Author Topic: The Defence Will State Their Case  (Read 272160 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline John

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1515 on: June 28, 2018, 10:49:10 AM »
I think probably because Vincent Tabak admitted killing Joanna. The trial then became not about IF he did it but whether it was manslaughter or murder. What information could Chris Jeffries bring to these proceedings that would have helped a jury understand why Tabak did what he admitted to? Also, it's my understanding that Tabak implicated Jeffries during the investigation, presumably to divert attention away from his own guilt, but didn't continue to implicate him after he finally confessed. Did he implicate Jeffries when he gave his own evidence on the stand?

Chris Jefferies could very well have ended up with the murder of Joanna Yeates pinned on him had DNA not been found on Joanna's remains linking Vincent Tabak to the crime.

"Finally, what police and pathologists discovered when they examined Yeates's body suggested more went on than Tabak admits to recalling.

She had suffered 43 injuries, including wounds to her face, throat and arms. Though her jeans had not been tampered with, her T-shirt had been pulled up above her breasts and part of her right breast exposed. A sample of Tabak's DNA was found on her chest, however scientists could not establish what it came from."


https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-case-vincent-tabak
« Last Edit: June 28, 2018, 10:52:58 AM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case/I think I have sussed it!!
« Reply #1516 on: June 29, 2018, 11:00:07 AM »

Part 1....

I think I have stumbled upon the why nothing makes sense.....

Quote

Mr Jay
You prepared a log which you called "The inside story". It's under your tab 21 and starts at our page 11320. If I can just understand the genesis of this document, is this something you were preparing at the time or at the end of the 34 days, I think it was, did you come back to your records and prepare this document?

Quote
Ms Amanda Hirst
Yes, sir, it was prepared at the end of the investigation. We have a -- like a number of other forces, we have a computer logging system, so every contact with the media is logged, and in this case was obviously logged throughout. That includes questions from the media, it includes our responses, it includes statements, and, as you can see, all of this information was picked up from that log. I prepared it at the end of the process because the Chief Constable and I felt that it would be something that would be very useful for us just to see exactly what the issues had been and, I suppose, see it in black and white.

It was also shared selectively by the chief with one or two other people, other ACPO members.

Is 34 days the end of the Investigation??.... If so that tells us what ever they were Investigating happened between 17th December 2010 till the 20th January 2011..

*  So how did they come upon the Porn on the hard drive of Dr Vincent Tabak.... 
*  When did they question Tanja Morson??
*  When did they get access to Buro Happolds computers??
*  When were the statements about Dr Vincent Tabak's behaviour made.. we have people he went to parties with,
   we have his employer making a statement, how on earth did they get these statements all on the same day
   which appears to be the 20th January 2010??

What were they Investigating?? Surely 34 days cannot be the end of the Investigation?? But that appears to be exactly what it is (imo)

So how on earth did they take Dr Vincent Tabak to court??

Why would  Association of Chief Police Officers members receive a copy??

This is mental.....

* Sarah Maddox (At Dinner  Party Dr Vincent Tabak attended )

* Louise Althrope (Attended Party with Dr Vincent Tabak)

* Elizabeth Chandler ( Office Manager at BDP)

*  Shrikart Sharma ( Dr Vincent Tabak's Boss )

* Glen O'Hare ( Hosted Part Dr Vincent Tabak attended ).

* Andrew Lillie (Attended a Dinner Party with Dr Vincent Tabak )

* Linda Marland (Attended Party Dr Vincent Tabak attended ) (party was in a bar in Bristol)

* Tanja Morson

34 days end of Investigation and I can count 8 people 7 whom have made a statement that was used in the trial...
None of them appeared, but there statements were read out... Tanja Morson neither appeared or had a statement read out..

So on the day of his arrest... they manage to get witness statements form these 7 people??? I don't think so... Unless they had been using surveillance on Dr Vincent Tabak they would have no idea who he spent time with at that early stage...

