Author Topic: The Defence Will State Their Case  (Read 133162 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Myster

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3005
  • Total likes: 169
  • Karma is a wonderful thing.
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3300 on: February 24, 2019, 03:59:37 PM »

You won't. Nine got there before you. She's scaled every mountain, dredged every stream, dug up every highway, but still believes a dream.
... and completely demolished a lovely song in the process... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_AcWbuxQdo


Offline Eleanor

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3301 on: February 24, 2019, 04:01:23 PM »
... and completely demolished a lovely song in the process... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_AcWbuxQdo

Well, at least it made me laugh.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3302 on: February 26, 2019, 10:28:18 AM »

You won't. Nine got there before you. She's scaled every mountain, dredged every stream, dug up every highway, but still believes a dream.

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


I will end up sounding like Julie Andrews, but you're wrong. You're just wrong.

Why Wrong??

Offline Caroline

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3303 on: February 26, 2019, 01:52:11 PM »
If we're talking Julie's / Julia's .. I'll go with Julia Pastrana..

There's nothing wrong with being different..


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

Or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V1-hfaRy7A  @)(++(*

Offline John

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3304 on: February 28, 2019, 05:38:48 PM »

You won't. Nine got there before you. She's scaled every mountain, dredged every stream, dug up every highway, but still believes a dream.

She certainly did...  8@??)(
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3305 on: March 01, 2019, 09:23:04 AM »
What do I take from that??

I'm correct and it's all made up... a dream??

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3306 on: March 01, 2019, 02:01:04 PM »
Everything is dependant on interpretation and context, and understanding said context, by either omission of information or situation and the timing of information..... So I want to question the content of CJ's Leveson statement and what and how they could be interpreted....

Quote

9 That day my home telephone rang between 10 and 20 times as journalists from a wide
variety of publications called me and tried to persuade me to speak to them by saying
that they wanted my ’side of the story’, wanted to give me ’an opportunity to set the
record straight’ and ’prevent any twisted rumours from circulating’. Each time I said
that I had absolutely nothing to say and eventually stopped answering the telephone,
after which a series of answering machine messages were left.

10, That day, Wednesday 29 December 2010, some reporters filed articles (for
publication the next day) which firmly pointed the finger of suspicion at me. For
example, The Dally Mail published the article at pages 1 to 12 of CJ2 entitled: "Could
landlord hold the key to Joanna’s murder?". This contained the words:

"Bachelor Chris Jefferies, 65, apparently told police he saw three people,
including Ms Yeates, walking away together and talking it hushed tones. ’"

That day, Wednesday 29 December 2010, some reporters filed articles (for
publication the next day) which firmly pointed the finger of suspicion at me


When was CJ aware that on the 29th December 2010, some reporters filed articles for publication for print the next day being the 30th December 2010?

He also states this.... That day my home telephone rang between 10 and 20 times as journalists from a wide
variety of publications called me and tried to persuade me to speak to them by saying
that they wanted my ’side of the story’, wanted to give me ’an opportunity to set the
record straight’ and ’prevent any twisted rumours from circulating’. Each time I said
that I had absolutely nothing to say and eventually stopped answering the telephone,
after which a series of answering machine messages were left.


That day I presume he means the 29th December 2010.... Not only was he accosted at the gate, but had been rung by reporters between 10 and 20 times from varying publications wanting ,as he states " His side of the story...."

This quote from this earlier (first) CJ Leveson statement:

Quote

14. The worst of the reporting of me started on Friday 31
December 2010, the day after my arrest, and continued
throughout the time I was in Police custody. As I will
refer to below, the reporting was so hostile that it led to
my criminal solicitor, Bambos Tsiattalou of Stokoe
Partnership, writing letters to several editors warning
them to stop publishing defamatory material about me.

15. At the same time, the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve,
was also forced to issue a public statement warning
newspaper editors to comply with the Contempt of Court
Act 1981. Again, despite this, the newspapers continued
their campaign.

16. As I have said, I was blissfully unaware of this at the
time. The reason is that, whilst I was in custody, my
solicitor spared me the ordeal of telling me about the
papers and so I had no idea what the press was
publishing about me.

I may be wrong in my conclusion here, I am trying to understand what is going on here, and what CJ knew at any time in regards to this situation and Joanna Yeates, and of course the treatment he received..

I want to go back to this part of the statement..

9. That day my home telephone rang between 10 and 20 times as journalists from a wide
variety of publications called me and tried to persuade me to speak to them by saying
that they wanted my ’side of the story’, wanted to give me ’an opportunity to set the
record straight’ and ’prevent any twisted rumours from circulating’.


And this...

10, That day, Wednesday 29 December 2010, some reporters filed articles (for
publication the next day) which firmly pointed the finger of suspicion at me.


Wouldn't it be procedure for journalists to contact someone for comments on any article that they were about to print and get the subjects response to these said articles etc etc?

This is why i'm asking... CJ states that the media had contacted him some 10 to 20 times and eventually he stopped answering the phone...

Were they asking him to confirm or deny the articles that they were about to publish?

It's a real possibility... They did the door stepping first as we had seen with the sky news report..
So the phone calls??? What was the content of these phone calls??

