Author Topic: The Defence Will State Their Case  (Read 132118 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3285 on: February 19, 2019, 01:26:58 PM »
One last thing puglove....

Part 1...

I have struggled as to whether this is real, because of events that have taken place, Events that should not happen before time... (imo)

We have had The Attorney General getting involved in Dec 2010/Jan 2011, we again have the attorney general and the case against the newspapers, where I have pointed out  that it is stated that Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty on the 29th July 2011, before a trial has even taken place and before a defendant could withdraw any plea given.. Yet it is there in black and white for all to see..

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/attorney-general-reflects-on-how-the-law-of-contempt-is-developing

Quote
Mr Dominic Grieve QC, Her Majesty’s Attorney-General and Miss Melanie Cumberland (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Claimant

Mr Jonathan Caplan QC (Instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP) for the First Defendant

Miss Adrienne Page QC and Mr Anthony Hudson (Instructed by Farrer & Co) for the Second Defendant

 

Hearing date: 5th July 2011

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judgment

As Approved by the Court

Crown copyright©

 


The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales:


In these proceedings Her Majesty’s Attorney-General contends that the first defendant, the publisher of the Daily Mirror newspaper, and the second defendant, the publisher of The Sun newspaper, should be committed, or otherwise dealt with for contempt of court.  The contempt is said to arise from articles published in the issues of the Daily Mirror dated 31st December 2010 and 1st January 2011 and in the Sun on 1st January 2011 in breach of the strict liability rule as defined in the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (the Act).
The Context

The proceedings arise from the killing of a young woman, Joanna Yeates, in Bristol on 17th December 2010.  Her landlord, Christopher Jefferies, was arrested on 30th December on suspicion of her murder.  He was released from custody on unconditional police bail during the evening of 1st January 2011.  On 22nd January another man, Vincent Tabak was charged with the murder of Miss Yeates.  On 4th March Mr Jefferies was informed that he was released from police bail.  On 5th May Tabak admitted that he was responsible for killing Miss Yeates when, at the Central Criminal Court, he pleaded guilty to her manslaughter.  He denied murder on the basis of diminished responsibility.  The trial of that issue will take place in the autumn.
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.  However at the time when the articles complained of were published, he was under arrest.  For the purposes of the Act proceedings against him were active.  No one was to know that before very long he would be entirely exonerated.  That feature makes this an unusual case.  The articles complained of did not have and could not have had any impact whatever on a trial of Mr Jefferies, just because – as we now know - there will never be one.  From the point of view of the defendants that was purely adventitious, and as we shall see, it is irrelevant to our decision.  It is also irrelevant that the way in which some elements of the media may have treated Mr Jefferies may justify a substantial award of damages for defamation.  This is a prosecution for contempt of court, not an analysis of any possible civil claim by him for compensation. 

https://www.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

But the most interesting of these official reports/ debates before a trial has to be in Parliament..

Quote
4 Feb 2011 : Column 1159
House of Commons
Friday 4 February 2011
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con): I beg to move, That the House sit in private.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163), and negatived.


4 Feb 2011 : Column 1160
Anonymity (Arrested Persons) Bill
Second Reading

9.34 am
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Where as the date tells us many things have not yet taken place...

Quote
4 Feb 2011 : Column 1191
Many Members have mentioned or alluded to the tragic Joanna Yeates case, which happened over Christmas, and the media's dreadful treatment of her landlord. The shameful way in which that man was portrayed in the press-from "weird-looking" to "strange", and with questions raised about his sexuality, his teaching practices and even his hairstyle-should embarrass and shame our media.

The phenomenon is not new. Countless other examples spring immediately to mind-for example, the speculation, which I believe we heard again this morning, about a well-known actor and television presenter back in 2003, which has done untold damage to his career, despite the fact that no charges have ever been brought, or the American press treatment of Richard Jewell as a suspect in the 1996 Olympic park bombing, although in fact he was a hero on the day who saved countless lives through his actions.

As I think everyone listening to the debate will know, on 17 December 2010 Joanna Yeates left her place of work and joined her colleagues in a Bristol pub for a drink. On 20 December, Avon and Somerset police launched their first appeal for information about Joanna's disappearance. It was around this time that the national media, perhaps because of the Christmas period, when there is generally considered to be little for the media to report, began to pay attention to the case. Over the next few days, it was given ever-increasing media attention, and more details emerged about Joanna's final movements.

A key part of the case became a pizza that Joanna was seen buying in Tesco Express, but of which there was no trace in her flat, and the police used the media to ask the public whether they had seen anything relating to this. Joanna's parents made a number of public appeals at this stage, believing that she had either gone missing or perhaps been abducted, and the media carried those appeals and contributed a huge amount to efforts to find Joanna safely.
It is important to remember, as we discuss this Bill, that the media have traditionally played a huge role in such situations, and there are countless examples of missing people having been found as a result of information that has been obtained following appeals.

Tragically, on Christmas morning, a body was found in an area of north Somerset that was quickly confirmed to be that of Joanna. Over the next few days, the media concentrated on the reaction of the family and friends, before, on 29 December, the police interviewed Joanna's landlord. He advised that he saw her leaving the flat with two people on the night that she was murdered. But the next day, Avon and Somerset police confirmed that a 65-year-old man had been arrested on suspicion of murder, and it was rapidly reported that this was her landlord.

