Author Topic: The Defence Will State Their Case  (Read 131631 times)

0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1485 on: June 16, 2018, 10:37:47 PM »
CJ's second witness statement... that illusive statement that no-one knows anything about... The statement that should really have been heard of at trial... A statement that potentially puts someone at Canygne Road around the time that Joanna yeates was murdered according to the prosecution....

What is in that statement.... what do they NOT want us to know???

I was looking at the leveson inquiry and CJ's 2 statements and came across something rather curious.... I do not know if it has any baring, but we will see....


From  witness statement part 1...

Quote
The Leveson Inquiry

Witness Statement for Part 1, Module 1

WITNESS STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER JEFFERIES

I, Christopher Jefferies, c/o Collyer Bristow LLP, 4 Bedford Row, London, WC1R 4DF wifl say
as follows:

From CJ's second witness statement to The Leveson

Quote
The Leveson Inquiry

Witness Statement for Pat1 1 Module 2

SECOND WITNESS STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER JEFFERIES
I Christopher Jefferies, c/o Bindmans LLP, 275 Gray’s Inn Road, London WC1X 8QB will
say as follows:


I have just noticed that the c/o address is different.... I could see him using Bindmans for maybe a claim against the Police, but he wouldn't need them for the Leveson would he??

So why has he got two different solicitors representing him for this inquiry??  Why not just one c/o address??

Bindmans specialise in actions against The Police and State.... Now that has got me wondering even more about CJ's second witness statement!

Or should I be questioning why he chose Collyer Bristow ??




https://www.bindmans.com/what-we-do/actions-against-police-and-state

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122175126/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Christopher-Jefferies.pdf

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


Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1486 on: June 16, 2018, 11:19:59 PM »
How many people represented CJ??

Quote
SM&B

 
@smablaw
Follow Follow @smablaw
More
Statement on our libel advice for Christopher Jefferies in 2011:

http://www.smab.co.uk/news/news/christopher-jefferies-libel-payout.aspx

#TheLostHonour

10:17 PM - 10 Dec 2014

Click the tiny url and you get this??  http://smab.co.uk/news/news/christopher-jefferies-libel-payout.aspx

On their website it says 404 Error not found....  (Image attached)

They are based in Soho in London...  These are their services...

Quote
Our Services
Media
Corporate, Commercial and Finance
Employment
Real Estate
Dispute Resolution
Tech, IP and Digital Rights
Family
Music
Crime and Regulatory
Third Sector and Civil Liberties


It appears that Simons Muirhead & Burton LLP have shied away from CJ after their advice, as the page has disappeared... 

How has CJ got so many people there to help him so early on in the game?? Did Simons Muirhead & Burton LLP do anything else for CJ, or did they just advise him to go to another solicitor?? I am somewhat confused as to how many solicitors one needs to represent you....


They're all based in London... Does Bristol not have any solicitors that could help CJ???

Think we need a head count! or is it like one of those jokes... How many solicitors firms  does it take to represent one man??
Sorry there's no punch line.....

CJ had no money to speak of, you would imagine he would have gone to the first person who could help him, if he had legal aid.... I'm perplexed how so many firms seem to have been involved with CJ....

Any other firms anyone knows of??



https://twitter.com/smablaw/status/542805285887549440

[attachment deleted by admin]

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1487 on: June 17, 2018, 01:05:13 AM »
Yes I remember now it was Lawyer Louis Charalambous who represented CJ, he works for Simons Muirhead & Burton - London... well he does now if he didn't before.... But I am assuming that he did at the time CJ was represented...

This is the blurb on louis....
Quote
UK Guide   Individual Profile
LOUIS CHARALAMBOUS
Simons Muirhead & Burton - London
Louis Charalambous - Simons Muirhead & Burton
8-9 Frith Street London, Greater London, UK W1D 3JB
Tel: 020 3206 2700 Fax: (020) 3206 2800 Email: Louis.charalambous@smab.co.uk
Contact Lawyer  View Firm Profile  View Website
Profile submitted by Louis Charalambous
Practice Areas
Louis is a partner and head of Media specialising in Media: Content & Disputes. Louis acts for a number of high profile clients including The Sun and the Sun on Sunday, Times Newspapers, Mirror/Sunday Mirror, Vice Media, Channel 4, BBC and other broadcasters. He also acts for digital media (including BuzzFeed), production companies as well as individual journalists and provides advice to leading individuals. Louis’ recent major libel trials include Andrew Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers (’Plebgate’) and Times Newspapers v Hunt libel. His recent privacy cases includes PJS v News Group Newspapers Limited. He specialises in crime related media work including libel, privacy, contempt and production orders.

Professional Memberships
Media Society & London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association.

I noticed he missed out CJ in that quote.......

Now here's a quote from The BBC...

Quote
Mr Jefferies was not at the High Court in London to hear about the settlement with the Sun, the Daily Mirror, the Sunday Mirror, the Daily Mail, the Daily Record, the Daily Express, the Daily Star and the Scotsman.

However, his lawyer Louis Charalambous said his client was "satisfied" with the outcome.

"Christopher Jefferies is the latest victim of the regular witch-hunts and character assassinations conducted by the worst elements of the British tabloid media," he said.

Mr Charalambous complained that some press reports were intended to "monster" individuals, with a "flagrant disregard" for their privacy and rights to a fair trial.

Mr Jefferies is also pursuing a civil case against the police for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment, his legal team revealed.

Mr Charalambous had told the judge Mr Jefferies had taught English at Clifton College in Bristol for 34 years and was of good character.

Maybe that is the reason that CJ's libel advice was removed from their site?? Because Mr Charalmbous represents the media now....

It is all very strange...... 