Is it feasible that the media wanted CJ's side of ANY story that they were going to publish..... eg..

1. ’The Strange Mr Jefferies’, The Sun, 31 December
2010;
2. ’Murder Police Quiz ’Nutty Professor’ with a Blue
Rinse, Was Jo’s Body Hidden. Next to Her Flat?’, The
Daily Mail, 31 December 2010;
3. ’The Strange Mr Jefferies, Creepy’, Daily Record, 31
December 2010;
4. ’Jo Suspect is Peeping Tom’, Daily Mirror, 31
December 2010;
5. ’Joanna suspect Ex-teacher known as Mr Chips’, Daily
Express, 31 December 2010
6. ’Jo Suspect, ’scared kids’ - Obsessed by death’, The
Sun, 1 January 2011;
7. ’Was Killer Waiting in Jo’s flat?’, Daily Mirror, 1
January 2011;


Quote
That day, Wednesday 29 December 2010, some reporters filed articles (for
publication the next day) which firmly pointed the finger of suspicion at me

How did he know? How did he know that they were filed??, how did he know that they were for the NEXT DAY???

Quote
Bambos Tsiattalou of Stokoe
Partnership, writing letters to several editors warning
them to stop publishing defamatory material about me.

15. At the same time, the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve,
was also forced to issue a public statement warning
newspaper editors to comply with the Contempt of Court
Act 1981. Again, despite this, the newspapers continued
their campaign.

His Criminal Solicitor and the Attorney General both have warned the newspapers... This apparently being the 31st December 2010....

How strange....

Quote
16. As I have said, I was blissfully unaware of this at the
time. The reason is that, whilst I was in custody, my
solicitor spared me the ordeal of telling me about the
papers and so I had no idea what the press was
publishing about me.

I'm questioning that statement.... I mean I need to question that statement... And the context of that statement...

The second witness statement to the Police that CJ made and it's content has always been Missing, but maybe we should also know the content of the 10 to 20 phone calls CJ received and the many that he didn't answer, leaving messages on his machine...

Those phone calls and messages may have information within them that is important to this case... Did they ask about Dr Vincent Tabak for instance??

But more to the point, is what questions they asked CJ directly...
Quote
That day my home telephone rang between 10 and 20 times as journalists from a wide
variety of publications called me and tried to persuade me to speak to them by saying
that they wanted my ’side of the story’, wanted to give me ’an opportunity to set the
record straight’ and ’prevent any twisted rumours from circulating’.

Set the record straight?? in what context?? With relation to what??

Did they all just ring to say did you see Joanna Yeates on Friday 17th December 2010, that evening?

Or did they have other questions to ask??

Did they want him to confirm or deny information that they had already gathered??

CJ states he was blissfully unaware... but to what exactly?

When they were going to publish? that they had in fact published??

tried to persuade me to speak to them by saying
that they wanted my ’side of the story’, wanted to give me ’an opportunity to set the
record straight’ and ’prevent any twisted rumours from circulating


"Tried to persuade me"???? Persuade him how?

His side of the story??  What story?? Which story?? Why would they need his side of the story?? What was the other side of the story??

That implies that the media were aware of something, to me... If they wanted HIS side of the story? Hadn't he already stated he wasn't telling the media what he had said to the Police? So what story is being referred too?

Were the media already aware that CJ would be arrested?? Is that why they kept ringing him because they had various stories that they wanted him to comment on??

What were these conversations with the media about that CJ had...??

He would be literally blissfully unaware that the stories were published at a time he was in police custody, as access to newspapers at the time of arrest wouldn't be available to him... but was he blissfully unaware of the content of the publications or what they may or may not have been about?

I am not saying that CJ is lying, as I have stated above, because of his situation at the time he wouldn't have access to the newspapers of the day... The Police aren't going to provide him with a newspaper with his cup of tea in the morning whilst he eats his breakfast and scans the days news looking for anything related to him and this case.....

But omitting something he had been made aware of is a different thing entirely...

So how much of the information that the papers published about CJ was CJ aware of before publication??

That CJ had not been forewarned, by the media of what potential stories they may publish...

It's a fair question....  The media could have asked him to comment on what various tenants and pupils had stated about him...

The conversations that took place on the phone with the media are of interest to the case... They themselves could have information and questions asked that were not asked by the Police...

I cannot and haven't been able to understand why the media were in contempt of court, I don't get it... They could have had far more damaging information available to them about anyone....

Did the media apply pressure on CJ to obtain information from him? is that what he meant by :"Tried to persuade me" What would they need to persuade him about? What questions had they asked him??

For me there has always been information that has being omitted in this case... Did CJ omit that he was already aware of the information the press had about him? Was CJ aware of this information before he was arrested?? Did he ever confirm or deny any of this information at the time of the phone calls??

You see I still don't understand how CJ could know that the articles were filed for publication the next day, who told him this was the case?? They may have held onto these articles and published them the day after and the day after that...

Who informed CJ??

Was it the media that told him in one of those phone calls or directly, that the articles had been filed and were ready for publication the next day??

My conclusion would be that was the reason his lawyer contacted them, knowing of what articles may or may not be published based on what he had said or not said to the press when they phoned CJ on the 29th December 2010. or even before that date..... ( Even directly spoke to him about said info) And he could indeed have stated something that was to do with another case for instance.... Or that he was asked about another case....