At this stage the media turned their attention to what can be described only as a detailed character assassination of this man. Papers revelled in the nickname used by students at the college where he formerly taught, and a particular tabloid-I will not mention which one, but I think it will become apparent-ran a story entitled "Weird, posh, lewd, creepy", in which it described him as "weird-looking" and ran quotes from a number of former pupils in which the overriding comment seemed intent on painting a very negative picture of this man. This continued over the following few days as police
4 Feb 2011 : Column 1192
obtained further time to question the gentleman in question, and more of his former acquaintances came forward with stories about his apparently odd behaviour.

On new year's day, this man was released on bail, at which point the tone of the stories changed. He was no longer weird or strange, with the newspaper in question now preferring to describe him as "wild-haired eccentric", and most attention in the article reporting this being paid to comments from his aunt and former colleagues who supported him, expressing their view that they would never think him capable of such a crime.

Anna Soubry: I am very grateful for the exceptionally helpful comments that have been made thus far by the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that at the point when this gentleman was arrested and there was a media feeding frenzy attacking his character, it would be fair to say that there must have been women in Bristol who concluded that the police had him and that therefore they were safe? If events are proved right, women were effectively made more vulnerable in the mistaken belief that the attacker was no longer on the loose.


As I think everyone listening to the debate will know, on 17 December 2010 Joanna Yeates left her place of work and joined her colleagues in a Bristol pub for a drink. On 20 December, Avon and Somerset police launched their first appeal for information about Joanna's disappearance. It was around this time that the national media, perhaps because of the Christmas period, when there is generally considered to be little for the media to report, began to pay attention to the case. Over the next few days, it was given ever-increasing media attention, and more details emerged about Joanna's final movements.

A key part of the case became a pizza that Joanna was seen buying in Tesco Express, but of which there was no trace in her flat, and the police used the media to ask the public whether they had seen anything relating to this. Joanna's parents made a number of public appeals at this stage, believing that she had either gone missing or perhaps been abducted, and the media carried those appeals and contributed a huge amount to efforts to find Joanna safely.


How was it even possible for parliament to comment on a PIZZA , whether Joanna Yeates had been abducted or was just Missing, where the PIZZA was purchased, stating that there was NO TRACES of said PIZZA in her Flat..

"On 20 December, Avon and Somerset police launched their first appeal for information about Joanna's disappearance." this being the same day that Greg Reardon reported Joanna Yeates Missing...

If a trial hasn't taken place, CJ hasn't been released from bail,.. Dr Vincent Tabak is on remand, why on earth are the details of this case being discussed in Parliament on the 4th February 2011??

The PIZZA for all intense and purposes may have been a red herring... But for Parliament to be discussing a case that hasn't gone to trial at that point is wrong..(imo) Dr Vincent Tabak at this point apparently has made NO COMMENT... There is no talk of confessions or pleads of guilt, so how can Parliament even discuss any aspect of a case that hasn't gone through the judicial process??

Apparently at this point NO-ONE knew what had happened to Joanna Yeates and that only came to light at trial in October 2011

I find this most perplexing....


Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3286 on: February 19, 2019, 01:27:37 PM »
Part 2.....

Quote
Robert Flello: I can see the hon. Lady leaping to her feet on that point.

Anna Soubry: With great respect, I think we are moving into really difficult territory, because Joanna Yeates's family did not know whether the man who had been arrested was the person who had murdered their
4 Feb 2011 : Column 1195
daughter or fiancée, so in those circumstances it would be fallacious to argue that the victim's family should be involved, in any way, in the publication of an arrested person's name.

Didn't we have the report from Greg on the 1st January 2011 about of yet "Innocent Men"

Quote
Her boyfriend Greg Reardon also issued a statement in which he declared he would always love her but criticised the media's ''character assassination'' of ''as yet innocent men''.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8235055/Joanna-Yeates-was-stolen-from-us-say-family.html

Quote
4 Feb 2011 : Column 1196
Robert Flello: The hon. Gentleman makes the point very well, and I will return to it shortly.

I should like to touch on other concerns that I have about the Bill, some of which relate to whether it is necessary and some to how it would work in practice. First, it is worth mentioning again the current legislation relating to contempt of court. The Contempt of Court Act 1981 is the most important piece of legislation in this field and, if used properly, it should be sufficient to deal with the problems that the Bill seeks to address. Section 2(2) of the Act states that the press are prohibited from the reporting of information which

"creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced".

In the Joanna Yeates case, the Bristol man would almost certainly not have had a fair trial if he had indeed been guilty of the offences. Therefore, use of the 1981 Act should have been looked at more closely.

Of course, the simple reporting of an individual's arrest would not impede or prejudice an investigation. I suspect that few Members have a strong objection to the simple reporting of an arrested person's name; we have pretty much heard agreement on that today. Indeed, this reporting is crucial to the rule that administration of justice should take place in the public eye. Simple reporting of a name ensures that speculation is avoided and protects other individuals. The problem has arisen from the fact that the simple reporting of a name has grown and mutated, in a ridiculous and appalling way, into in-depth investigations about an individual's past jobs, hobbies and actions.

The media are expected to refrain from reporting on a suspected person's previous convictions or making any sort of speculative comment about an individual's guilt or otherwise. I would argue that in the Bristol case, and in others, a number of press outlets were indeed guilty of precisely that-effectively carrying out their own investigations into the case and speculating as to why the person would carry out this crime with only the merest of efforts to mention that no charges had been laid. This mutation has been allowed to happen because of the failure of various bodies, including Ministers, to ensure that the law is implemented properly.