I don't think i have read that wrong... Mr Jay is clearly intermating (imo) that the end of the Investigation is 34 days.... (imo)

___________________________________________________________________________________________
https://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-27-march-2012/ms-amanda-hirst

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1517 on: June 29, 2018, 11:00:26 AM »
Part 2...

  34 days being then end of the Investigation telling me that all of the evidence they collected was before the arrest of Dr Vincent Tabak.. so my question is "Who is Dr Vincent Tabak??"

* Elizabeth Chandler ( Office Manager at BDP) Looks like an error on my part, but I do not believe it is...

Quote
Elisabeth Chandler, the office manager at BDP, the firm where Miss Yeates and Mr Reardon worked, told Bristol Crown Court in a written statement: “Jo told me that she was dreading the weekend because it was the first time she was going to be left on her own. Her partner Greg, who I know, was going away.”

Followed by
Quote
The night after she was killed, Linda Marland said she spoke to Tabak as her daughter Elizabeth celebrated her 24th birthday at a bar in Bristol. Mrs Marland’s daughter had stayed in Tabak’s spare room while he was working in Los Angeles in the autumn, she said.

Is Linda Marlands Daughter Elizabeth .... "Elizabeth Chandler"??


I keep thinking about the Polices Media Strategy... And slowly everything is becoming clearer...

Colin Port Leveson... Exhibt CP5.pdf  ..Media stratergy

Quote
Homepage
  ,Homepage banner and spotlight images
¯ 1440 inbound messages went to the investigation team via the form on the website
   Newsroom
¯ Newsroom story with regular updates
¯ Updates automatically pushed out via twitter with #joyeates "hashtags"
¯ Updates automatically appeared on dedicated section (see below)
,  Story e-mailed out to subscribers (currently 15,000+ subscriber base) and media contacts
¯ Briefings filmed / uploaded to YouTube and embedded as well as images
   Dedicated section
¯ Set up special website address- www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/jo
¯ Interactive Google map showing key locations
¯ Video play list showing most recent video release first
¯ Image gallery of Jo
¯ Facebook and Twitter sharing tools
¯ Secure on-line contact form sending messages direct to the incident room
¯ Twitter widget showing discussion around the case and our updates
¯ IP address logging for investigative purposes
   Local pages
¯ Localised community safety article in the Clifton area
¯ Downloadable advice leaflet (the same as distributed physically in the area


The case is all there within the strategy... There is no way they Interviewed these people... (imo) But What I believe happened is this...

They used social media to track and collate Information, I believe that everything that this case is made up from is from peoples Facebook Posts or tweets....  And the media know this.... That is another possible reason that they tweeted the trial...


Where are they going to get this information from?? I have found a lot of Information by purely searching what people have tweeted or posted on their facebook posts.... 



They didn't take statements from anyone other than the tenants..(imo) And I believe that their entire case is based on what people have said on there facebook.... That is why all of the information relating to that time is missing.... I conclude it is Missing from these peoples timelines because it is "THE EVIDENCE"!!

Greg Reardon
Rebecca Scott
Emma Brookes
Darragh Bewell

 I could go on.. but you get the gist... All of these people in one way or another contributed to the evidence, that we found in the media and that the Police used as statements of fact... (imo) I couldn't  understand why the media knew so much in the begining.... But it is all starting to make sense now... Rebecca Scott talking of keys
 and Joanna Yeates Coat Missing from the house... I have all ready posted that Darragh Bellew had said this in a facebook post before Rebecca Scott had stated this.... 



Quote
Darragh Harry Bellew
20 December 2010 ·
All,

Most of you on my friends list will not know Jo Yeates but some of you do. Jo has been missing and the last time she was seen was on Friday night; she made it home but was not there when Greg(her boyfriend) returned home from a weekend away late last night. Her belongings however were there including her house key, mobile phone and purse.