If the newspapers do not speak of CJ, is it because Mr Charalamobous represents them?? And there is some kind of client confidentiality??  It may appear like I have lost it... But... If CJ doesn't want to tell us about his witness statements he made to the Police, and Mr Charalamobous knows this Information, would he advise the media not to speak of it??
How would that stand if the media wanted to print information in relation to the case?? And wanted to look at CJ's second witness statement?? Could they ?? Would they??  Or will they forever be silent??

Is this why the media do not speak of this case?? Because to really question this case we need to know whom or what CJ witnessed on the 17th December 2010....

Is Mr Charalamobous the key to the silence from the media??

I'm not sure... I'm just asking...  Because it seems that his hands are tied with the client he had before and the clients he has now... Or did CJ not divulge what happened with his statements to louis-charalambous?? And with client confidentiality we will never know that either...

God knows what is going on... I'm completely lost.....

https://www.chambersandpartners.com/UK/person/41675/louis-charalambous
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14339807


Offline AerialHunter

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1488 on: June 17, 2018, 06:03:06 PM »
Its the Ashton Court Estate, the track from Longwood lane gives access to the Southern part. Its where I thought the body would have been dumped out of choice of location, it's also where you would probably walk if you had a dog, rather than along a road.
There is none so noble or in receipt of his fellows unbridled adulation as that police officer who willingly deceives to protect one of his own kind and, by virtue of birthright, extends that privilege to his family.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1489 on: June 17, 2018, 07:00:12 PM »
reply#1487

Now It's bugging me...

Louis Charalambous did he represent the media as clients as the same time as he represented CJ????

Because he can't as we know.... Conflict of Interest...  So did Louis have the media clients at the same time as he had CJ as a client???  It wouldn't surprise me as nothing surprises me about this case....

And CJ.... time to talk!!

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1490 on: June 18, 2018, 11:16:28 AM »
Mr and Mrs Yeates, it has been said, already knew that Dr Vincent Tabak was going to plead guilty to Manslaughter on the 5th May 2011.... Now I wonder who else had this information....

When I wrote about what the attorney General had said about CJ and how he had been proven innocent because Dr Vincent Tabak had pled Guilty to manslaughter, therefore CJ because of this plea, was wholly Innocent...

But.... I was under the impression that because Dr Vincent Tabak had pled guilty to Manslaughter, that had paved the way for CJ to take legal action against said Newspapers....

It would be extremely difficult to take action against a National Newspaper, without any evidence to support your claim... Before Dr Vincent Tabak's apparent Confession, no-one could prove or disprove anything... And any person may find themselves the subject of tabloid gossip.... You would need plenty of clout to even consider taking on the National Newspapers, never mind a man whom had no money to speak of and was simply a retired teacher and of no real consequence to anyone...

Yet CJ manages to elicit the services of Lawyers who really shouldn't touch him with a barge pole... (imo) He's a nobody, he hasn't got any standing , he's no celebrity nor politician... He's a nobody....  He in my belief should not be courting an lawyers at this juncture.... Think about it.... There should be a high profile case about to take place for The Murder of Joanna Yeates.... CJ, for all intense and purposes Should be a witness at trial.... But we find him all over the media and everyone is happy to see his face splashed about without question....

I am coming to it...... CJ.. the man who witnessed people at Canygne Road entering or leaving said premises at around 9:00pm on Friday 17th December 2010... should (imo).. be concentrating on what should be his appearance at trial and not courting lawyers to fight newspapers in apparent libel claims.... maybe after the trial he could pursue it, but not before..... And therefore lies my issue.....


Statements were released as early as 21st April 2011 by solicitors acting for CJ in relation to these Newspapers....

Quote
21ST APRIL 2011
SM&B act for Christopher Jefferies in libel and privacy claims against national and local newspapers
Mr Christopher Jefferies has today given notice of libel and privacy claims against a large number of national and local newspapers in relation to articles published by them in December 2010 and January 2011.

The newspapers include The Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, Daily Express and Daily Star among others. Mr Jefferies will be seeking vindication of his reputation for the terrible treatment he received. Mr Jefferies will not be making any statement about these claims until their conclusion, which he hopes will be in the very near future.

Simons Muirhead & Burton partner, Louis Charalambous, who also represented Robert Murat, leads the team representing Mr Jefferies in these libel and privacy claims.

A Press Release is available here.

Why would Louis Charalambous, be representing and issuing statements about CJ before a trial in which CJ shoukd be a witness commences??

This is the 21st April 2011... No apparent plea had been given... Dr Vincent Tabak had said nothing.... CJ is connected to an ongoing investigation.. an investigation that centres around the property he owns and he is a potential witness.... never mind potential.. he is a witness, he tells us at the Leveson....

CJ Leveson quote..
Quote
  I was coming back from the gym at
about 9pm, I had parked my car on the road and was just walking through the gates of
the main driveway, when I became aware of what sounded like two or perhaps three
people leaving by the side gate on the other side of the house which I could not see as
there is a hedge in between and it was dark, I duly telephoned the police and relayed
this.


He like the Lehmans heard something, he could tell us if Dr Vincent Tabak's car was parked on the road or not....  He is a witness...  And to the public was probably still considered a suspect...  The Police had made no Official statement that CJ was no- longer a suspect... And until either a trial had taken place or some evidence supported CJ was wholly Innocent, I do not understand why anyone would take him on as a client in this respect....

We all know about this trial happening... we know of CJ's association with said Murder Inquiry... Yet without Dr Vincent Tabak's plea to Manslaughter, I do not understand why any action was taken before the conclusion of trial.... I do not understand why Louis would consider taking this to court.....