In the Bristol case, I am afraid to say that the reaction of the Attorney-General was not what I would have expected of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. His so-called warning to newspaper editors consisted of little more than the gentlest of reminders of the law as it stands and the importance of nothing taking place that might prejudice a fair trial. Indeed, according to reports of this "warning", the Attorney-General was very careful not to address precisely the coverage of the Joanna Yeates case. I dare say that had the Attorney-General taken a stronger view and warned media outlets that some of the reporting was at great risk of being in contempt-I think that hon. Members agree that it probably was in contempt-a slightly more measured approach might have been taken.

Now I at this point need to point something out... we are talking the 4th February 2011

In the Joanna Yeates case, the Bristol man would almost certainly not have had a fair trial if he had indeed been guilty of the offences. Therefore, use of the 1981 Act should have been looked at more closely


The Bristol man would almost certainly not had a fair trial???

Dr Vincent Tabak has been arrested and charged by the 22nd January 2011, he is in custody, as far as we are aware he has said nothing, no bail has been applied for, he has not yet spoken to the assumed chaplain Peter Brotherton where he apparently confessed to the murder (which I don't believe..) But more apparent is the fact that CJ is still himself on POLICE BAIL, he doesn't get released from POLICE BAIL until March 2011


Why are they using CJ as an example in Parliament in February 2011, when he still could be  suspect in this case... Until the Police release him from bail, and lets not forget that DCI Phil Jones stated at the Leveson that it was the TRAINER they found behind the kick board under the sink in the house, was the reason that CJ was still on bail, do we have interest in Parliament on what is taking place surrounding CJ??

In the Joanna Yeates case, the Bristol man would almost certainly not have had a fair trial if he had indeed been guilty of the offences.

I'm trying to get my head around that statement....

How would anyone know on the 4th February 2011, whether or not CJ had committed any offence in relation to Joanna Yeates seeing as I will repeat, he was still on POLICE BAIL until March 2011??

And I don't understand why CJ is being mentioned in Parliament...  anyone explain..

If we are supposed to have the fade factor on any case, where does it make The Joanna Yeates Case stand???

* 20th January 2011
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348832/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Vincent-Tabaks-flat-searched-man-32-arrested.html

* 21st January 2011

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8273016/Joanna-Yeates-murder-a-quiet-lonely-Dutchman-who-came-to-life-after-finding-love.html

* 22nd January 2011 Dr Vincent Tabak is all over the media
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349356/Joanna-Yeates-murder-suspect-Vincent-Tabak-split-girlfriend.html

* 24th January 2011 appears at Court all over the media ( PETER DOMINICZAK IN BRISTOL Monday 24 January
   2011 08:46)
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/joanna-yeates-neighbour-vincent-tabak-in-court-on-murder-charge-6558679.html

* 25th January 2011 (By DAILY MAIL REPORTER UPDATED: 13:11, 25 January 2011)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350309/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Vincent-Tabak-remanded-custody.html

* 26th January 2011 (26th January 2011, 12:00 am) Moves to Gloucester Prison)
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/330342/tabak-jail-switch-over-attack-fears/

* 31st January 2011 preliminary hearing Paul cook photographed outside court
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/vincent-tabaks-defence-lawyer-paul-cook-leaves-bristol-news-photo/108634508

* 4th February 2011 the case is mentioned in Parliament
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110204/debtext/110204-0001.htm

* 11th February 2011
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/feb/11/joanna-yeates-funeral-church

* 14th February 2011, 1:45 am (THE girlfriend of Jo Yeates’ alleged killer emerges from a prison visit — on
the same day as the tragic 25-year-old’s funeral.)
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/369964/accuseds-girl-visits-jail-as-jo-is-laid-to-rest/

* 27 February 2011
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1360903/Joanna-Yeates-Murdered-landscape-architect-leaves-47-000-estate.html

* 07 March 2011
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8365807/Joanna-Yeates-murder-landlord-Chris-Jefferies-released-from-bail-without-charge.html

* 7th April 2011 (Recent drawing of Vincent Tabak  (Joanna Yeates murder suspect))
http://exmouthartgroup.blogspot.com/2011/04/elizabeth-cook-court-artist.html

* 21st April 2011
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/apr/21/joanna-yeates-national-newspapers


* May 5th 2011 its reported that Dr Vincent Tabak has pleaded guilty to Manslaughter, yet it is not accepted by the
   CPS
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8496027/Dutch-engineer-Vincent-Tabak-admits-I-did-kill-Jo-Yeates.html

* May 5th 2011 The Yeates are in the media attending the Old Bailey Hearing
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/may/05/joanna-yeates-neighbour-admits-killing

* 8th May 2011
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/may/08/christopher-jefferies-jo-yeates

* On 12 May 2011, the Attorney-General was granted permission to bring proceedings for strict liability contempt
   under ss. 1 and 2 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981against two newspapers for their coverage of Mr Jefferies’
   arrest:
https://www.5rb.com/case/attorney-general-v-1-mgn-limited-2-news-group-newspapers-ltd/

* Friday 13 May 2011
 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/contempt-of-court-case-raises-difficult-issues-2283363.html

* June 24th 2011 (Dutchman Vincent Tabak has pleaded guilty to Yeates's manslaughter but denies murder. He is likely to face trial in October.)
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jun/24/levi-bellfield-jury-discharged

* 29 Jul 2011 - Sun and Mirror fined for contempt of court in Christopher Jefferies articles. The Daily Mirror has been
   fined ....