Although there is little we can do apart from help the police we c

Here Darragh bellew tells us it was 'FRIDAY" night that Joanna Yeates was last seen... THAT is where the date comes from!!  It comes from Darragh Bellews post!! (imo) The same with what was Missing from the Flat... Darragh Bellew tells us on the 20th December 2010 that these items were Missing.... We didn't need Rebecca Scott to tell us or the media... The Police have got their information from Darragh Bellew... they told us they were monitoring Facebook and twitter..... That was part of their strategy...

This is why I believe the entire case "IS" and "WAS" built entirely from the posts and tweets on social media by the people whom had a connection to each other...

Joanna Yeates in her life may very well have come into contact with Dr Vincent Tabak in the course of her work... But were they "FACEBOOK" friends... I would say not....  But who else was and was NOT facebook friends??

The ikea guys... now that could be found if someone had posted about the delivery to Canygne Road...

But The fact that Greg Reardon states in court that he and Joanna Yeates had moved into Canygne Road on the 25th October 2010 MUST come from a dated post on facebook on his own page.......  But what they failed to look at (imo) is the post that I have found which clearly states that they moved into Canygne Road Clifton by the 16th December 2010

Quote
Greg Beardon
16 October 2010
Anybody want free skis?
I've got two pairs of knackered-but-good-for-dryslope twintips.
175cm 2005? Dynastar Troublemakers with Salomon 914 bindings on lifters.
(Big gouge in base of one ski, bindings work but show their age considerably. Skis still have stiffness to them and have been used for uni dryslope racing recently).
179cm 2006? K2 Fujatives with factory salomon 916 race bindings.
(Skis are in decent nick but have lost a lot of stiffness. Bindings on last legs. Skis still useful for UK trips and for trashing on brandon hill. Last used by Hickman in the Redbull Peak in the Park big air.)
Free to a good home, pick up from Clifton. Call 07919 593206.
Cheers,
g


But Obviously someone Missed it.... So If Greg is on the stand and they are referring to a post he made on the 25th October 2010 about moving into Canygne Road.. then he wouldn't be telling a lie under oath... as that would be correct..... But his other post on another members site contradicts that... But no-one is looking for it....

The fact that I mentioned about Chris Yeates friend Mathew I think he is called.. who apparently received a text Joanna Yeates....  And we are told her usual channels of communication with him are via facebook...
Well I think Joanna Yeates did contact him via facebook and that was how they knew of this information....

CJ.... did CJ use social media?? Is this why they know what he said may have slightly differed??  Did CJ refuse to go to trial???  Is the reason everyone knows CJ is entirely Innocent because they know that the Information the Police had collected was from Social media??

Is this why there is NO PAPER TRAIL?? because it is all digitally based... That why you have the online form on the Avon and Somerset website...(imo)... Everything else was digital and so no paper trial would be there....

Dr Vincent Tabak..... Did he admit to manslaughter??

Well it depends on what you see as admitting to having a body and how you could twist it......

Quote
On 23 December police revisited Tabak and carried out a routine search of the flat he shared with his girlfriend, Tanja Morson, to check Yeates was not there. He joked to friends that they must have thought he had stashed her in a drawer.


So by stating that he had stashed her in the draw... he is stating that he has physically come into contact with her body... hence his admission to "Manslaughter"... using this comment...


We had no-one to trial to support there statements, because quite honestly how can you bring over 20 people to trial to make an admission under oath that it was there posts and tweets that the Police are relying on....

Andrew Civilian Mott.... has been described in many roles... But what did he actually say on his social media.... Did he brag to friends that he was a Forensics officer to make it appear he was far more important than he was ???

DCI Phil Jones..... He didn't use social media at the time... There fore he wasn't needed on the witness stand (imo) infact anyone from The Police Investigation who should have been there wasn't...

The searches that sent me bonkers.... Are they things that were looked at on social media... Clicking the Police links they had provided and the newspaper articles at the time which would be on various peoples social media pages.....

