak. "Thats you gripping her arms in part of the struggle, is it not Vincent Tabak".  he replied " I don't know".. Mr Lickley went on. "Account for the injuries Mr Tabak ". And Vincent Tabak replied. " I don't know".

Andy Davis in Bristol

The description Andy Davis gives, resonated with something I had seen recently, and my love of subtitled programs. It was a Finish program that caught my attention, and the main character, whom fascinated me from the start.. He appeared odd, strange ,random a bit different. I could relate to that. His calm approach to solving problems in crime looked alien, his hand movement and his counting method and concentration, his method of recollection, in his silence, would above all have anyone asking how he ticks..

So when I watched the Channel 4 news report it clicked... I had always believed before that what Dr Vincent Tabak stated on the stand was a recollection of information that he was already party too via news media of the time. Nothing new had come to trial, nothing new that we really all didn't know already.

It was these 2 descriptions from the reporter, that made the connection in my mind..

Vincent Tabak shut his eyes the court fell completely silent. After a few seconds with his eyes still shut he started rubbing his forehead with his eyes still shut, leaning to the right slightly, a few seconds more passed in complete silence and then he said now.



And Vincent Tabak paused, he raised his hand to his head, very briefly,then he put his hand out like that, with his fingers slightly splayed and looked directly at the barrister questioning him,




The characters active mind is never far away from a thought or idea that, he heard or saw, he tries to connect the dots.

When Andy Davis described the action of Dr Vincent Tabak in the witness box, I had a realisation, that this was probably the technique that Dr Vincent Tabak used in his learning, his ability to recollect information stored in his memory, information he has read or seen, I am putting forward the idea, this is what makes Dr Vincent Tabak tick, he uses a technique whether learnt or natural, to recall the volume of information he knows in relation to his PHD and subsequent job..

So applying that to this situation, we can see that it falls flat, his recollection is vague, his recollection is missing detail, his recollection doesn't exist on many counts, as he falls to recall and answer over 80 questions..

I tried to understand why he couldn't remember and why he appeared vague... Him breaking down in tears and apologising to The Yeates...

The case is off... I know it is... questions have been asked as to why he would admit guilt, questions have been asked why he would take the stand and tell a story, a story that is just that....

But if he was protecting someone, if he unwittingly or deliberately, hampered the Police Investigation, if as Ann Reddrop states, he was Clever, then we need to put that into context...

I do not know what technique that Dr Vincent Tabak may have used for his recollection, there is one technique I have found called 'The Memory Palace", but I am sure there are others...

5. Visit Your Palace
At this point, you are done memorizing the items. If you’re new to the technique, though, you’ll probably need to do a little rehearsal, repeating the journey at least once in your mind.

If you start from the same point and follow the same route, the memorized items will come to your mind instantly as you look at the journey’s selected features. Go from the beginning to the end of your route, paying attention to those features and replaying the scenes in your mind. When you get to the end of your route, turn around and walk in the opposite direction until you get to the starting point.

In the end, it’s all a matter of developing your visualization skills. The more relaxed you are, the easier it will be and the more effective your memorization will be.

As I do not know anything about Dr Vincent Tabak , his technique may be natural, and this was never explored at trial, we were given very limited information as to what if any techniques Dr vincent Tabak used in his education or his every day life.. There are huge swaths of information missing from, not only Dr Vincent Tabak's account on the stand, but about him as a person.

Going back to the program a mo... Kari The Detective, has a technique, where he makes oblong boxes on the floor, where in front of him may be the images from the crime scene, he paces back and forth, bare footed, within these boxes, moving his toes as if they are counting, touching his head, either cupping it with two hands or just fingers, thoughts are constantly in his head, as he says.." thoughts occupy my mind without even trying"..

He tries to recall what he has seen and what may have been stated, were connections between places and people come together.. Where sometimes he may appear disinterested as his brain is sifting through information and images that, he has swimming around his head..

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

I do not know his technique, but I will put this scenario forward... Dr Vincent Tabak is just such a person, he has images etc swimming around, he has a technique in which he recalls situations, times, places etc and he has used this technique throughout his life..