* 5 Aug 2011 - guardian.co.uk, Thursday 4 August 2011 15.18 BST
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/aug/04/contempt-court-christopher-jefferies-tabloids.

* 20 Sep 2011 - David and Teresa Yeates were at Bristol Crown Court for a pre-trial hearing for Vincent Tabak, who
   arrived earlier in a prison van.The couple have not seen ...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8776357/Joanna-Yeates-parents-face-daughters-killer-in-court.html

* 29 Sep 2011 - He was released from police bail on 4 March 2011 and on 5 May 2011 Vincent Tabak pleaded guilty
   to the manslaughter of Miss Yeates. On 12 May 2011, the ... ( google search threw up that date)

*  OCTOBER 8, 2011 (The ordeal of Christopher Jefferies )
https://www.ft.com/content/22eac290-eee2-11e0-959a-00144feab49a


Every publication between the arrest of Dr Vincent Tabak and the trial relating to The Joanna Yeates Case, prejudices the case (imo), every publication stops the fade factor, so how was a trial fair??

Nothing was said about Dr Vincent Tabak being named before charge, yet Parliament are concerned that CJ who was still on Police bail wasn't named.. Go figure!

Whatever you think about what I have posted about... this 2 part post brings questions and concerns, when we have Parliament getting involved in a case that hasn't yet gone through the judicial process, and on the 4th February 2011, what was to say that CJ wouldn't be called as a witness, seeing as we know he spoke to Dr Vincent Tabak on that weekend and not only that as parliament state, he saw people leaving the flat..

Quote
Tragically, on Christmas morning, a body was found in an area of north Somerset that was quickly confirmed to be that of Joanna. Over the next few days, the media concentrated on the reaction of the family and friends, before, on 29 December, the police interviewed Joanna's landlord. He advised that he saw her leaving the flat with two people on the night that she was murdered.

Where did parliament get their info from? That is a huge piece of evidence, were these people ever located... Did Dr Vincent Tabak want to locate these people or anyone representing Dr Vincent Tabak...


Whatever you think about my posts... This case is weird....  And even weirder that Parliament feel the need to involve themselves with our judicial system.. (When it's a live case)

There was no way in February 2011 that anything to do with this case should have come to Parliaments attention..and the mentioning of a possible witness that everyone was aware whom they were referring too, may have needed to attend the trial of his tenant Dr Vincent Tabak..(imo)

It's like I keep saying.. this case appears to be have done and dusted before a trial ever took place... and how can that be right..



https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110204/debtext/110204-0001.htm

https://accesstojusticeactiongroup.co.uk/2011/08/05/guardian-article-christopher-jefferies-case-delivers-wake-up-call-to-tabloids/


Online mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1017
  • Total likes: 461
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3288 on: February 19, 2019, 07:47:11 PM »
Now you can remove ALL 3660 of my Posts.......



Um -------why?

Offline Eleanor

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3289 on: February 19, 2019, 08:20:29 PM »


Um -------why?

That request to remove all of the member's Posts is above our pay grade.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3290 on: February 19, 2019, 08:45:14 PM »


Um -------why?

Where do I start.... I appear to talk rubbish, I get eff and jeffed at... I have not tried to be disrespectful to The Yeates.. I know no-one... I will never get anywhere... No-one is really interested...  It is all too bizarre for words..

I have done my own head in with it... never mind anyone elses...  I appear to have wasted my time... I do not know what is ok to say most of the time or whether some posts should have been removed..... Is anyone really interested in this case or not?

And then I wonder if the trial was all made up... I wonder all the time what is real and what isn't real... I wonder if anyone really cares..

I wonder if anyone will ever do anything about it... I wonder why nothing adds up... I wonder if anyone else questions the case... I wonder why it has always bugged me...

I give up... It is all pointless....


Offline Eleanor

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3291 on: February 19, 2019, 08:49:05 PM »
Where do I start.... I appear to talk rubbish, I get eff and jeffed at... I have not tried to be disrespectful to The Yeates.. I know no-one... I will never get anywhere... No-one is really interested...  It is all too bizarre for words..

I have done my own head in with it... never mind anyone elses...  I appear to have wasted my time... I do not know what is ok to say most of the time or whether some posts should have been removed..... Is anyone really interested in this case or not?

And then I wonder if the trial was all made up... I wonder all the time what is real and what isn't real... I wonder if anyone really cares..

I wonder if anyone will ever do anything about it... I wonder why nothing adds up... I wonder if anyone else questions the case... I wonder why it has always bugged me...

I give up... It is all pointless....

You will have to make this request to Admin.  Although I don't know what the policy is re removing all Posts.

Offline puglove

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3292 on: February 19, 2019, 09:31:33 PM »
Where do I start.... I appear to talk rubbish, I get eff and jeffed at... I have not tried to be disrespectful to The Yeates.. I know no-one... I will never get anywhere... No-one is really interested...  It is all too bizarre for words..

I have done my own head in with it... never mind anyone elses...  I appear to have wasted my time... I do not know what is ok to say most of the time or whether some posts should have been removed..... Is anyone really interested in this case or not?

And then I wonder if the trial was all made up... I wonder all the time what is real and what isn't real... I wonder if anyone really cares..

I wonder if anyone will ever do anything about it... I wonder why nothing adds up... I wonder if anyone else questions the case... I wonder why it has always bugged me...

I give up... It is all pointless....

 What if the Yeates family stumbled across your "Is Joanna really dead/did she even exist?"  Can't you imagine the pain that would cause?