Yes there was name calling..... But that has happened for eons by the tabloids, but what we all seem to forget is what brought CJ to everyones attention.... And that is what he witnessed..... Never mind a blue rinse... I don't care if he has 3 heads.... He's a witness and as such should not be touting himself through any courts.. (imo)... Till after the trial has finished....

By the 21st April 2011, there was nothing to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak was "Their Man"...  But no evidence supports this claim.... So why would Louis take on CJ, when Newspaper gossip is just that?? It doesn't state to fact anything about CJ... apart from an image with a blue rinse....  Why touch a potential suspect/witness at all??

I would have thought they would have stayed well clear until after trial.... But everything is in place.... 

From CJ's Interview on the 30th December 2010..

Quote
Jefferies reported the sighting to police and they confirmed they were examining the evidence.

But speaking outside his home yesterday, Jefferies denied he had told police he saw Miss Yeates with the unidentified pair.

He told Sky News: "It is a serious distortion of what I said to the police and I have no further comment to make as that, no doubt, will be distorted.

"I made some comment which was very, very, very much vaguer than that.

"Anything that I have said I have said to the police and I'm not prepared to make any comments to the media."

He added: "I definitely cannot say that I saw Joanna Yeates that evening. No."

Sky News' crime correspondent Martin Brunt, in Bristol, said that after Jefferies had spoken to Sky News there were questions surrounding his claim.

This I believe is important... We have gone from 'Saw' to 'Heard'..... That is a massive leap and also of great importance....

Now again i will state... by the 21st April 2010 no-one other than the Police knew what was held within CJ's witness statement... or at least they shouldn't seeing as this was a live Murder Inquiry, and it is not until The Leveson that we find CJ saying he heard someone at the gate, etc etc .....  Now a denial on the 29th December 2010 to put their media in it's place would support the change we appear o have in whether CJ saw or heard something.... It would have been far simpler if CJ at the time stated he saw nothing.. Because as he tells us at The Leveson he heard something... But he makes us all believe that he did witness something at that time... and I mean visually....

He talks of great distortions.... Well what was the great distortion?? Heard or saw.... Not a great distortion really... He still witnessed something.... He witnessed the possibility of up to 3 people being at the small gate, he witnessed up to 3 people being at the property of Canygne Road at a time when a Murder had apparently just taken place....

So why was this NOT brought to trial?? Why do we find him wanting to sue papers for "HIS" own gain... shouldn't he be more concerned that his tenant has just been Murdered??? Shouldn't this Murder be the story and not a nobody whom happened to be called names by the press.... Yes i agree it isn't right the press vilify anyone... But I am talking about the time these solicitors were appointed....  A time when CJ shouldn't really be in the papers for anything... As he is the landlord who has witnessed the Potential Killers etc leaving the premises at a relevant time...

So I will return to my original question.... Who else knew that Dr Vincent Tabak would be making a Manslaughter plea in May 2011??

One last point.... By CJ taking this public stand, did this mean that he "couldn't" be a witness at trial??

Did The Media by reporting on the 29th December 2010 that CJ had witnessed people at the gate in Canygne Road actually scupper this trial??  They identified a "WITNESS".... yet they were not taken to task on this matter.... Surely they know not to be identifying potential witness's to a Murder before a trial had taken place...

It all seems irregular...  Either CJ heard/ Saw people at the gate or he didn't...... Now the question has to be what was in this apparent second witness statement??  If the Police had decided to arrest CJ because of this second witness statement as CJ has stated, then I would ask, did the Police believe that CJ was telling an untruth??

I say this because of DS Mark Saunders statement that he had viewed the private CCTV of Canygne Road of Friday 17th December 2010... Which should have shown 2 to 3 people leaving Canygne Road...

Now did Louis Charalambous, check anything about CJ.... for all we know he could have been a fantasist at this time... And the papers talking about him shouldn't really have been of note... as i say he was a nobody... We at this time and to date only have the word of CJ that he did in fact see/ hear up to 3 people being at Canygne Road on the night of the 17th December 2010...  Louis cannot be believing someone just on their say so..... (imo) He wouldn't shouldn't have access to any police statements in relation to this crime.... But on the word of a nobody, whom had no money according to CJ... He takes this man on as a client to take action against the media slap bang in the middle of a Police Investigation.... Why??

Everything about this case is backwards....

Just to reiterate...

Quote
Sky News' crime correspondent Martin Brunt, in Bristol, said that after Jefferies had spoken to Sky News there were questions surrounding his claim.

Question surrounding his claim.... now either the Police knew that Joannna Yeates hadn't reached home and CJ stated he saw her... Or they didn't believe his claim for another reason....

So was this claim proven??? And with what hasn't been released I would say NO.... (imo) So was CJ, ever really a witness?? Again I would say NO.... (imo) And I base this on the fact that his 2 witness's statements were never brought to trial or public view, he never appeared at the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak and the Private CCTV of Canygne Road that DS Mark Saunders viewed was not seen at trial either....

And why would the media identify a potential witness of a Murder Investigation especially as this witness had seen up to 3 people at the relevant address at the relevant time??

Edit.. Just realised I'd put 31st December in stead of 29th December when talking about CJ' denial of
 seeing someone..... have amended it....



https://smab.co.uk/smb-act-for-christopher-jefferies-in-libel-and-privacy-claims-against-national-and-local-newspapers/

https://smab.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/11.04.21-press-release-final-v2.pdf

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/jefferies-sues-sun-mirror-mail-express-and-others/

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

https://news.sky.com/story/joanna-yeates-landlord-held-over-murder-10490254

[attachment deleted by admin]

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1491 on: June 18, 2018, 11:36:26 AM »
From CJ's second witness statement "at The Leveson"......