So when we get to trial, his recollection is useless, his recollection is no more than we all know, because that is exactly it, he is only recalling what has already gone before... He cannot recall in detail, what actually took place.

Maybe he thought he was protecting someone when he gave an account to the police, when we do not know if he always stated no comment or he actually said quite a lot... Because if i am correct in my scenario, he would have run rings around the Police using a technique and recalling very thing that he knew, everything that was either in the media or on social media... He would have been able to put to see those discrepancies in anyones account, having an ability to memorises information.. Having the ability to recall details, that others cannot.

If he thought he was protecting, helping someone when he first went to the Police or when he was interviewed in Holland, he may have actually stated something, that a person had divulged to him, he may have given a piece of information he didn't realise.. Putting him now in the frame for this Murder...

We really have no idea of the people that Dr Vincent Tabak knew, or the acquaintances he may have had, no idea of the people he may have spoken too about his neighbour...
We have no idea whom the Police had already interviewed and whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak stated something that was held within those interviews..

I believe that this is a possible reason why Ann Reddrop had Dr Vincent Tabak in her sights, because it had to be the Holland interview that triggered something, (imo). Because up until this point, Dr Vincent Tabak was not considered a suspect, Dr Vincent Tabak had apparently been eliminated..

I am having a recollection myself as I type, and DC Karen Thomas stating that Dr Vincent Tabak was over interested in Forensics, was one of the reasons alarm bells started to ring...

Well consider this... Was Dr Vincent Tabak trying to recall something that happened, something he knew, something about the areas that the police were forensically testing didn't add up in his own mind. Questions posed by the police allowing for an idea or thought to swim throw his mind..  Making the idea of him asking questions about forensics making more sense.... And maybe he has in his own mind questions of what someone may have told him, or what he had seen or knew himself.

Did the Police/ CPS feel that Dr Vincent Tabak had tried to bamboozle them, with his technique, whilst he was trying to protect someone else..??

Could they not comprehend how someone had the ability to recall in such detail, what  they knew? Did the just assume that he must have been there and been party to this, because they had never come across a person such as Dr Vincent Tabak...

Did he humiliate them and  their efforts and point out to them, where they went wrong... Did he make them feel inadequate by the sheer fact he was able to recall what had been stated... Did  he in fact reply to the questions posed on his arrest.. Or stay silent, knowing that their stupidity, would fail them....

Ann says he was cunning and manipulative young man. But put it into context, she then says, and I have pointed it out before..

"He knew exactly what he was (deali) doing with, when he killed Jo Yeates."

Dealing with...? As I have stated, did he run rings around them, did he in fact embarrass, humiliate and generally discredit the system??

Is Dr Vincent Tabak actually in prison for Murdering Jo Yeates, or for protecting someone? Or did he simply work out who the real killer was???

There is far more to this than meets the eye, there is far more to Dr Vincent Tabak than we have been told... For an intelligent man that can only recollect the information that was known and the apparent circumstances of Joanna Yeates disappearance, and who at trial fails to answer over 80 questions, and it is not until he sees the images all over the court room that he bows his head and wipes away a tear,and apologises to The Yeates.. I believe that is because, Joanna Yeates was savagely attacked, beaten, strangled, maybe any other type of injury, injuries that were not divulged to the public in the beginning, 43 significant injuries that the public intitially were told didn't exist...

I believe when he saw the full horror of what had happened to Joanna Yeates, he realised that what had happened was far greater than he had been told..

Whether or not the whole case is true..... Is something I have been battling with...
If he believed or knew that the whole case wasn't true, maybe he was just  playing a game with the Police and sent them around in circles.. I don't know...

But I do believe that whatever was stated on the stand was already in the public domain, I believe the concocted story on the stand, was just that.....

I believe that there was a reason that Dr Vincent Tabak was facing trial for Murder... And I do not believe that the reason was because he actually killed her... In my opinion of course....



https://litemind.com/memory-palace/

[[...]]

................

[Caroline]

I have just viewed the news report,

The description Andy Davis gives, resonated with something I had seen recently, and my love of subtitled programs. It was a Finish program that caught my attention, and the main character, whom fascinated me from the start.. He appeared odd, strange ,random a bit different. I could relate to that. His calm approach to solving problems in crime looked alien, his hand movement and his counting method and concentration, his method of recollection, in his silence, would above all have anyone asking how he ticks..