I'm trying to understand why the Attorney General got involved with these publications about CJ??  What else were the media going to publish??..... I want to understand how a signed statement by CJ to The Leveson is enough, without what must be supporting evidence, by this I mean, the statements that CJ made to the Police and the phone calls that the media made to CJ... Both evidence of what took place, followed by the CCTV footage that DS Mark Saunders saw of that weekend of the 17th to the 19th December 2010 of people milling about Canygne Road... We haven't seen or heard any supporting evidence.... Or did the Leveson receive this evidence??

Maybe I expect too much.... Maybe physical evidence doesn't get used in these situations... But I would have thought that is would be... Maybe it was, but had been omitted from public view because of Leveson2

CJ is front and centre of this case and I don't understand why... And why no-one questions him about what he really knows.... No-one publishes any probing questions about what happened and what may have happened...

No-one really questions CJ....

All I am doing is asking the questions I believe should have been asked, but appear to be lacking...

So was CJ aware of any of the information that was published about him whilst he was in custody?? Was CJ told of any of the information that may be published about him before his arrest?

Was there even more to come out in publication about CJ and that was why his solicitor wrote to the media??

Did the media refuse to stop?

Was that why the Attorney general got involved??

Was there actually going to be a complete massacre of CJ in the media??

I put together what is available on the net for all to see, then cross reference, and conclude from that...

I just want to know what has been omitted.. I want to know how relevant said information is...

The content of CJ 2 Police witness statements are vital in this case, along with any telephone conversations or recorded messages that CJ may have had... Lets not forget he received a missed call from Greg... Did he receive a message also??

I do believe that CJ is central in this case and should have been a witness at trial as I have demonstrated..

In court it is only the evidence that is presented and I am sure the same applied to The Leveson, but what had been omitted is of more importance,.... If Leveson 2 waited for investigations to conclude, then CJ omitting information for another reason is possible as he may be aware of something else that was happening at the time and therefore the tapes of conversations he may have had with the media couldn't be brought into evidence.... And that is why CJ's statements can be viewed in different ways...

But Leveson 2 isn't happening... So the content of both CJ's Police statements and his conversations with the media at the time are of public interest.. They may shed light onto this case.. I am surprised no-one talks of CJ and what he may know, or question what he may have meant in his Leveson statements and what he may have omitted...

Or whether CJ was already made aware by the media that he was going to have various articles published about him...

Again it is something to contemplate... It is questions to be asked....





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


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

Offline APRIL

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3307 on: March 01, 2019, 06:25:11 PM »
What do I take from that??

I'm correct and it's all made up... a dream??

Whatever it is you think maybe your dream you've turned into our nightmare.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3308 on: March 01, 2019, 07:40:16 PM »
Whatever it is you think maybe your dream you've turned into our nightmare.

Why a nightmare? I just ask questions....

The old man for instance, the one that handed in the sock and popped it into a brown paper forensic bag at the gate, as the media images showed us... Well according to this retweet, he entered the building also..

Quote
Marcus Edwards

Verified account
 
@c4marcus

RT @c4midlandsprod: A man has just arrived at the flat of #joyeates with what looks like a sock. He's inside now talking to police #c4news

4:15 PM - 5 Jan 2011

@c4midlandsprod is no longer on twitter so I cannot find his tweet on this subject, but it begs the question, if it is a simple retweet then...

What entrance of the building did the old man go into??

Why was he allowed in said building seeing as it was a crime scene??

Who did he see in said building??

Why the need to go into said building seeing as he  had handed a sock in...

Was the man that handed the sock in at the gate, the same man who entered the building, or was the man at the gate there just for the media??

So which old man entered the building and handed over a sock?

Was the old man anything to do with the Police??

See always questions from  simple statement....





https://twitter.com/c4marcus/status/22672516250079232

Offline AerialHunter

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3309 on: March 01, 2019, 09:06:41 PM »
Stick with it Nine, we're right with you. Although we're chipping away at a different block it's all part of the same dyke. Plod is going to need all available fingers, we've just got to make sure there aren't enough to go round.
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 Myster

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3005
  • Total likes: 169
  • Karma is a wonderful thing.
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3310 on: March 02, 2019, 06:32:42 AM »
Not another deluded full of riddle-me-rees, surely!

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3311 on: March 02, 2019, 07:51:16 AM »
Stick with it Nine, we're right with you. Although we're chipping away at a different block it's all part of the same dyke. Plod is going to need all available fingers, we've just got to make sure there aren't enough to go round.

You talk in riddles AH....  @)(++(* haven't a clue what you're referring too, I just post what I find and what interests me in this case and The Leveson seems to have information that pertains to this case in great quantity...

CJ is front and centre, and i'm trying to ascertain exactly what he apparently knew and when he knew it..... And what he said or didn't say to reporters or the inquiry, he appears to have been quite vocal...

We know what he said to Dr Vincent Tabak, as he has told us.....

What it is about him and the attention he has received, I don't understand, he's a nobody as far as I can tell, an ex school teacher, yet he commands great interest and attention, far beyond what one might expect....