Quote
It is not clear from the article what the source of this assertion is, i,e. whether it came
from the police or from neighbours. Although I cannot be sure, it may be that the
press had a source within the police who had revealed some of what my second
statement said.


This begs the question what else was contained within this second witness statement?? I was under the impression that all CJ had added to his first statement was he saw/heard  up to 3 people at the gate talking in hushed tones....


There appears to be a great deal more to this second witness statement of CJ's by his own admission.... That the people whom he witnessed in what ever form at the gate, was not the only information held within this statement....

So what else did this statement hold??? As a potential witness, this information should be of great importance..... (imo)




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

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1492 on: June 19, 2018, 09:34:59 AM »
Quote
Tabak Likely To Face October Trial.

 Accused For Joanna Yeates' murder informed of judge's ruling as victim's body is released after PM.

Date 31st January 2011 by Guardian Unlimited


I found this on the Police oracle website.... I was looking at twitter.....

Quote
Police Oracle

 
@Police_Oracle
Follow Follow @Police_Oracle
More
Tabak Likely To Face October Trial: Accused For Joanna Yeates' murder informed of judge's ruling as victim's bod... http://bit.ly/dLCoGj

6:08 PM - 31 Jan 2011

`I couldn't read the whole article I am not a member, but WHAT JUDGES RULING are they talking about???

From Leonora's Blog...
Quote
So what happened between the hearing before the Magistrate and the hearing before the judge that caused Crossman Solicitors and Paul Cook to change their minds about bail? It was almost certainly only now that the lawyers were told about the allegation of their client’s interfering with the course of justice by seeking to incriminate the landlord in the statement he gave at Schiphol.

Maybe it was something to do with the Judges Ruling... But I don't know what it is ......  There are NO other articles on this apart from The Police Oracle one and you google it and google only gives a link to the Police Oracle Article... The link to The Guardian just takes you to todays headlines....

I remember the image of Paul Cook leaving court on the 31st Janaury 2011, looking rather worried, I remember commenting on....

Quote
Vincent Tabak's defence lawyer Paul Cook leaves Bristol Crown Court following a prelimiminary hearing for the murder of Joanna Yeates on January 31, 2011 in Bristol, England. Vincent Tabak who has been charged with her murder appeared via video link from HMP Long Lartin in Worcestershire. A provisional trial date has been fixed for October 4 and the plea and case management hearing will take place on May 4.

Dr Vincent Tabak appeared via video link from Long lartin.... He has had no application for bail.... And then we find that Paul Cook stops being his lawyer.... So is there something in The Ruling??


Edit..... It does say accused "Informed" of Judges Ruling....  What was Dr Vincent Tabak informed of??

https://twitter.com/Police_Oracle/status/32138138797219840

https://www.policeoracle.com/news/Tabak-Likely-To-Face-October-Trial-_30430.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

http://vincent-tabak-is-innocent.blogspot.com/2012/01/preliminary-hearings.html

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/event/vincent-tabak-preliminary-hearing-for-the-murder-of-joanna-yeates-108632844#vincent-tabaks-defence-lawyer-paul-cook-leaves-bristol-crown-court-a-picture-id108634508

[attachment deleted by admin]

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1493 on: June 19, 2018, 10:52:40 PM »
Quote
I was coming back from the gym at
about 9pm, I had parked my car on the road and was just walking through the gates of
the main driveway, when I became aware of what sounded like two or perhaps three
people leaving by the side gate on the other side of the house which I could not see as
there is a hedge in between and it was dark, I duly telephoned the police and relayed
this.

From The Leveson.... CJ.....

I keep going over this.....


Now if CJ's car is parked on the road then there should be evidence of this....

We remember that apparently Dr Vincent Tabak tried to incriminate CJ by stating that the car had changed position.... Well had it???

Did the Police have CJ's car parked on the road at Canygne Road on the Friday 17th December 2010?? and then again on the Saturday morning 18th December 2010??

This... should be evidence of Dr Vincent Tabak trying to incrimainate CJ... everyone just took the prosecutions word for it.....

But.... I will say this ..... On The CCTV DS Mark Saunders viewed did it show where CJ's car was parked on the road???? It should have done.....

Therefore one may conclude that it didn't move and that was why they believed Dr Vincent Tabak had incriminated CJ..... Which.... If they had produced this Private CCTV at trial I might have believed..... But what does the CCTV show of cars and CJ's car on Canygne Road??

The private CCTV of Canygne Road failed to make an appearance at trial.... And I will therefore conclude, that the car could have moved or been in exactly the same position... We won't know till we see this CCTV!!


I always go back to "The Lost honour of CJ..." I only ever see the man playing Dr Vincent Tabak pushing the car off the drive...... What day is that supposed to be ??? (Yes I know its a dramatisation... But didn't CJ advise on it?? )

It's not on the road is it......







Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1494 on: June 21, 2018, 10:37:20 PM »
Now this is new to me.... This is an Interview wth CJ....

Quote
“At the time of my arrest, there were three grounds
given for suspicion. One, I had the keys. Two, I didn’t
have a witness alibi for the relevant times. Three, I had
volunteered an additional witness statement about
something I remembered subsequent to giving the
first statement to the police.
“It seemed to all the lawyers, including the barristers,
that just on those grounds the reasons for the arrest
were so circumstantial in the flimsiest kind of way
that legal action was justified. It emerged that, fortunately
for the police, on CCTV in the early hours of
the morning on the relevant date, a Volvo resembling
mine was seen coming back into Bristol. Also, Vincent
Tabak’s car, which he took the body in, was parked in
the parking places here next to my own car. In the end,
though the action succeeded in other respects, that
particular action didn’t proceed any further.”

Now we know the grounds of his arrest....  There being 3 of them....

My problem with that is.... "What is the relevant times ??"