So when I watched the Channel 4 news report it clicked... I had always believed before that what Dr Vincent Tabak stated on the stand was a recollection of information that he was already party too via news media of the time. Nothing new had come to trial, nothing new that we really all didn't know already.

It was these 2 descriptions from the reporter, that made the connection in my mind..

Vincent Tabak shut his eyes the court fell completely silent. After a few seconds with his eyes still shut he started rubbing his forehead with his eyes still shut, leaning to the right slightly, a few seconds more passed in complete silence and then he said now.



And Vincent Tabak paused, he raised his hand to his head, very briefly,then he put his hand out like that, with his fingers slightly splayed and looked directly at the barrister questioning him,




The characters active mind is never far away from a thought or idea that, he heard or saw, he tries to connect the dots.

When Andy Davis described the action of Dr Vincent Tabak in the witness box, I had a realisation, that this was probably the technique that Dr Vincent Tabak used in his learning, his ability to recollect information stored in his memory, information he has read or seen, I am putting forward the idea, this is what makes Dr Vincent Tabak tick, he uses a technique whether learnt or natural, to recall the volume of information he knows in relation to his PHD and subsequent job..

So applying that to this situation, we can see that it falls flat, his recollection is vague, his recollection is missing detail, his recollection doesn't exist on many counts, as he falls to recall and answer over 80 questions..

I tried to understand why he couldn't remember and why he appeared vague... Him breaking down in tears and apologising to The Yeates...

The case is off... I know it is... questions have been asked as to why he would admit guilt, questions have been asked why he would take the stand and tell a story, a story that is just that....

But if he was protecting someone, if he unwittingly or deliberately, hampered the Police Investigation, if as Ann Reddrop states, he was Clever, then we need to put that into context...

I do not know what technique that Dr Vincent Tabak may have used for his recollection, there is one technique I have found called 'The Memory Palace", but I am sure there are others...

As I do not know anything about Dr Vincent Tabak , his technique may be natural, and this was never explored at trial, we were given very limited information as to what if any techniques Dr vincent Tabak used in his education or his every day life.. There are huge swaths of information missing from, not only Dr Vincent Tabak's account on the stand, but about him as a person.

Going back to the program a mo... Kari The Detective, has a technique, where he makes oblong boxes on the floor, where in front of him may be the images from the crime scene, he paces back and forth, bare footed, within these boxes, moving his toes as if they are counting, touching his head, either cupping it with two hands or just fingers, thoughts are constantly in his head, as he says.." thoughts occupy my mind without even trying"..

He tries to recall what he has seen and what may have been stated, were connections between places and people come together.. Where sometimes he may appear disinterested as his brain is sifting through information and images that, he has swimming around his head..

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

I do not know his technique, but I will put this scenario forward... Dr Vincent Tabak is just such a person, he has images etc swimming around, he has a technique in which he recalls situations, times, places etc and he has used this technique throughout his life..

So when we get to trial, his recollection is useless, his recollection is no more than we all know, because that is exactly it, he is only recalling what has already gone before... He cannot recall in detail, what actually took place.

Maybe he thought he was protecting someone when he gave an account to the police, when we do not know if he always stated no comment or he actually said quite a lot... Because if i am correct in my scenario, he would have run rings around the Police using a technique and recalling very thing that he knew, everything that was either in the media or on social media... He would have been able to put to see those discrepancies in anyones account, having an ability to memorises information.. Having the ability to recall details, that others cannot.

If he thought he was protecting, helping someone when he first went to the Police or when he was interviewed in Holland, he may have actually stated something, that a person had divulged to him, he may have given a piece of information he didn't realise.. Putting him now in the frame for this Murder...

We really have no idea of the people that Dr Vincent Tabak knew, or the acquaintances he may have had, no idea of the people he may have spoken too about his neighbour...
We have no idea whom the Police had already interviewed and whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak stated something that was held within those interviews..