Whatever block your chipping at that appears stuck in a dyke, I'll let you get on with it... And I'll carry on looking at the Leveson to see what others have to say about their contact with CJ, he has to be of great importance with this, I do not understand otherwise why he was asked to be a core participant, there has to be more to The Leveson Inquiry than meets the eye... And in particular those who were called to give statements on his treatment in the press...



Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3312 on: March 02, 2019, 11:06:43 AM »
CJ's second witness statement The Leveson

Quote
15, I have recently received a letter from the Chief Constable of ASC confirming that my
name was leaked to the press when I was arrested. See page 13 of CJ2. I have been
informed that an internal inquiry has led to the arrest of two people although no one
has been charged. The letter refers to an "inadvertent" disclosure by the police but
provides no details, which prevents the explanation being investigated or verified;

16, This confirmation verifies what Richard Wallace, the Editor of The Mirror said at
paragraph 10’ (a) of his Second Witness Statement dated I0 January 2012 to the
Inquiry ill Module 1 (at page 14 of CJ2), that:

"The off-the-record guidance to reporters on the ground from the police was that it
was Mr Jefferies who had been arrested."

I was trying to ascertain who told CJ when the articles were going to be put to print, and how he knew that they had been filed, I have been looking at Richard Wallaces second witness statement for The Leveson, to see if he himself had stated the information about filing articles, but I found something else of interest....


Richard Wallace, Leveson second witness statement...

Quote
I have set out in response to matter 2 above details of the nature of the steps taken to verify
the accuracy of the information. So far as other pertinent provisions of the PCC Code are
concerned, I did not see any issue with privacy arising from our coverage. Indeed, the
journalists on the ground remarked to the Content Desk that Mr. Jefferies was often
hanging around, occasionally engaging in conversation with reporters about the case. It
seemed Mr. Jefferies was not trying to avoid the press

Mr. Jefferies was often hanging around, occasionally engaging in conversation with reporters about the case. It seemed Mr. Jefferies was not trying to avoid the press

That statement surprised me, I had no idea that CJ had been loitering around and had even spoke to reporters, engaging in conversation as stated...

What conversations did CJ have with these reporters, and when and on which dates did these conversations take place??
The sources that the media used at the time should be of interest, The fact that CJ appears to have spoken more than once to said reporters on the ground is a little worrying,(imo)..

CJ had by his own statement to the Leveson told us that his second witness statement was given on the 22nd December 2010, and it wasn't until a week later that the press were apparently informed about said statement, hence their arrival on the door step of CJ....

But... What is on the record and off the record are 2 different things... And when the media may or may not have been told certain information is also relevant...  They may have been held by the media, before they acted on it...

I can understand the press's interest in CJ, if he had been courting them before and had been engaged in conversations with them , whilst hanging around the area?? I say area because it doesn't state exactly where these conversations took place... I would presume Canygne Road, But that hadn't been confirmed in this statement...

I believe it is imperative that we understand, the circumstances surrounding this case, and those whom are in the headlights.. CJ as I have stated, has made may statements either via The Leveson or Via video, and it is these that I have used to try to put into context exactly what happened in this case...

The odd thing I found, was that CJ up until the 29th December 2010, had not appeared in any footage taken by the media, that I can only assume was because he should have been a material witness in this case...

Back to Richard Wallaces statement..

Quote
My Content team (both on the ground in Bristol and back in London) spoke to as many
people as possible to build up a picture of Mr. Jefferies. Greig Box Turnbull, a journalist
based in London whose name appears on the byline to two of the 31 December 2010/1
January 2011 articles, would have assisted with these inquiries. I would describe our team
including Greig Box Turnbull and multi-award winning reporter Ryan Parry - as
professional, experienced and conscientious

Greig Box Turnbull, a journalist that I have tried to see whether or not he made a statement to The Leveson, but all I found that he was one of the journalists that was part of Operation Elveden and I am assuming that this was a reason that he did not appear in Part 1 of The Leveson Inquiry, and I must say that it is a shame, as he had obtained various material vital to this case....

So which journalists did CJ converse with??  And why would he be conversing with journalists on the ground, I would have imagined that The Police would not want any material witness and especially the landlord of said property, talking ti journalists in any capacity during this investigation... But that is just my opinion..

Mr. Jefferies was often
hanging around, occasionally engaging in conversation with reporters about the case.


What was he saying to said reporters?? Why was he discussing the case? Why on earth was this educated man whom apparently wanted nothing to do with the media, and according to himself was thrust into the limelight , actually talking with journalists on the ground??..

From CJ's second witness statement The Leveson...

Quote
Prior to December 2010 I had not had any dealings at all
with the media. However, I was suddenly thrust into the
media spotlight because I was the landlord to Joanna
Yeates, the girl who disappeared from her flat on the
weekend of 17 December 2010 and whose body was
subsequently discovered on the outskirts of Bristol on
Christmas Day 2010.

In particular, I became the subject
of intense media interest when I was arrested on 30
December 2010 by Avon and Somerset Police on suspicion of her murder. Although I was entirely innocent
of any wrongdoing, as has since been proved, the
treatment I received at the hands of the press has
significantly affected my life.