There was so much talk and discussion at the time.. i myself remember joining a group , interested to see what other thought.... And information galore was on these sites.... facebook when the original Discussion group started had an actual forum... But that changed and everyone had to start again... someone imported alot of what was said.... But the points back and forth continued.... Now that got removed from facebook.... And now i understand why..... The discussion within that group chat were used as part of the evidence....  Therefore any evidence relating to The Joanna Yeates Murder /Missing Investigation, had to be removed from public eyes....

I thought it was far more complicated than that.... But it is simple..... An entire Police Investigation built upon social media... The embarassment of this case is beyond belief....

Not surprised that no-one wants to talk about it.... But they should.....

Every little piece of information comes from twitter/ facebook and any other form of social media that the Police used... The Police Strategy tells us so..... But they just didn't realise someone would work it out....

But maybe Dr Vincent Tabak did.... And they wanted to shut him up!!  After all he was a computer genius....

How did Joanna Yeates actually die?? Who actually killed her ?? Because I am still sticking with the fact that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent!!

And with me getting to this point we need to know more....


The child porn... i think I had said before that for pseudo porn all you need is the ability to change a picture and you can basically be charged with the ability to make pseudo porn... Well paint a built in program or something similar will do the trick....  So Dr Vincent Tabak has Innocent pictures of his nieces on his facebook page and "Bish Bash Bosh"... they could legally charge him... (imo)

I think I need to start a new topic.... And use this post as the starting point... And where I can show examples of how the Police made up an entire Investigation based on what people had posted on there social media and who they were linked to as friends...

It is all starting to get quite Interesting.....(imo)



http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg470437#msg470437

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8826305/Pathologist-to-give-evidence-at-Joanna-Yeates-murder-trial.html

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-case-vincent-tabak
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8168.msg426147#msg426147

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1518 on: June 29, 2018, 11:22:20 AM »

Just to STRESS.... Peter Stanley and Christopher Jefferies didn't attend trial because I believe they didn't use social media....

Tanja Morson's father probably put paid to them using anything she said seeing as he was a lawyer....

That is why I believe Leveson was happy to accept Christopher Jefferies as a core participant.... Because this trial evidence was made up completely from social media comments....

Therefore they could not bring any physical evidence that Joanna Yeates had been attacked in her home.... No finger print evidence... NO DNA Evidence... Nothing that would tell us that a violent struggle had taken place....

Except for Dr Delaney... now i cannot say for a fact where they get his information from... But I have seen Dr Delaney on a TV program working with the Police before.. So he could quite easily have emailed the findings....

Is this a case of Murder by Media... Is it social media that they feel like needs hanging??

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1519 on: June 29, 2018, 12:51:46 PM »
When Leveson reported that Dr Vincent Tabak had been found guilty of Murder in July 2011.. I believe I know where that came from... Did Leveson use a bit of poetic license??

Quote
Matthew Pearson

 
@mattpearson
Follow Follow @mattpearson
More
attorney general says the rules were breached over Christopher Jefferies. He wins 6 figure damages from 8 newspapers...

10:03 PM - 29 Jul 2011


In July the Attorney General had emphatically stated that CJ was wholly Innocent of this Murder because Dr Vincent Tabak had admitted to this crime.....

So I believe that leveson used the ruling by the Attorney General in July 2011 to establish that Dr Vincent Tabak had been convicted of murder before a trial took place....  I am sure half the nation had decided he had murdered her at that time... And I don't know how many posts/ tweets were done by the public saying Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty before a trial had taken place!

Also we have this tweet..

Quote
Polly James

 
@Mid_WifeCrisis
Follow Follow @Mid_WifeCrisis
More
Oh, my God. I do wish Greg would stop talking about Christopher Jefferies. Isn't he scared of the Attorney General?

2:15 PM - 7 Jan 2011
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes


So what was Greg posting about at the time these events were reported in the papers etc??  Did Greg know about information in advance??  He talks of as yet Innocent men in the media... before CJ has been released on bail!!




https://twitter.com/Mid_WifeCrisis/status/23382126892163073

Offline Baz

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1520 on: June 29, 2018, 04:50:04 PM »
Chris Jefferies could very well have ended up with the murder of Joanna Yeates pinned on him had DNA not been found on Joanna's remains linking Vincent Tabak to the crime.