I believe that this is a possible reason why Ann Reddrop had Dr Vincent Tabak in her sights, because it had to be the Holland interview that triggered something, (imo). Because up until this point, Dr Vincent Tabak was not considered a suspect, Dr Vincent Tabak had apparently been eliminated..

I am having a recollection myself as I type, and DC Karen Thomas stating that Dr Vincent Tabak was over interested in Forensics, was one of the reasons alarm bells started to ring...

Well consider this... Was Dr Vincent Tabak trying to recall something that happened, something he knew, something about the areas that the police were forensically testing didn't add up in his own mind. Questions posed by the police allowing for an idea or thought to swim throw his mind..  Making the idea of him asking questions about forensics making more sense.... And maybe he has in his own mind questions of what someone may have told him, or what he had seen or knew himself.

Did the Police/ CPS feel that Dr Vincent Tabak had tried to bamboozle them, with his technique, whilst he was trying to protect someone else..??

Could they not comprehend how someone had the ability to recall in such detail, what  they knew? Did the just assume that he must have been there and been party to this, because they had never come across a person such as Dr Vincent Tabak...

Did he humiliate them and  their efforts and point out to them, where they went wrong... Did he make them feel inadequate by the sheer fact he was able to recall what had been stated... Did  he in fact reply to the questions posed on his arrest.. Or stay silent, knowing that their stupidity, would fail them....

Ann says he was cunning and manipulative young man. But put it into context, she then says, and I have pointed it out before..

"He knew exactly what he was (deali) doing with, when he killed Jo Yeates."

Dealing with...? As I have stated, did he run rings around them, did he in fact embarrass, humiliate and generally discredit the system??

Is Dr Vincent Tabak actually in prison for Murdering Jo Yeates, or for protecting someone? Or did he simply work out who the real killer was???

There is far more to this than meets the eye, there is far more to Dr Vincent Tabak than we have been told... For an intelligent man that can only recollect the information that was known and the apparent circumstances of Joanna Yeates disappearance, and who at trial fails to answer over 80 questions, and it is not until he sees the images all over the court room that he bows his head and wipes away a tear,and apologises to The Yeates.. I believe that is because, Joanna Yeates was savagely attacked, beaten, strangled, maybe any other type of injury, injuries that were not divulged to the public in the beginning, 43 significant injuries that the public intitially were told didn't exist...

I believe when he saw the full horror of what had happened to Joanna Yeates, he realised that what had happened was far greater than he had been told..

Whether or not the whole case is true..... Is something I have been battling with...
If he believed or knew that the whole case wasn't true, maybe he was just  playing a game with the Police and sent them around in circles.. I don't know...

But I do believe that whatever was stated on the stand was already in the public domain, I believe the concocted story on the stand, was just that.....

I believe that there was a reason that Dr Vincent Tabak was facing trial for Murder... And I do not believe that the reason was because he actually killed her... In my opinion of course....



https://litemind.com/memory-palace/

This is my final response to this thread and that's only to say ....... this is my final response to this thread.

[[...]]

?

[[...]]

Lord Denning on Rough Justice Program

At 12:40 of the video..

After a decision has been given by judge and jury, the media must not go round, trying to get what they call fresh evidence, so as to show if they can, the decision was wrong, that is undermining our system of justice altogether

I do not remember seeing this program, but the BBC caused a stir...

Is that the point... Is this why I will never get anywhere with everything I have pointed out?

The justice system in itself does not want be be 'undermined' by anyone pointing directly to it's flaws, it isn't able to admit to catastrophic failures that effect us all..

I am not surprised I have gone around in circles questioning whether this cases is real or not, when the very basis of justice in this land would never admit to it's failings..

How blatantly procedures were not followed (imo),

It will never matter even if I can find any FRESH evidence, no-one wants to look at this case, no-one wants to question the fact that it is diabolical, that Dr Vincent Tabak was seen as guilty in July 2011 when the Leveson Inquiry was set up, and CJ and the media went to court to settle the contempt issue.. On the 29th July 2011 we have Dr Vincent Tabak been named as guilty for the Murder of Joanna Yeates even before a trial has taken place, where he may have retracted the guilty to Manslaughter plea..