Another point of Interest that is really new to me, we never knew about the CCTV of a car Coming back into Bristol that CJ talks of... I thought it was supposed to be CCTV of someone leaving Bristol with the body(Or am I incorrect?).....  Did the Police questioning him about the car coming back into Bristol??  Where about is this location?

So what CCTV have they viewed and when was it date and time would be helpful!

Quote
“The police said they were intending to organise a
video identification parade. It turned out to be an attempt
to widen the investigation illegitimately. My
solicitor said it was the only time he had told a policeman
that his lack of candor was deceitful.

What identity parade??  So if they wanted a video identification parade, there must be a witness to something, but what?? If The Police were widening their Investigation, that is also grounds that we should doubt Dr Vincent Tabak being their man...

Never heard about the identity parade either....... 


CJ speaks of his solicitor stating that the Polices lack of candor was deceitful.... Therefore that begs the question what were they looking into?? It has to be more than Joanna Yeates Murder...(imo) So how can Dr Vincent Tabak fit the bill??


Quote
“At the time of my arrest, there were three grounds
given for suspicion. One, I had the keys. Two, I didn’t
have a witness alibi for the relevant times.

Colin Port at The Leveson stated that CJ said he saw 3 people.... Now did any of these 3 people see him??  He says he didn't have an alibi witness, so who did he see??

Quote
A. Well, we did not give Mr Jefferies' identity to anyone.
4 He did say that he saw three people on two occasions
5 that I recall. In his evidence to this Inquiry, he said
6 that -- and I think I quote accurately -- he told no
7 more than three people about his sightings. That's
8 incorrect, and I completely understand why Mr Jefferies
9 can't recollect that, but I've counted eight people,
10 including some people who were paid by the media for
11 information, and I've also seen evidence that he told
12 people that they should also tell members of the
13 Neighbourhood Watch. So his recollection is flawed,
14 unfortunately.


This is confusing....

Quote
It emerged that, fortunately
for the police, on CCTV in the early hours of
the morning on the relevant date, a Volvo resembling
mine was seen coming back into Bristol. Also, Vincent
Tabak’s car, which he took the body in, was parked in
the parking places here next to my own car. In the end,
though the action succeeded in other respects, that
particular action didn’t proceed any further.”

Is here in the designated parking spaces at 44 Canygne Road??  Is he saying Dr Vincent Tabak had a volvo?? What is it with the Volvo??

Now in The Leveson Inquiry CJ sates that his car is parked on the road, the impression I get here is that it is parked in the designated parking spaces at Canygne Road.... So the talk of a car moving position would then be correct....


What particular action is he referring too?? 
What was fortunate about a Volvo being seen on CCTV... Dr Vincent Tabak's car was supposed to be a Renault Megane!

I keep re-reading that..... Dr Vincent Tabak had a Volvo.... he had to have had..... the action I believe he is talking about is his arrest... So the Volvo CCTV wasn't needed... But why the Renault Megane??  The Police say they found Evidence in the Renault Megane...


Anyone else have any idea what action CJ is talking about and what he means???

Edit..... "Vincent Tabak's car which he took the body in...... "
Now is CJ talking about Dr Vincent Tabak or did CJ witness something?? Is 'He' someone other than Dr Vincent Tabak??  It's a perfectly reasonable question, and another reason to arrest CJ if he knows something more than he had divulged! (imo)


https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/media/316091/young_bar_magazine_2014_final.pdf

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122202635/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-27-March-2012.pdf

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1495 on: June 21, 2018, 11:03:59 PM »
Quote
It emerged that, fortunately
for the police, on CCTV in the early hours of
the morning on the relevant date, a Volvo resembling
mine was seen coming back into Bristol. Also, Vincent
Tabak’s car, which he took the body in, was parked in
the parking places here next to my own car. In the end,
though the action succeeded in other respects, that
particular action didn’t proceed any further.”

On second thoughts... Is it the Megane he is talking about??  Did Dr Vincent Tabak lend his car?? Is that what CJ means?? 

Is that why they arrested Dr Vincent Tabak... who had access to that Megane??


Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case/Core Participant
« Reply #1496 on: June 22, 2018, 10:30:52 AM »
CJ... Core Participant at The Leveson Inquiry


Quote
“At the time of my arrest, there were three grounds
given for suspicion. One, I had the keys. Two, I didn’t
have a witness alibi for the relevant times.

Relevant times...  So that is more than one specific time.... I do not know what times CJ is referring too, but it is extremely helpful in a way....

Quote
Two witness, Zoe and Flo Lehman, who had been to a party in Canynge Road that night, told the court they had heard two piercing screams coming from number 44.

They said the cries, sometime before 8.49pm on December 17, sounded like they came from a woman in distress.

CJ from the Leveson..

Quote
s I was coming back from fine gym at
about 9pm, I had parked my car on the road and was just walking through the gates of
the main driveway, when I became aware of what sounded like two or perhaps three
people leaving by the side gate on the other side of the house which I could not see as
there is a hedge in between and it was dark, I duly telephoned the police and relayed
this

If the relevant time is before 8:49pm and CJ returned home at 9:00pm, why would the Police arrest him for that reason?

That is a whole 11 minutes after the apparent attack on Joanna Yeates took place... Surely the Police checked with the gym as to what time CJ had a class there... And how long it would have taken to arrive home...  We have no CCTV of CJ going to the gym or his Journey back... we do not know what gym it is either...

But if we go with what CJ has sworn to then the relevant time has to be after 9:00pm on Friday 17th December 2010 and the next morning, or when the Volvo was seen, which I have quoted in the posts above..