Prior to December 2010 I had not had any dealings at all
with the media. However, I was suddenly thrust into the
media spotlight because I was the landlord to Joanna
Yeates,


Two opposing statements, well again it's context and interpretation... Would either person lie on oath? And I am not saying either is lying, I am trying to deconstruct the statements and put it into context that would be understood..

CJ stating he had had no dealings with the media, is a true statement, because it was December 2010 that this Investigation started, and his property was at the heart of this investigation... But he doesn't tell us when in December that he had dealings with the media... Or whether or not he had spoken to them other than on the 29th December 2010 when Sky turned up on his door step...

His understanding of why he may or may not have been thrust into the media spotlight, based purely on him being the landlord,for me isn't accurate....

If the statement by Richard Wallace is accurate, and by that I mean he has supporting evidence that CJ hung around and conversed with the media on the ground, (And I have no reason not to believe him...) Then CJ's surprise at being in the spotlight of the media, shouldn't have come as a surprise to him...

Anyone hanging around any scene of crime or scene of an investigation, WILL draw attention from The Police and media alike..(imo)

They themselves draw the attention and then become a person of interest... (imo) We have no idea what conversations CJ had with the media on the ground and they should be of interest... We have no idea if he was ever the source of information that appeared in print throughout this investigation...

I am not stating that he was... just that it leaves open possibilities if as Richard Wallace states CJ hung around and talked with journalists on the ground..

I then go back to what I posted yesterday... and CJ knowing about the filing of certain articles on the 29th December 2010, was it possible that he had spoken to journalists on the ground?

I go back to the hacking, and I assumed that the media must have hacked CJ seeing as he is part of Hacked-Off, but is there any proof of this?? I do not know...

I want to know how friendly CJ and these journalist were? Is this how they obtained his phone number to ring him about articles they may or may not publish? Did he himself give any journalist his own phone number? I am not saying he did, I am trying to understand CJ's relationship with on the ground reporters... And where he was hanging around..

Why doesn't The lost Honour of CJ show us him hanging around? why hasn't CJ himself made any comment on Richard Wallaces statement, that puts him in the middle of this Investigation at an early stage...

Quote
Indeed, the
journalists on the ground remarked to the Content Desk that Mr. Jefferies was often
hanging around, occasionally engaging in conversation with reporters about the case.

The content desk... do they have records of these comments made by journalists on the ground??

I am still bemused by the Richard Wallace statement, and why no-one has stated anything about this important statement he has made at The Leveson...

You may feel that I am going on a tangent, but not really, I need to establish what took place at the time of the investigation and what CJ knew about this, seeing as he was absent from the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak..

What stopped them using CJ as a witness? Was it his conversations with journalists at the time?

CJ has between 22nd Dec 2010 and the 29th Dec 2010 to be looked at by journalists....as we know The Police often do tell journalist to hold off printing, I say this because it is possible that certain journalists had been given information that they held onto, and were trying to discover any other information CJ may have know....  Did they court CJ and try to get him to divulge information about the case, or did CJ just voluntarily give the journalists on the ground information about the case....

This is not a witch hunt of CJ.... I want to get to the bottom of what actually took place, and what had been omitted from statements etc by those involved with the case.. And as I have stated before that CJ, is front and centre, whom has made many statements whether written or oral, with us knowing he was the landlord and had conversed with Dr Vincent Tabak, having not only those conversations, but 2 witness statements that the full content is unknown publicly, he therefore is of great interest...

CJ should speak up publicly about this situation..(imo) he has done little to nothing to quell my concerns with this case... He has talked of his own interests and there may be a reason for this, but you would have imagined that Joanna Yeates should have been the main concern, and the fact that he doesn't really go into much detail about her as a person, tenant, as a Murdered tenant of his to this day,is bound to cause question...

He refrains from giving anything away and is not ever questioned directly about her... Why doesn't he say??  What does he really know??

What is actually stopping CJ from revealing what he knows? If obviously he had things to say to journalists on the ground about his tenants inquiry..

What did CJ really know about the Joanna Yeates Inquiry?  What is the Joanna Yeates Case?? What is Operation Braid??

Was he ever questioned by journalists about Dr Vincent Tabak?  Did he ever divulge who the tenants were to journalists? Did he tell journalists who were on the ground that Dr Vincent Tabak helped move his car? Or that he had seen Dr Vincent Tabak the evening before he helped move the car?

Did the Police arrest CJ because he had been conversing with journalists on the ground and they wanted to shut him up??

Is that the reason for his arrest?  He had after all put himself front and centre and with the knowledge of people at the gate did he ever divulge off the record who these people were?

I cannot believe that CJ believes that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates, he has not stated that this is his belief.... He has told of of talking with Dr Vincent Tabak, but I do not understand to this day why he wasn't a witness at the trial... and why he was allowed to be part of The Leveson as a core participant before any trial had commenced..

There are huge swathes of information missing in this case... And as ever opposing statements, which in themselves should make us question how a man could take the stand and give a version of events that had no supporting evidence, that a man could admit to a crime and it being accepted based purely on his say-so... No follow up investigation as to why he would make such a statement and admit in May 2011 that he was responsible for Joanna Yeates death...