But it had to be done and dusted then..(imo) I have shown what I believe is a reason for CJ to be at trial, CJ who has conversed with Dr Vincent Tabak over that weekend, CJ, whom saw people at the gate, CJ whom exchanged pleasantries with his tenant and CJ who should have been interviewed by the defence.

But we know that CJ was a key participant in this inquiry, he was named in August 2011 to be such a participant, when I couldn't understand how knowing a trial was taking place in October 2011, he at anytime could have been called to be a witness.. So why his involvement with the inquiry before a trial...

For me the fact that CJ is involved and is making written statements to an inquiry, before a trial, makes this trial of Dr Vincent Tabak even more questionable. That they could be so sure, Dr Vincent Tabak would not change his mind, and that no live witness's whom had seen or spoken to Dr Vincent Tabak that weekend came to trial..

CJ on video stated he saw Dr Vincent Tabak, so why not call him to testify? Why not put him on the stand were he can tell us what he knows, the 2/3 people who could be extremely relevant to this case, that he saw at the gate.. These people whom at around 9:00pm were seen by the landlord of 44,Canygne Road on his return from the gym, these 2/3 people who have never been identified and are just as likely to be persons of interest..

We just get the story we all already knew spoken on the stand and I do not understand why everyone is happy with it...

What really happened in the Joanna Yeates Case? I do not believe the rubbish we have been told, When there is evidently witness's whom were not spoken to or produced at a trial, that could and would change the complexion of it...

Can people honestly tell me that this case is right and true? Can people honestly tell me that this trial is right and true??

Where their is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever to support a man's version of events that was no different to what had already appeared in the media, is accepted as a confession of guilt, by just admitting guilt is enough to have your liberty taken away.. Nothing is known about Dr Vincent Tabak, Nothing whatsoever, he could be a fantasist.. But we do not know.. All we know was whatever had been stated on the stand, was not challenged..

And a man was sentenced to 20 years for a crime that he didn't commit? didn't happen? Wasn't investigated to the fullest.

Truth ,Honesty and Real Justice, should always be at the forefront... But with the way in which the apathy applies in this country and no-one will question the system. We will allow someone to pay the cost of any crime whether guilty or not, just as long as it isn't us..

As a country were bizarre, we're happy to point out what we see as other countries failures and inhumanities, yet we do not admit our own. We have not matured enough to accept our inadequacies, our lacking in fairness and the human rights of others. We pretend we are progressive, but we have been taking one step forward and ten steps back for decades. And if challenged a new law comes and plugs that hole.

So keep kicking people down, stop people asking questions, is the norm...

Ok.. you've won.... I haven't the strength to keep fighting this, I haven't any support, whatsoever..

And when the real monsters come out to play, you get what you deserve, because you have allowed it to happen.... So no complaining... No shock , horror, and surprise..  Keep a stiff upper lip and continue with your life, because no-one gives a crap anyway...

If Dr Vincent Tabak is in prison, I can't help him, I haven't the finance or support, to even begin... I have wasted my time, because the odds were always stacked against me.. And someone like me has no sway or influence..

Why bother trying, why bother highlighting anything, people only do this to make money these days, we have a growth industry according to WC and when a growth industry can keep producing victims, it will stop any other injustice being highlighted.

I cried today.. I cried when I realised the pointlessness of the society I live in... Where no-one gives a crap about anyone else it appears... Where even the good people that are around get taken down in one way or another.

So I'll be quiet., like a good little citizen, and get on with my own business... And remember that I live in the era I was brought up in , where woman are seen and not heard, never mind children, where woman should ask their husbands permission if they can purchase items with there own money...

Where woman should not have an opinion... Where as a good little woman ,I will get a wry smile by a man, and a  condescending pat on the head, and then told not worry about matters that don't concern me.. And only a man truly understands the complexities of life.

What on earth was I thinking of... believing that a mere woman as myself of no standing could actually do something... Ideas above my station.... my god....




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6tDARIM8dI

[[...]]