Can't you find something better to do with your time? No, rhetorical question. Don't answer.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2019, 09:37:04 PM by mrswah »
Magpies are feathery arseholes.

Online mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1017
  • Total likes: 461
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3293 on: February 19, 2019, 09:43:59 PM »
Where do I start.... I appear to talk rubbish, I get eff and jeffed at... I have not tried to be disrespectful to The Yeates.. I know no-one... I will never get anywhere... No-one is really interested...  It is all too bizarre for words..

I have done my own head in with it... never mind anyone elses...  I appear to have wasted my time... I do not know what is ok to say most of the time or whether some posts should have been removed..... Is anyone really interested in this case or not?

And then I wonder if the trial was all made up... I wonder all the time what is real and what isn't real... I wonder if anyone really cares..

I wonder if anyone will ever do anything about it... I wonder why nothing adds up... I wonder if anyone else questions the case... I wonder why it has always bugged me...

I give up... It is all pointless....


I wouldn't say you have wasted your time. I think, perhaps you have got too "bogged down" in some of the details, and that's why it doesn't make sense. 

In my opinion, it is not disrespectful to challenge a conviction-----if nobody ever did, for the sake of not upsetting victims' families, no miscarriages of justice would ever be overturned.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3294 on: February 20, 2019, 01:44:14 PM »

I wouldn't say you have wasted your time. I think, perhaps you have got too "bogged down" in some of the details, and that's why it doesn't make sense. 

In my opinion, it is not disrespectful to challenge a conviction-----if nobody ever did, for the sake of not upsetting victims' families, no miscarriages of justice would ever be overturned.

I'm just frustrated I think mrswah....  I feel I must be stupid or something, I point things out that are obvious and no-one makes comment on said piece of information...

I then wonder why no-one speaks of this case, I am confused as to why no-one really speaks of this case... thats why I come to the strange conclusions sometimes, as it doesn't appear real...

The posts on Parliament for instances, why would Parliament speak up for CJ whilst Dr Vincent Tabak is in prison waiting to face trial, where DCI Phil Jones has told us that the reason CJ was on bail was because of the trainers that had blood on them...

Surely there were other examples they could have used on the 4th February 2011....

I then think how the fact that Parliament had spoken on CJ's behalf could have had a possible effect on the outcome of taking The papers to Court for Contempt, (which I don't get where the contempt part came from? ) which resulted in CJ receiving an out of court settlement... Did CJ know he was the subject of a Parliamentary debate? Did it give him the confidence to take the media to court, was that why solicitors were happy to represent him?? If he had foreknowledge that he was the subject of interest in Parliament....

I'm just asking... ( I may be wrong)..... all this settled before a trial has taken place....? After a trial maybe... I don't get how it happened before to be honest... Everything always seems back to front.... Or am I just plain thick???

From the Parliament publication: 4th February 2011

Quote
I mentioned events in Bristol. Let me make it clear that I do not intend to name anybody, and I am sure that hon. Members will also be keen not to name anybody, save for this: I do not think there is anybody who is not aware of the publicity and media coverage that was given to the first man who was arrested following the murder of Joanna Yeates. It is right and fair to say that everybody with any sense of decency and sensibility has accepted that the coverage of that individual was, if not outrageous, as I believe it was, certainly unacceptable and plain wrong. It is as if we had forgotten that one is innocent in this land until proven guilty. Unfortunately, it is not the first time that that has happened, but it is the most extreme case that we have seen.

Everyone tends to forget that on being arrested, a person suffers the trauma of the arrest. It is difficult to imagine a worse accusation than to be accused of taking somebody's life, raping someone or doing something horrible to a child. There is the trauma of the process

The first man arrested is clearly CJ...

It is right and fair to say that everybody with any sense of decency and sensibility has accepted that the coverage of that individual was, if not outrageous, as I believe it was,

Does the member know CJ?? Why outraged, nothing at this point has cleared CJ, he is still on Police Bail... now if it had been any other Tom, Dick or Harry would we have had the same outrage?? Have we since had the same outrage, when people are named in the media??

How on earth could Parliament get involved? I don't get it... CJ is on record stating he wasn't released from bail until March 2011, yet we have it from the ( https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110204/debtext/110204-0001.htm ) publication that they did indeed discuss this before CJ was released on bail...

I have issues galore about the handling of CJ.. he appears to get preferential treatment (imo) .. He is apparently no-one, he doesn't want hounding by the media, he doesn't want all the attention that this case has brought, now don't get me wrong, Monstering people in the press isn't the right way to go either... but what made his case so special?

Who were CJ's friends?

We have in February 2011 Parliament using CJ as an example for a Anonymity (Arrested Persons) Bill  in Parliament, at a time when CJ was still on bail, a time when realistically I feel that they had no business in influencing any out come that may have taken place... I'll repeat CJ was on Police Bail at this time...

Quote
Mr Jefferies, 66, a former public school teacher, was questioned for several days over the murder of his neighbour in Bristol.

A spokesman said: ''Avon and Somerset Police can confirm that a 66-year-old arrested on suspicion of murdering Joanna Yeates was released without charge on Friday 4 March.''

So you can understand my concern about him being used as an example in Parliament.. After his release maybe, even after the court case in July 2011, maybe... But before... It doesn't seem right.. Realistically it should have been after the trial in October 2011...

Then we get in the Guardian on the 14th September 2011 this:..... A piece on Core Participants of The Leveson....