So either CJ witnessed who ever killed Joanna Yeates leaving via the small gate, or he witnessed Joanna Yeates leaving via the small gate.. Or.... He was the one whom heard the screams.... Apparently his flat was above Joanna Yeates Flat...

So in any case CJ witnessed something if the Police insist that Joanna Yeates arrived home....

The Lehmans hearing of screams then becomes irrelevant as was suggested before , they could have heard party goers...

Why was CJ never a witness?? It makes no-sense..

Now ideas fly through my head all the time, and I'm trying to understand why CJ, was not part of The Trial of Dr Vincent Tabak, and maybe it has more to do with what is important.....

The Leveson Inquiry was in full swing, CJ was an integral part of this Inquiry, he made statements the newspapers bared stories in November 2011 about CJ and the Leveson....


From The Guardian...

Quote
Leveson inquiry
Leveson inquiry into phone hacking: who's appearing on Monday
Christopher Jefferies, British army officer Ian Hurst, peace campaigner Jane Winter, Charlotte Church and Anne Diamond to appear
Josh Halliday, James Robinson and Lisa O'Carroll

Mon 28 Nov 2011 11.06 GMT

Now... If he had appeared as a witness at The Trial of Dr Vincent Tabak and was then shown to have inconsistencies in his statements, his role in the Leveson would be of NO use....(imo) What he did or did not do on the night of the 17th December 2010 would be put under the microscope.... Whom he saw or didn't see would be put under the microscope.... His recollection whether it was flawed or not as Colin Port stated, would be put under the microscope....

So is the fact that this trial makes no-sense more to do with The Leveson Inquiry?? Where participants who should be appearing as a witness in a Murder Trial manage to avoid appearing as there appearance at a Public Inquiry is deemed far more important.....(imo)

Shouldn't a murder trial come first?? And CJ then be dropped as a significant participant if he came across poorly at trial.... It beggars the question as to what is more important in law.... The Murder of a young woman.. Or taking The Newspapers to task...

I think the taking of the Newspapers to task was seen as more important...(imo) Because I believe that this is the reason we did not know of what is in the "Second Witness" statement of CJ.... It may undermine what was said

*(A) At trial
*(B) At The Leveson

Did CJ see Joanna Yeates?? Did he see Dr Vincent Tabak???  He obviously witnessed something.... He should let the public know what he witnessed....

If CJ's appearance at the Leveson was deemed of greater importance, who decides this??  I don't know... But The Leveson.. CJ... and The Murder of Joanna Yeates will always be linked... But no-one should have interfered with Justice and CJ should have been a witness at the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak first and foremost (imo)... Before he appeared at The Leveson.... And if he was a poor witness at trial, so be it....

But would that have thrown a spanner in the works at The Leveson?? There was many more people who were witness's at The Leveson... But The papers focus and still focus on CJ.... 

Why haven't the media questioned why CJ never appeared at The Trial of Dr Vincent Tabak?? Why didn't they put forward what I am posting about...

Will this ever dawn on anyone.... Will it dawn on people that a public Inquiry comes before The Murder of a Young Woman whom is remember by the British public, because of a Documentary about CJ... A woman whom should have had Justice served by this country...

It appears that libel and character assassination is of greater importance (imo) than The Murder and the taking of a life of a young woman..... (imo)

Which if you really think about that is Shocking!



https://stories.swns.com/news/vincent-tabak-guilty-of-murdering-joanna-yeates-21407/

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

[attachment deleted by admin]

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1497 on: June 22, 2018, 02:27:26 PM »
Part 1..

Quote
First core participants in Leveson Inquiry announced
14 September 2011  News

Newspapers groups, victims of phone hacking and other forms of privacy intrusion by the press, and the Metropolitan Police Service have been granted core participant status in the Leveson Inquiry.

In his ruling, released today, Lord Justice Leveson explains his decision on the several applications made before him at the Royal Courts of Justice on September 6.

Victims represented by lawyers David Sherborne and Jeremy Reed (see full list below) were all accepted as core participants, except for individual HJK (who was granted anonymity in a High Court civil claim) as Lord Justice Leveson would like to learn the individual’s identity before considering the application.
Former chief executive of News International Rebekah Brooks, private investigator Jonathan Rees (William Rees), and campaigning groups English PEN and Index on Censorship were all refused core participant status for Part 1 of the inquiry.

About Mrs Brooks, Lord Justice Leveson wrote: “Although I can understand the reason for this application, in my judgment, it does not pay sufficient attention to the terms of Part I of the Inquiry which is to analyse the way forward in the light of the broad experience (not descending into the detail required by Part 2 of the Inquiry) of the past.

“Mrs Brooks has very considerable knowledge and experience; I hope and believe that her input into the Inquiry will be of enormous value but, at this stage and in the context of what I am presently required to do, I do not consider that it is necessary or appropriate to designate her as a core participant.”

The Metropolitan Police Service and Acting Commissioner Tim Godwin have also been named as core participants and will be assisting the inquiry.

Guardian News and Media, News International Group Ltd, and Shell Network Ltd (the holding company of the publishing group that includes the Daily Express, the Sunday Express, the Daily Star and the Daily Star Sunday), successfully applied and will be entitled to legal representation during the inquiry.

Lord Justice Leveson’s ruling read: “Every aspect of Part 1 touches upon the press and its outcome will inevitably be relevant to (if not impact upon) the approach to certain types of news gathering and its dissemination, along with the relationship between the press and the public, the police, potential regulators and politicians.

“Thus, if the culture and practices of the press require change, the effect will be upon all. In the circumstances, I have no doubt that each of these media groups is entitled to core participant status for each module of this Part.”