Missing woman Joanna Yeates: press conference with Detective Chief Inspector and parents
Missing woman Joanna Yeates: press conference with Detective Chief Inspector and parents; David Yeates and Teresa Yeates (Parents of missing 25-year-old, Joanna Yeates) press conference SOT - [David Yeates] The papers used vivacious ... she loved life, loved doing things with her boyfriend ... was a really loving daughter ... did touching things for me which I didn't expect, many small things for her ... Over the last couple of years she has blossomed into a classy lady, she had style, if I could pick a daughter I wouldn't pick anyone else, I miss her terribly and its breaking my heart - [Teresa Yeates] I am missing being able to hold to her ... Jo come back, if anyone has got her don't keep her, give her back to us, we miss her so much, we want to thank everyone who has been helping us ... thank everyone for what they have done and Greg ... just come back Jo - I came down to Bristol a couple of weeks ago to see 'Deal or no Deal' ... I stayed the night with them, I went off early, I texted her and she said did you get there ok? ... She was going to make mince pies, she printed something off the internet ... She was coming up tomorrow - [David Yeates] Christmas is suspended until Jo comes back ... we want to be by ourselves, rather than anyone else, Greg, Chris share something but not to the same extent, ... we hope and pray that she is being held by somebody, please let her go / I think she was abducted after getting home from her flat, because what was behind, we feel she wouldn't have gone out by herself, taken away somewhere, she is a professional lady ... - [Teresa Yeates] She wanted to be in that night and the whole weekend, she had a party on Tuesday ... - [David Yeates] Plans were to finish her Christmas shopping ... she did have things planned / This is a picture of our daughter when she had her graduation, her and Greg were totally in love and devoted to each other, she had no work worries, no money worries, if she went away she would have ta...

Details
Credit:   ITN
Clip #:   691670172   SD
Collection:   ITN
Date created:   23 December, 2010
Licence type:   Rights-ready
Release info:   Not released. More information
Clip length:   00:01:51:01
Location:   United Kingdom
Mastered to:   QuickTime 8-bit Photo-JPEG SD 720x576 25i More information
Originally shot on:   576 25i
Source:   ITN
Object name:   r23121002_2832.mov

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/missing-woman-joanna-yeates-press-conference-with-news-footage/691670172


_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Joanna Yeates murder: Statement by parents of Jo Yeates
Joanna Yeates murder: Statement by parents of Jo Yeates; David Yeates (Father of Jo Yeates) interview SOT - Want to bring conclusion to this - last few weeks have been an absolute nightmare David and Teresa Yeates holding up Police Appeal poster with Greg Reardon (Boyfriend of Joanna Yeates) and Chris Yeates (Brother of Joanna Yeates) standing behind as posing for photocall / More of David & Teresa Yeates, Chris Yeates and Greg Reardon posing for photocall

Details
Restrictions:   No use by regional TV or radio in UK and Ireland until 3 days after date of creation. Prior approval required if clip features ITN newsreader or reporter, please contact your local Getty Images representative.
Credit:   ITN
Details
Restrictions:   No use by regional TV or radio in UK and Ireland until 3 days after date of creation. Prior approval required if clip features ITN newsreader or reporter, please contact your local Getty Images representative.

Credit:   ITN
Clip #:   689136980   SD
Collection:   ITN
Date created:   18 January, 2011
Licence type:   Rights-ready
Release info:   Not released. More information
Clip length:   00:02:54:06
Location:   United Kingdom
Mastered to:   QuickTime 8-bit Photo-JPEG SD 720x576 25i More information
Originally shot on:   576 25i
Source:   ITN
Object name:   r18011102_5719.movSD
Collection:   ITN
Date created:   18 January, 2011
Licence type:   Rights-ready
Release info:   Not released. More information
Clip length:   00:02:54:06
Location:   United Kingdom
Mastered to:   QuickTime 8-bit Photo-JPEG SD 720x576 25i More information
Originally shot on:   576 25i
Source:   ITN
Object name:   r18011102_5719.mov

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/statement-by-parents-of-jo-yeates-david-yeates-interview-news-footage/689136980

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

689136980 = 18th January 2011

691670172 = 23rd December 2010

I believe both clips are made at the same venue, it's just the opposite side of the curtain...