Quote
Christopher Jefferies

Bristol landlord arrested in connection with murder of landscape architect Joanna Yeates and later released without charge in December. He successfully took eight newspapers to court for libel, while the Daily Mirror and Sun were fined for contempt of court for their Jefferies coverage. He is expected to discuss what it was like to be targeted by the press in the feeding frenzy following a murder.

How is he named as a core participant? why was everyone so certain that Dr Vincent Tabak wouldn't want CJ called as a witness? How were the media in contempt of court? That I don't understand, how did it interfere with the judicial process or prejudice any trial? That was never really explained..(imo)

From the program.... Countdown to Murder Joanna Yeates CJ states:at 27:41

Quote
As I was on my way out to the gym, quite by chance, erm I met Vincent Tabak and we had a very brief conversation, erm and he seemed to be in quite an elated mood and was saying what a very beautiful evening it was erm, this light dusting of snow, erm thats all the conversation consisted of...

At 28:45 of the video:

Quote
Vincent Tabak helped me move the car that morning, erm, becawse, there was snow on the drive, and I need some help, in the car being pushed up.. erm, the slight incline, erm, from the parking area onto the main part of the drive,, so that I could get the car out.
Er, when I thanked Vincent for er, doing that for me, erm, his reply was,.. well what are neighbours for

I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently signed a statement in September 2011, I presume that would be at the 20th September 2011 at the pre trial hearing..

Again that has me questioning how could CJ be named a core participant, before Dr Vincent Tabak has signed his apparent statement in September 2011 and before a trial at court...

I cannot imagine how CJ, a man whom no-one really knew anything about , has become this apparent figure for Parliament and the Justice System to protect him and have him involved in an inquiry such as the Leveson, when, there is an ongoing trial/ investigation is taking place...

This is the point at which my head explodes....

How could everyone blatantly ignore what should be The Order of Justice and use CJ in this way, when I have pointed out how CJ could and should have been a witness at this trial.....

And then I find myself back to the question of whether the trial was real or not!

I'm sure you can understand my dilemma...

When no-one says anything about this, but (imo) should say something, and I go round and round again...

Then I come to the conclusion about Joanna Yeates not being real for example, as I do not get how Parliament and The Leveson could confidently use CJ without anyone batting an eye..

I don't understand why everyone appears happy with what was stated on the stand by Dr Vincent Tabak, as it doesn't add up and there is no supporting evidence...

Everyone appears to have chucked the baby out with the bathwater and no give a flying fig about it...

CJ recently has been pushing for Leveson 2 to take place.... now I hoped it would, but only in the event that he discloses something that hasn't thus far been disclosed... The contents of his second witness statement for starters... But I don't think it will happen...

So isn't it about time he disclosed this information now... isn't it about time that the mystery that is The Joanna Yeates case is put to bed once and for all...

The media have been nothing but glowing in handling CJ since 2011 and I believe now they should be asking him the questions that need answering, such as did he recognise the people at the gate etc etc.... I believe they are of great significance...

I have no idea who CJ is, and quite honestly I do not care, the protection of this man seems weird, seeing as I believe he should have been a witness and no-one in the government should have taken an interest him whilst a live case was in its Judicial process.. (imo)

CJ a man whom I believe should speak up if he actually gives a damn about the Murder of Joanna Yeates and not stay silent and talk of himself all the time... He's not daft, even he must see  how it looks when our countries big wheels are moving just for him... What influence and sway does he actually have??

CJ is pushing for Leveson 2.. And I find it strange, when he stated that he didn't want publicity, he is still front and centre stage and The case of Joanna Yeates is forgotten... everyone only knows the tale of the landlord that was vilified in the media.....

I only hope that pushing for Leveson 2  is to uncover this case... but I have my doubts....

And then I come back to the beginning, as to how all these people in powerful positions interfered with a future trial of Dr Vincent Tabak, I cannot see how it is all so blatant and no-one does or says anything about it....

It is time REAL questions were asked about this case... It is time to look at the conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak....imo
It is time that people spoke up...
It is time that this is addressed....

Ok... I'll change my request to remove my posts and state that if Dr Vincent Tabak is a real person severing time in prison for the murder of Joanna Yeates, then you can keep my posts up... as fighting for what I believe is a miscarriage of justice is important....

If not, explain to me what this is all about, other than the narrative, explain why it doesn't make sense and what brings Parliament and The Leveson to the front and centre of this case before a trial has taken place in October 2011, where a man stood on a stand and explained how he apparently killed his next door neighbour for no apparent reason, not knowing his next door neighbour, only having been home just a few days before, after returning from America on a business trip.. Would he decide it was a good idea to kill her, and not happy with that share his and her DNA between various flats and a car, followed by the deposition site...

So mrswah... detail is needed, because without the detail, links and quotes I make, it wouldn't be possible to back up any argument I may have... I have made many statements, which are backed up with where I have obtained my information... And all I have done is cross reference any material that is relevant to this case, and therefore I come to my conclusions..

The Defence Will State Their Case... Is the title of this thread for a reason, I was trying to show what I believed that the Defence could and should have looked at with regards their client Dr Vincent Tabak, instead of accepting a plea in May 2011 some 4 months after arrest and charge... Where in those months a team of investigators for the defence could have questioned the people of Canygne Road, and questioned Greg Reardon, Tanaj Morson,and CJ......

This topic is just that... questions, queries, head scratching as to why it doesn't make sense... As to why Dr Vincent Tabak's girlfriend Tanja Morson wasn't even at trial to make a statement, good or bad for Dr Vincent Tabak, and why CJ, who most certainly had conversed with Dr Vincent Tabak that weekend, should have also been a witness...