Why was everyone so happy to accept what can only be described as a story on the stand, without the witness's whom had conversed with Dr Vincent Tabak or lived with Dr Vincent Tabak, taking the stand to confirm or deny his claims or his apparent timeline...

Where does CJ actually fit into this timeline of that weekend? He has given us two examples of conversations he had that weekend with Dr Vincent Tabak, we just need to know what the actual time and dates of these conversations were, as DCI phil Jones had said it started snowing at 2:00am on the 18th December 2010, if my memory serves me correctly, and I do not know if it had snowed at all on the Friday 17th December 2010, the day that CJ went to the gym...  And CJ's videoed interview telling us about 2 different occasions he conversed with Dr Vincent Tabak..... The day before and the next day...

Because in CJ's video interview, he doesn't actually say which day it was, it is left for us to try and decide which day it could be, based on what we have been told.... And our understanding that CJ was at the gym on what could be Friday the 17th December 2010... (as CJ states in his Leveson statement)

I do hope that CJ makes a statement about what he really knows, and put an end to the secrecy that appears to cover this case....  Because I do not understand why the secrecy, why no-one speaks and why I feel I am alone in sifting through the volumes of information that surrounds this case...

It cannot be coincidence that CJ is mentioned at every opportunity in the media about his vilification, even to this day... There must be a lot more to this case other than a Placid Dutch Man admitting responsibility for Joanna Yeates demise...

And maybe it is still a live investigation, still open??? And maybe a Reporting Restriction Order has been placed on this case and that is why nothing different is ever said...

But if this was done in court, then CJ wasn't in court... and if Leveson 2 is the only thing stopping CJ speaking up and explaining what happened, then lets go....

But I forgot what I just said... Maybe the media cannot report on anything else CJ may wish to tell if there is a RRO on this case....

Catch 22 anyone.....

If CJ cannot speak, is it his way of drawing attention to this case to have himself mentioned at every opportunity? Or is it some other reason??

I am always left with more questions and I cannot be the only one....



https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140306130725/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Second-Witness-Statement-of-Richard-Wallace.pdf

https://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 #3313 on: March 02, 2019, 11:29:01 AM »
Another question I would like to put forward in the light of Richard Wallaces statement about CJ and on the ground Journalists, is was CJ ever apart of any of the forums discussion groups of the time when Joanna Yeates was reported Missing and after her body was found in Longwood Lane, or even a little later??

That question has never been posed to CJ... It's another one to contemplate... (imo)

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3314 on: March 03, 2019, 09:50:17 PM »
Part 1.....

I've started writing another post , which has brought me to this one, whilst the other is sat on my computer, and I'll come back too....

From DCI Phil Jones Leveson statement....

Quote
I was appointed as SIO on 27th December 2010 and in
consultation with CCD continued to develop the media strategy as the
investigation grew, documenting al! media related decisions in my policy book

27th December 2010.... which is 10 days into the disappearance of Joanna Yeates, if we go with the 17th December 2010.

But I want to go back to who was originally in charge...

7:00AM GMT 22 Dec 2010 The Telegraph...

Quote
Det Supt Mark Saunders, of Avon and Somerset Police, who is leading the investigation, said Miss Yeates's disappearance was a "complete mystery". He said: "This is out of character for Jo. We are concerned for her welfare and we need help from the public.

In all of this where has DS Mark Saunders been?? We had the Leveson , a trial etc, and he appears to be Missing, like most things in this case...

Why he is important is obvious... Lets take CJ's Leveson statement , where he divulges that it was on the 22nd December 2010, that he gave his second witness statement, this at a time when DS Mark Saunders was in charge of this Investigations, this statement that was at the heart of CJ's arrest....

Various questions to pose..  We had the fortune of DCI Phil Jones explaining his role in the Joanna Yeates Investigation, but we have never had DS Mark Saunders tell us anything since his appearance in a couple of clips about Joanna Yeates disappearance and then he too disappeared....

Thinking about all that has happened to CJ, I came back to DS Mark Saunders... why if he was the original investigating officer was he not called to The Leveson Inquiry??

Why was CJ not questioned after he gave his second witness statement on the 22nd December 2010 as a suspect??

What reason did DS Mark Saunders have for not wanting to bring CJ in as a suspect? It's an important question and I am surprised that CJ didn't want DS Mark Saunders opinion on this matter, why he wasn't called to The Leveson to explain why he didn't feel that CJ's statement made him a viable suspect??

* 20th December 2010 Joanna Yeates reported Missing

* 22nd December 2010 DS Mark Saunders make TV appearance, he's in charge of the Investigation

* 22nd December 2010 CJ makes his second witness statement

* 25th December 2010 Joanna Yeates is found dead

* 27th December 2010 DCI Phil Jones is put in charge

* 29th December 2010 CJ's infamous Sky News appearance

* 30th Decemeber 2010 CJ's arrested

* 31st December 2010 Paper print XYZ about CJ

Those dates are important, and the order in which events happened... We are given the reason for CJ's arrest, was that what he had told the Police was very ver y much vaguer than that.... Referring to the possibility that he had indeed seen Joanna Yeates on that Friday 17th December 2010 evening....