Read Lord Justice Leveson’s ruling in full here

Individuals who have been granted core participants status:

Chris Bryant MP
Tessa Jowell MP
Denis MacShane MP
The Rt Hon Lord Prescott of Kingston upon Hull
Joan Smith
Christopher Shipman
Tom Rowland
Mark Lewis
Mark Thomson
Gerry McCann
Kate McCann
Christopher Jefferies
Max Moseley
Brian Paddick
Paul Gascoigne
David Mills
Sienna Miller
Hugh Grant
Ben Jackson
Ciara Parkes
Simon Hughes MP
Max Clifford
Sky Andrew
Ulrika Jonsson
Mark Oaten
Michele Milburn
Abi Titmuss
Calum Best
Claire Ward
Mary-Ellen Field
Gary Flitcroft
Ian Hurst
Shobna Gulati
Mike Hollingsworth
Kieron Fallon
Ashvini Sharma
Tim Blackstone
Valatina Semenenko
Sally Dowler
Bob Dowler
Gemma Dowler
Sheryl Gascoigne
Graham Shear
JK Rowling
James Watson
Margaret Watson


This is on the 14th September 2011.....  Then we get Dr Vincent Tabak's enhanced statement around the 20th September 2011.....  The problem I find here is how as early as the 14th September 2011 was it decided that CJ would not be a witness at trial..(imo)  You wouldn't want a Core participant coming across negatively at a trial when he appearing in a Public Inquiry, now would you!(imo)

The coincidences amaze me... And concern me at the same time....

So before anyone knows how or when Joanna Yeates was Murdered, a key witness to this Murder has become a core participant in a public Inquiry, and we do not know the content of his statements to the Police.... It is the conviction at trial of Dr Vincent Tabak (imo) that validates CJ's complaint about the press's stories and the subsequent apology from Avon and Somerset Police stating that CJ is wholly Innocent... But he is a core participant before hand....

How did they decide so early on that he wouldn't participate in this trial.... Because that is the opinion that i am coming too...  If CJ is a terrible witness, and his Character is questioned at trial... Then what happens about his participation in The Inquiry??

Quote
In his ruling, released today, Lord Justice Leveson explains his decision on the several applications made before him at the Royal Courts of Justice on September 6.

Who made an application for CJ to be a core participant in The Leveson Inquiry as early as 6th September 2011??

Nothing in regards to any evidence enhanced statements or explanations as to how Joanna Yeates died was known about at this time... Therefore CJ, should have not been put forward as a core participant (imo), because the outcome of any trial was not known... And CJ's credibility wasn't put to the test... He still at this point (imo) was a nobody..... So why was he put forward as a core participant, when a jury hadn't found Dr Vincent Tabak guilty of anything.... When the evidence didn't support Dr Vincent Tabak's story at trial....
Also no enhanced statement was signed apparently by Dr Vincent Tabak, whom until that point in time had made No Comment to any statements... Apart from according to DCI Jones, something about a mobile phone....

Who decides who gets put forward as a core participant in this Inquiry??

If Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't tell us what apparently had taken place on the 17th December 2010 until his trial in October 2011, then was CJ on the original witness list for the prosecution or the defence??

In my opinion he should have been....  It Dr Vincent Tabak's sentence was extended because he tried to implicate CJ.. then surely there should have been evidence of him trying to implicate him... Surely CJ should have either give a witness statement read out at trial like the 20 other witness witness statements that were read out at trial... Or as I believe should have appeared at trial and been cross examined as to what times he saw or heard what he did... Whether or not he saw Dr Vincent Tabak or Joanna Yeates or anyone else for that matter... Whether or not he was on the private CCTV that DS Mark Saunders viewed with people milling about.....


I personally believe that CJ is core to the Joanna Yeates Murder Investigation and therefore should have attended trial...




https://hackinginquiry.org/first-core-participants-in-leveson-inquiry-announced/

http://iclr.co.uk/document/2011201901/%5B2011%5D%20EWHC%202074%20(Admin)/html?query=tabak&filter=content-available%3A%22Transcript%22&fullSearchFields=&page=1&sort=relevance&pageSize=10

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122202635/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-27-March-2012.pdf


[attachment deleted by admin]

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1498 on: June 22, 2018, 02:34:57 PM »
Part 2..

I keep going back to The Manslaughter plea in May 2011, and the Attorney generals comments in July 2011..

Attorney General v MGN Ltd
29 Jul 2011 [2011] EWHC 2074 (Admin), DC

Quote
There is therefore no doubt about the identity of the man who killed Miss Yeates or that Mr Jefferies is innocent of any involvement in it.  By way of emphasis, he is not simply presumed in law to be innocent of the killing.  As a matter of fact and reality he is innocent.  He is not facing trial, and he will never face trial.

It is The Attorney General who states that CJ is wholly Innocent and I am not saying he isn't, but my point is this... Without evidence to back up the plea that Dr Vincent Tabak put forward in May 2011, what proves he did indeed kill Joanna Yeates??

What proves CJ wholly Innocent of any involvement??
The Plea??
Why were we made aware of this plea?? Especially as it was thrown out... Shouldn't that have been made public at trial and not before??

The plea is just that a plea.... Dr Vincent Tabak hasn't made a statement at this point... He could have quiet easily incriminated CJ at any point if he had chose too..(And he did.. apparently..)  I am not saying CJ isn't Innocent ... I am making a point about how the Attorney General came to his conclusion....... And at trial we find out that apparently on the 31st December 2010, Dr Vincent Tabak had an Interview in Holland in which he apparently implicates the landlord, that being CJ.... This should have brought CJ to trial (imo) We have different accounts at to what CJ heard or saw... We have different accounts as to where cars were parked on the 17th/18th December 2010... Important information that needs clarification...(imo)

So The Attorney General stating that CJ is wholly Innocent on the 29th July 2011 is ridiculous (imo).. Because a trial had't taken place, and no-one up until that point knew that apparently Dr Vincent Tabak had implicated the landlord being CJ....  No-one knew what Dr Vincent Tabak would have said about CJ in any shape or form... And how would The Attorney General know whether CJ would be implicated or not..?? He cannot know... So until a trial is done and dusted, nothing completely clears CJ... (imo).... because we do not know what Dr Vincent Tabak may say...... And CJ and the car changing position indeed is mentioned, which in itself implicates CJ.... Cj did not attend trial to state that Dr Vincent Tabak was mistaken, no CCTV footage was shown to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak was mistaken.....