But it is all my opinion,

I just really need it explaining to me WHY..... on the 4th February 2011 Parliament feels it can use CJ as an example for a Bill in Parliament when he is still on Police Bail and when a trial hasn't taken place and when it was still viable that he could be called as a witness in this case, not forgetting CJ was still on Police Bail until March 2011 and then The Leveson names CJ as a core participant, before a trial has taken place, when he could and should have been called as a witness...

Whatever you may think about this case, that surely isn't right....

I swing from having sympathy for CJ, to feeling somewhat outraged, I cannot get how he has commanded the influence with these figures, when he is apparently just a school teacher...  When there were statements made in the media at the time of his arrest over a couple of days, where if he hadn't gone on about it so much everyone would have soon forgotten who the hell he was, the media reporting continuing from the original time which was some 8/9 years ago.....

He still is insistent about Leveson 2, he still wants to be front and centre, where he has now made himself a household name, where in reality no-one probably gave a crap as to who he is or what apparently had happened to him.... (imo)

He has had more coverage than Joanna Yeates to be honest, and that is ridiculous, the victim of a crime, a crime of murder and she has become second stage in this saga....  he has had more coverage than anyone, he is known as the poor landlord first and Joanna Yeates is mentioned almost as a secondary thought....

If CJ wants this Leveson 2, because he wants the truth out there, I get it.... but otherwise, he needs to wind his neck in (imo), if Leveson 2 would allow him to reveal what he actually told the Police in his statements, then I am for it... But I don't think that is what it is about... I don't think he wants to tell,(  Or do you CJ?) he could intimate he would reveal something to the public in due course, if it was only the Leveson 2 preventing him from speaking up..

When I look at the video of him speaking about Dr Vincent Tabak, it's almost like he know a secret or something, he's almost smirking as he tell of his conversation with Dr Vincent Tabak and thanking him for his assistance.... why would you feel the need to smirk about such a serious thing as talking about the killer of Joanna Yeates??

This is an oddity I find of a man whom was supposed to not want media attention, who is all over the media in print and recorded interviews and has had the assistance of people I believe should not have assisted him..(imo)

A man whom gets an apology from Avon and Somerset Police some years later, when I cannot think of anyone whom has received such an apology with such content..

Quote
31: It may be that, in addition to the legal route for libel, someone who has been held on
bail for a prolonged time without being charged, and their reputation ruined, there should
be a mechanism for the person to receive an acknowledgement that they were falsely
accused. In the Chris Jeffries case, the Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset, Nick
Gargan, wrote to Mr Jeffries in the following terms:

I write formally to acknowledge the hurt that you suffered as a result of that arrest,
detention and eventual release on police bail in connection with the murder of
Joanna Yeates in December 2010 and which was the subject of huge media interest.
[…] I accept unequivocally that you played no part in the murder and that you are
wholly innocent of the crime.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmhaff/962/962.pdf

When anyone else would not receive such an apology, as an investigation and arrest on suspicion of a crime based on the evidence that they had at the time, would and should be seen as the Police following protocols... So why the apology?

I find it odd that is all... Seeing as the Police don't do this all the time.... or NEVER, should I say

CJ has become synonymous with The Joanna Yeates Murder, in which ever way you wish to view it, a man that wanted to hide away and not be bothered by the media etc, has become centre stage and I want to understand why?

I want to understand why Parliament and The Leveson used him as they did, and why Avon and Somerset Police made such a public apology... When there have been people whom have served prison sentences for years that never receive an apology from any Police Authority...

This case is strange... This case is odd, this case has had attention that it shouldn't have had from people in power, when a trial hasn't even taken place...(imo)...

But who am I to say?

I will stick with my belief that Dr Vincent Tabak is innocent, I will stick with my belief that this case just doesn't add up... I will stick with my belief that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't get the defence he deserved (imo).. I will stick with my belief that the public have been fooled on some level and I will stick with my belief that people have somehow been made to stay silent....



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8365807/Joanna-Yeates-murder-landlord-Chris-Jefferies-released-from-bail-without-charge.html

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/sep/14/leveson-inquiry-full-list-participants

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/jefferies-and-others-v-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-secretary-of-state-for-digital-culture-media-and-sport-leveson-2/

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3295 on: February 23, 2019, 11:48:30 AM »
From the program.... Countdown to Murder Joanna Yeates CJ states:at 27:41

Quote
As I was on my way out to the gym, quite by chance, erm I met Vincent Tabak and we had a very brief conversation, erm and he seemed to be in quite an elated mood and was saying what a very beautiful evening it was erm, this light dusting of snow, erm thats all the conversation consisted of...

At 28:45 of the video:

Quote
Vincent Tabak helped me move the car that morning, erm, becawse, there was snow on the drive, and I need some help, in the car being pushed up.. erm, the slight incline, erm, from the parking area onto the main part of the drive,, so that I could get the car out.
Er, when I thanked Vincent for er, doing that for me, erm, his reply was,.. well what are neighbours for

That video where we can see CJ speaking about Dr Vincent Tabak, should have The Defence questioning

"What time did CJ leave for the gym"???

We know CJ apparently returned at 9:00pm on Friday 17th December 2010, he states so in his Leveson Inquiry statement..

Dr Vincent Tabak returned around 7:00pm from work and was at Canygne Road, where he texted Tanja... he did various tasks.. had food I believe, etc etc , then walked passed Joanna Yeates Flat where he was allowed inside...