But a denial to the media is not a reason for arrest..(imo) if he didn't wish to be seen or named as a witness, then denial is the way forward... he hasn't divulged anything that could be of great importance to the investigation, and that in itself should not have made him a suspect....

All this talk of him being the landlord etc, having keys and the various stories that were put to print about CJ at the time, to blacken his character, as he says.... But The Police were already aware he was the landlord and had keys to the flats....

So I do not see the idea that all of a sudden that idea spring into mind on the day they decided to arrest him.... This Missing persons inquiry has always seemed like a Murder Inquiry from day one... The forensics outside the property dusting window panes etc whilst Joanna Yeates is a Missing person.... Certain aspects of the case always seeming not quite right... The photo's of the flat for instance... The images of the outside garden and Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat in early December when it snowed... Images they shouldn't have....

As I look at the information I am trying to bring together, theres so much swirling around my head... Ideas.. questions... A different angle....

Where was CJ all the time?? This is something I want to tackle, brought on by a passage or short sentence in Ryan Parrys Leveson Statement....

Quote
Towards the end of the published article there are quotes from a Clifton shopkeeper and a
named man (Mr Girvan) who said he met Mr Jefferies 48 hours after Jo Yeates vanished.

This was part of a post I had started, but I'll use it here instead... Who is Mr Girvan? And what is 48 hours after Joanna Yeates is Missing?? No-one knew at the time for a fact when Joanna Yeates actually went Missing...
I was thinking about that statement yesterday and couldn't understand the need for it, but it is there for all to see in The Leveson... So it has to be of importance (imo)...

Trying to understand the chain of command changing and the importance of CJ's second witness statement and CJ's arrest in connection to this case and statements made by various people in The Leveson and elsewhere and why we have repeats of certain pieces of info....

CJ's movements...

* 17th December 2010 CJ and Peter Stanley assists Greg with his car trouble

* 17th December 2010 returned from the gym at 9:00pm

* 17/18th December 2010 talked to Dr Vincent Tabak, a light dusting of snow on way to gym

* 18/19th December 2010.. The next day Dr Vincent Tabak assisted CJ move his car

* 19th December 2010.. (we do not know for sure the date..but..) Saw Mr Girvan

* 20th December 2010 Misses a phone call from Greg Reardon

* 22nd December 2010 makes second witness statement

* 29th December 2010 Talks to Sky News

* 30th December 2010 arrested

These are the dates that are available for CJ's movements... But where was he all the time??

We don't know and I think it is important, he has used Dr Vincent Tabak to put him at home on the 18th December 2010, something that Dr Vincent Tabak has not confirmed himself...

We have a random Mr Girvan who lives were?? who is were at the time he see CJ??

Where did CJ make his statement?? I mean where was he when the Police took witness statements?/ and where was he when he gave his second witness statement??

Was he even in the country?? Had CJ been away over that Christmas period, from when Joanna Yeates was reported Missing to the 29th December 2010 when he appears on TV??

No finger pointing, I am trying to piece together where things changed in this Investigation.... And why CJ wasn't arrested immediatley once they discovered Joanna Yeates body??  They had always treated this as a Murder Inquiry and everyone reacted as if she was all ready dead, so, there was no real reason not to arrest CJ with immediate effect, (imo)

* She's posed...

* She's concealed,

* She's Missing her sock,

* She has no coat

* There's blood on the wall

* Her breast is exposed

* Her T shirt is above her head

* She has blood on her nose

* There's blood in her hair

* They are treating the scene as a Crime scene

* She is wearing a different T-shirt than that in the Ram

* She is starting to thaw

All the indications that were used for the case against Dr Vincent Tabak.... But why not arrest CJ??  Why wait... Why change command..

Now you all might think that I am pointing at CJ... And that is not the case... But it is really important that we know CJ's movements, because i have just had an idea....

It should have been enough to arrest CJ, or at least bring him in for questioning.... The circumstances are the same in reality.. They had named the body they found as Joanna Yeates, so why not act.... why the charade of the door stepping and arrest the next day, based on CJ not giving away information to the media??

The media tell us that they get info before hand and release it when it may be beneficial to an investigation... If there is a leak, where had it come from.... DCI Phil Jones talks of surprise when info is leaked and only a few where privy to this....

Well maybe whilst he was in charge, but we have had someone else in charge before, so why didn't the leak come from that area.... I'm not saying DS Mark Saunders leaked the info, but I do not know who was on his team at the time... So anything that had been leaked to the media, could and would have been known before DCI Phil Jones took over as SIO on the 27th December 2010....

Back to why I'm asking where CJ was.....

The evidence they had against CJ, looking at it cold, was far greater than the evidence they had against Dr Vincent Tabak when they arrested him... Yet for some reason CJ's lawyers had more success in getting him bailed than Dr Vincent Tabak's laywer managed... He's solicitor didn't even apply for bail to the courts...

By CJ's own admission, he arrives home at 9:00pm on Friday 17th December 2010, and hears/ sees 2/3 people at the gate... we then don't know what he does... He has Dr Vincent Tabak help move his car, and has also conversed the day before with Dr Vincent Tabak.... We get a Mr Girvan chucked in for good measure, all able to offer an explanation to CJ's movements that weekend...

Which if he is under suspicion, these people would be able to verify what CJ did or didn't do....