Now I'll go back to DCI Jones and The Leveson and what he states...

Quote
A. Just reiterating, really, with staff during briefings
22 around confidentiality. We did have some concerns early
23 on, but we ensured that staff were aware of
24 confidentiality and I think also, as the investigation
25 progressed, when there was sensitive information, we
1 ensured that it was kept to a very small number of
2 people within the investigation, so it wasn't widely and
3 publicly known within the investigation itself, which
4 I felt was really important.

Hear DCI Jones lets us know that No-one knew of Dr Vincent Tabak's Interview in Holland (imo) because we have in the Inquiry itself the issues of leaks being about Missing socks etc... We have DCI Jones letting us know only a few people were party to certain information and that information wasn't revealed until trial... And I believe that information to be Dr Vincent Tabak's Interview where he implicates CJ.....

But This Interview with Dr Vincent Tabak has to be of massive importance to The Case and to The Leveson (imo)... Because we find that Dr Vincent Tabak did implicate CJ... Not only that we remember that DCI Jones did in fact tell The Leveson that CJ was held on bail till March 2011 because of DNA on a pair of trainers, which we had no idea about until this Inquiry.... So The Attorney General was obviously not aware of this potential incriminating evidence...

That evidence too, could have been used to discredit CJ as a witness in the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak...  Especially as it hasn't been stated where in the house these trainers were located....  We don't even know if these trainers have any of Joanna Yeates DNA upon them... But I have to assume they do .. otherwise why would they keep CJ on bail until March 2011.... AS DCI Jones has stated at the Leveson....

When it comes to the Jury, they apparently only have a Murder Option to consider.... So how would that play out in regards to The Leveson??  If they found him not guilty of Murder, then does The Manslaughter Pleas stand?? I don't know.. Because it was never an option at trial.... What would the procedure then be??

If Dr Vincent Tabak was found NOT Guilty of Murder, would suspicion then fall back on CJ?... The Polices talked of killers and we ended up with just one killer... So who was supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak's accomplice??

Would the public be satisfied with Dr Vincent Tabak's explanation?? If cross examination and witness's had appeared at trial, would that have cast doubt on CJ's character? People had made statement to the media about him... Surely they should have been cross examined as to what they knew about him....

CJ... could well be of exemplary character.. I do not know.... There is No evidence for me to confirm that.... There is a messy Murder trial.... There are witness's missing.... And There's a public Inquiry in the offing.... But his or anyone elses character is not based on one thing alone....

This case should not be about CJ.... It should be about how Joanna Yeates was Murdered and who did this and evidence that supports this plea of Manslaughter... But we are all sorely disappointed, we never really get to know the truth... we are spoon fed a tale which makes no sense and no supporting evidence of this tale... No CCTV time Stamps putting Dr Vincent Tabak in Asda at a certain time... No CCTV Time stamps of Joanna Yeates in The Ram... No Private CCTV of Canygne Road on that weekend..... No Forensics putting Dr Vincent Tabak in Joanna yeates flat or Joanna Yeates in Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat....

We are left with a man that really had no reason to attack his neighbour... A man whom didn't know his neighbour and a murdered woman whom was worried about being left alone that weekend, opening the door to a complete stranger..... And not one person questioned this at trial.....

My question now has to be... Was it The Attorney Generals Statement about CJ being wholly Innocent, that paved the way for CJ to be a core participant of The Leveson Inquiry?? Because until we knew of the outcome of this trial, we did not know for a fact that CJ was of Good Character.... And the trial didn't establish that either (imo) as CJ never made an appearance even though he had been implicated....  And until The Avon and Somerset Police tell us CJ is wholly Innocent and apologise for his arrest, the trial in itself isn't enough to prove one way or the other Whether CJ was of Good or Bad Character...(imo) As he never appeared at trial to counter Dr Vincent Tabak's alligation that he had moved his car from one position to another....  We will never know what may or may not have been said about CJ as a credible witness..... Because a libel action settled out of court doesn't prove anything (imo)... neither a plea without supporting evidence.... (imo)

By the time the Police have apologised and said CJ was Innocent of this Crime and the trial has completed, we can then assess that there was nothing to prove anything other than CJ was of Good Character... And that is a fair point... But How The Attorney General became involved not only in December 2010 but July 2011 and states that CJ is wholly Innocent, before apologises by the Police are made and a trial is completed is beyond me......

So tell me please, why CJ didn't attend the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak as a witness... especially as Dr vincent tabak implicated him??




Offline Baz

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1499 on: June 22, 2018, 05:05:51 PM »
So tell me please, why CJ didn't attend the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak as a witness... especially as Dr vincent tabak implicated him??

I think probably because Vincent Tabak admitted killing Joanna. The trial then became not about IF he did it but whether it was manslaughter or murder. What information could Chris Jeffries bring to these proceedings that would have helped a jury understand why Tabak did what he admitted to? Also, it's my understanding that Tabak implicated Jeffries during the investigation, presumably to divert attention away from his own guilt, but didn't continue to implicate him after he finally confessed. Did he implicate Jeffries when he gave his own evidence on the stand?