So what was Dr Vincent Tabak doing when CJ spoke to him? Was he on his way out, was he taking photographs, we have to fit in certain action so that we can establish a timeline...

CJ is in this timeline, yet CJ didn't come to trial as a witness... He could have seen Dr Vincent Tabak anywhere between 7:00pm and 9:00pm... that timeline needs establishing (imo)... How long was CJ at the gym

I then had another random thought....

As CJ had given his statement to The Leveson Inquiry, did that mean that The Defence could not see his statement?

Or did CJ not tell The Leveson or The Police that he had actually conversed with Dr Vincent Tabak that Friday evening/ weekend..

And if he had would they have used him in The Leveson Inquiry seeing as there was a Judicial Process taking place??

Leveson 2 apparently was halted because of ongoing Investigations needing conclusion...

On page 3 of CJ's second witness statement to The Leveson, CJ states..

Quote
My second statement to the police oil Wednesday 22 December 2010
,
On Tuesday 2t December 2010 1 provided a statement to tile police who were at that
time searching the entire house and all the flats in it and taking statements from all the
residents. I was not being treated as a suspect. At the time the police said to all of us
that if we subsequently remembered anything that could be material we should get
back in touch,
That evening I remembered something else that I had not mentioned to
the police that I thought could possibly be material. This was that one evening, which
might have been Friday 17 December 2010, as 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.

,
The next day, Wednesday 22 December 2010, the same officer who had taken my
first statement came back to my fiat and took a second statement about this. The
officer asked me if one of tile voices could have been a woman’s voice. I responded
that it could have been but that I could not say either way. The police have since
confirmed to me that the fact flint I gave a supplementary statement raised their
suspicions in relation to me. On the basis of what ensued, I believe it is likely that the
police passed these suspicions on to rite media.

Isn't it just as important for The trial of Dr Vincent Tabak to establish what CJ had witnessed seen or had spoken to before 9:00pm... As we can see it is relevant to the timeline of Dr Vincent Tabak's trial.. A timeline if the Defence had questioned CJ may have shed more light on the ridiculous tale on the stand....

Why doesn't Dr Vincent Tabak state he saw CJ that weekend?? Why is it missing from trial??
How can a jury make a balanced decision and convict, if vital information is Missing??

Did CJ divulge to The Leveson that he did indeed speak with Dr Vincent Tabak that weekend?? If not why not!

Or do I just come to the conclusion that he was more interested in himself than Justice for Joanna Yeates... Because it is the way in which I read it...

These statements about CJ conversing with Dr Vincent Tabak are on video... he has stated it in the flesh... They are not reports in the media, but words coming from CJ's lips...

What else has CJ omitted? What information does he hold that could shed light on this case, I'll repeat that Dr Vincent Tabak never lied about the car changing position, as CJ himself tells the Leveson he parked it on the road, and CJ himself on video tells us that the car was on the drive and Dr Vincent Tabak helped him move it which he thanked him for...

I implore someone to look at this case... I cannot be on my own with my doubts... These last few posts in themselves make questions to be asked...

The Leveson cannot have blatantly ignored that they had a potential witness at a Murder trial and allowed him to be a core participant... I find that difficult to believe, but one never knows does one....


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


Edit..... If The Leveson didn't know that CJ has conversed with Dr Vincent Tabak that weekend, making him a potential witness at a criminal trial... what do people think about it now??

* Should he have been a core participant??

* Did he make fool of the establishment?

* What does it mean for The Leveson Inquiry??

* How many millions were spent on this inquiry??

* Is this Inquiry worth the paper it's written on?

* Why haven't the media commented on this evidence ??

* Has CJ committed an offence??

Or is the establishment too embarrassed to put their hands up for their obvious error...

Is the fact that Leveson 2 is not taking place, more to do with the apparent cock-up that is Leveson 1, when a potential witness at a Murder trial is named as a core participant, in this inquiry... I believe in earlier posts I had established that it was indeed in August 2011 that he first became a core participant...

Where as a witness he could establish the timeline of Dr Vincent Tabak's movements that evening, seeing as no-one else apparently saw Dr Vincent Tabak that night....

It is immeasurable (imo) the significance of CJ's statement in the Count Down to Murder program... But as usual no one really cares, for some obscure reason....







Online APRIL

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3296 on: February 23, 2019, 12:51:19 PM »
Please, please, PLEASE, for the sake of your sanity, LET THIS GO.

Offline puglove

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3297 on: February 24, 2019, 12:19:55 AM »
Please, please, PLEASE, for the sake of your sanity, LET THIS GO.

Thank goodness for the voice of reason.

Nine....or whatever you choose to call yourself today, please try to realise that a lovely young woman's life was taken, and all the hopes and dreams went with her. No more birthdays, no more Christmases, no grandchildren.
Magpies are feathery arseholes.

Offline puglove

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3298 on: February 24, 2019, 12:43:31 AM »
Thank goodness for the voice of reason.

Nine....or whatever you choose to call yourself today, please try to realise that a lovely young woman's life was taken, and all the hopes and dreams went with her. No more birthdays, no more Christmases, no grandchildren.

And I know if I post more, Mrs Wah will mod me so severely that I will end up sounding like Julie Andrews, but you're wrong. You're just wrong.
Magpies are feathery arseholes.

Online APRIL

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3299 on: February 24, 2019, 03:11:21 PM »
And I know if I post more, Mrs Wah will mod me so severely that I will end up sounding like Julie Andrews, but you're wrong. You're just wrong.


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.