Dr Vincent Tabak sees CJ on his way to the gym

2/3  people see CJ returning from the gym

Dr Vincent Tabak see's and helps CJ the day after

And Mr. Girvan sees CJ 48hrs after Joanna Yeates is Missing....

All these people supporting what CJ was doing....

Now out of all of these witness's we only ever know of Dr Vincent Tabak, and only because CJ himself has told us of this piece of information.... Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't mention it at trial, in fact he is lambasted for implicating his landlord about a car changing position, which we know by CJ's statement is true....

All this time I keep saying that CJ was a witness for Dr Vincent Tabak, when maybe it was Dr Vincent Tabak who was a witness for CJ..... Same with the people at the gate.... Peter Stanley too...

On the 22nd December 2010 Zoe and Florian Lehman double check with the party host what time they arrived... I don't know if they saw CJ.. maybe maybe not....  I never understood why it was the 22nd December 2010 that Zoe and Florian Lehman suddenly felt the need to check this piece of information out, it seemed coincidental to me....

But there must have been something that they heard, for them to do this on the day that CJ has given his second witness statement...

And this is the time that DS Mark Saunders is leading this investigation..... Which makes me ask if they were checking everything at that time about CJ... Did they always suspect him..... ??

Now you're going to have to bare with me ... I will get to the point in a mo....

Up until now, everything appears to point to CJ... I say appears because the circumstantial evidence suggests that he could be responsible.... The witness's are the people at the gate..... Dr Vincent Tabak too is a witness....  Peter Stanley... Mr . Girvan... all witness's to CJ's movements...

But we have never questioned CJ's movements... It has been shown that he is wholly innocent.. It has been talked of at the Leveson etc etc....  But I find that there is always something I am Missing.... something starring me in the face.... Something obvious.....

Why were the people at the gate never identified?? They really should be vital in this investigation... But they have been put aside.... They are only not relevant if they are CJ's alibi...(imo) and they wouldn't want them identifying if that is the case....

So what was it when CJ was arrested that stopped them from firmly stopping him being charged??

Circumstancially, it should have been a slam dunk.....  But there is something that stops them... What is it??

Was CJ else where?
Did he leave the country??
Did he not return till after they had found Joanna Yeates??

CJ isn't speaking and his movements are important, we know parts but not all.... Ok if they managed to fly to Holland to question Dr Vincent Tabak about a car changing position , then that was possible with CJ if he wasn't in the country at the time... 

So where exactly was CJ?? Again I'm not finger pointing ,I am trying to establish what took place ,so I can put into context the strange events and unanswered questions....

We do not know the questions CJ was asked whilst he was in custody, or the answers he gave.... Or more importantly where he was...

DNA test doe not connect CJ, but that is only ever part of any evidence.... motive opportunity etc are also needed...

And then I go back to when Joanna Yeates was found and in what condition her body was....

She is found on the 25th December 2010... as we are aware...  most agree she couldn't have been on Longwood Lane for so long....  But if CJ is away at this time, then he couldn't place Joanna Yeates on Longwood Lane...

And it has to be hard evidence that proved CJ wasn't possibly responsible... Was he in the country when she was found?? What arguments did his solicitor use??

There has to be some correlation between dates... Had he returned at that time ? Had he been away....

Had they waited for CJ to return and that why we have the circus surrounding his arrest?

Other than the tale on the stand... What put Joanna Yeates on Longwood Lane since 17th December 2010??

NOTHING...........!!

And is that the problem with the Polices case against CJ... If he wasn't here when Joanna Yeates was deposited on Longwood Lane.... And that was the case that his solicitor put to the Police....

This is a theory.. of course... but we don't know CJ's movements, and I want to explore other avenues...

CJ at the Leveson doesn't confirm he saw Joanna Yeates, nor do we see his witness statement at The Leveson... Which would support Colin Ports own Leveson statement....

So what and who are the people at the gate... And why do we not know their identity?? Were they CJ's alibi??

And this is why they were never produced???

Think about it... What was it that CJ needed to do... I mean alibi wise?? They have not moved from that house... they have ripped it apart... the media are parked outside from the beginning and CJ is a single man living on his own...

It is he who needs the alibi... And i think it is possible that is why he remembered the people at the gate.... They were his alibi.. along with the others I have named....

Put yourself in CJ's position at the moment... They search the house, the ask all the tenants for statements about what happened that weekend.. all extremely unusual for a Missing Persons inquiry take DNA samples, according to CJ, and we have a forensic blitz like no other for a Missing persons Inquiry.....

Was he just trying to cover himself.... ??

What did you do on the evening of the 17th December Mr CJ??

Can't remember at the moment... think I spent the evening at home....

More busy Policemen around the building....

Gossip.. etc etc...

Head working over time trying to establish ones movements....

Ring Ring.... Hello Mr Police man... I have just remembered something, there was 2/3 people leaving the Flat.. at the gate talking in hushed tones that could tell you I arrived home at 9:00pm on Friday the 17th December 2010

Easy to twist that statement to anything one wants... But if it is his alibi, and there is only he who knows or saw them, then again they are important...

This is why I ask if it was Dr Vincent Tabak at the gate or leaving the property also..... Something to consider...