If we follow Maths, numbers come in sequence... 689136980 comes before 691670172

That should follow that 689136980 = 18th January 2011 was made first... Then 691670172 = 23rd December 2010

was made after,.....

My conclusions come from my observations...  They may appear heartless, but I'm trying to be objective..  If I am correct and they were filmed in a different order, the fact that David Yeates talks about his daughter in the past tense ,therefore makes sense...

The question has to be........

* When did Joanna Yeates die?

* Did Joanna Yeates die ?

* What did The Yeates know about their daughter?

* Is this fake news??

* Why the Police search?

* Why the media interest??

* Why fool the public?

I remember people talking years ago about Joanna Yeates been talked of in the past tense, when she was just supposed to be a Missing person, Greg apparently did this too, that was part of the reason that the speculation about him being a person of interest came about...

If I am correct about the clips, what does this clip then tell us?

Missing woman Joanna Yeates: police find body; Missing woman Joanna Yeates: police find body
24.12.2010 Bristol: Clifton: Police forensic investigators (wearing protective suits) searching windows of flat where Joanna Yeates lived Police officers searching through rubbish in bins Back view forensic officer taking evidence from window

Details
Restrictions:   No use by regional TV or radio in UK and Ireland until 3 days after date of creation. Prior approval required if clip features ITN newsreader or reporter, please contact your local Getty Images representative.No use by regional TV or radio in UK and Ireland until 3 days after date of creation. Prior approval required if clip features ITN newsreader or reporter, please contact your local Getty Images representative.
Credit:   ITN
Clip #:   659120944   SD
Collection:   ITN
Date created:   25 December, 2010
Licence type:   Rights-ready
Release info:   Not released. More information
Clip length:   00:00:09:23
Location:   United Kingdom
Mastered to:   QuickTime 8-bit Photo-JPEG SD 720x576 25i More information
Originally shot on:   576 25i
Source:   ITN
Object name:   t25121001_1445.mov

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/police-forensic-investigators-searching-windows-of-flat-news-footage/659120944

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

659120944 =    25 December, 2010

689136980 = 18th January 2011

691670172 = 23rd December 2010

Tell me how that works??   

I don't know what to say, someone explain to me please why the numbers aren't consecutive and in date order? Am I Missing something?

This is why I wonder if Operation Braid was a sting or something, everything appears to be the opposite way around in this case, it has never made any sense...

Has this case only ever appeared on-line? I know there are News clips, but I cannot remember if I actually saw any of it on the TV...

I have shown the staging before, is that all this is, some production?

Below is the link to the clips... number wise they are all back to front..

We have The Yeates at Bristol Crown Court, number = 656414432 date = 20 October, 2011
Before DCI Phil Jones makes his first appeal number = 700088056 date = 28 December, 2010

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/videos/joanna-yeates?page=2&phrase=joanna%20yeates&sort=mostpopular&license=rf,rr

Its very possible I am just plain stupid here.....

So what was Operation Braid really about and why arrest CJ??? Or is he part of the Operation too? seeing as his clips number is (29th December 2010)=(6591125500)

Before DCI Phil Jones appeal...(28th December 2010)=(7000880560)

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/christopher-jefferies-as-speaks-to-press-news-footage/659112550

Maybe CJ could explain what The Joanna Yeates Case is really about, and what was it about Dr Vincent Tabak that they wanted him in prison... Or is he just a figment of someones imagination???

Well I may be wrong, as I say, it's like some big production, I have absolutely no idea any more...

[[...]]

I feel like I am in a production of 'The Emperor's New Clothes'... I keep pointing things out and everyone else doesn't see it.....

More fairy tales eh.....

[puglove]

I feel like I am in a production of 'The Emperor's New Clothes'... I keep pointing things out and everyone else doesn't see it.....

More fairy tales eh.....

I think that this total disrespect towards the Yeates family should stop now. 

[[...]]

I think that this total disrespect towards the Yeates family should stop now.

Thanks for that Puglove

I wasn't trying to be disrespectful, I am trying to understand what this is all about...  You can eff and jeff at me as much as you want........... lovely!

[[...]]

Your right puglove... I should desist .....

Please remove all 3656 posts and deactivate my account ... thankyou