"Finally, what police and pathologists discovered when they examined Yeates's body suggested more went on than Tabak admits to recalling.

She had suffered 43 injuries, including wounds to her face, throat and arms. Though her jeans had not been tampered with, her T-shirt had been pulled up above her breasts and part of her right breast exposed. A sample of Tabak's DNA was found on her chest, however scientists could not establish what it came from."


https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/28/joanna-yeates-case-vincent-tabak

Certainly sounds like Tabak's excuse that he just covered her mouth to stop her screaming and it was over quick was never going to get him very far. Sounds like she definitely put up a fight.

Offline Baz

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1521 on: June 29, 2018, 04:51:33 PM »
Just to STRESS.... Peter Stanley and Christopher Jefferies didn't attend trial because I believe they didn't use social media....

Tanja Morson's father probably put paid to them using anything she said seeing as he was a lawyer....

That is why I believe Leveson was happy to accept Christopher Jefferies as a core participant.... Because this trial evidence was made up completely from social media comments....

Therefore they could not bring any physical evidence that Joanna Yeates had been attacked in her home.... No finger print evidence... NO DNA Evidence... Nothing that would tell us that a violent struggle had taken place....

Except for Dr Delaney... now i cannot say for a fact where they get his information from... But I have seen Dr Delaney on a TV program working with the Police before.. So he could quite easily have emailed the findings....

Is this a case of Murder by Media... Is it social media that they feel like needs hanging??

Nine, can I ask, what evidence as to why Tabak killed Joanna could Christopher Jefferies bring to the trial?

Offline mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1719
  • Total likes: 652
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1522 on: June 29, 2018, 05:32:15 PM »
Nine, can I ask, what evidence as to why Tabak killed Joanna could Christopher Jefferies bring to the trial?

Christopher Jefferies had known VT and Tanja for much longer than he had known Joanna and Greg, as they had been in their flat for about 18 months before Joanna was killed. So, he might have known him quite well-----whether or not he did, is anybody's guess, as nobody has said. CJ was, according to reports, involved in Neighbourhood Watch, and took an interest in his tenants. IMO, he would have had some idea as to whether there was anything "shifty" about VT. From what I have heard and read, I don't think he had any concerns about his character.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1523 on: June 29, 2018, 05:48:31 PM »
Nine, can I ask, what evidence as to why Tabak killed Joanna could Christopher Jefferies bring to the trial?

Unless he used social media/media , he couldn't bring any evidence to trial... Because I believe the trial is made up entirely of comments posted on social media and reports in the media... And as CJ had denied to the media that he saw anything and the media was mistaken... He had denied in front of camera that he had witnessed anything..

Therefore he witnessed nothing... Even if his Police statements said he did and his Leveson statement states that also....

So CJ's statements are irrelevant as far as that trial was concerned! (imo) As it had been denied by CJ that he saw people at the gate!!

CJ's Videoed denial....

Quote
It's a serious distortion of what I said to the Police, and I have no further comment to make. Because that is almost certain itself to be distorted

Therefore CJ has denied all knowledge and has anything he stated in the media was only that interview.. that makes him a person who witnessed nothing... As far as this trial by media, whether it's social or the usual media outlets..


https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/christopher-jefferies-speaking-to-press-sot-it-is-a-news-footage/659148876



Offline Baz

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1524 on: July 02, 2018, 04:46:47 PM »
Christopher Jefferies had known VT and Tanja for much longer than he had known Joanna and Greg, as they had been in their flat for about 18 months before Joanna was killed. So, he might have known him quite well-----whether or not he did, is anybody's guess, as nobody has said. CJ was, according to reports, involved in Neighbourhood Watch, and took an interest in his tenants. IMO, he would have had some idea as to whether there was anything "shifty" about VT. From what I have heard and read, I don't think he had any concerns about his character.

True but surely there were people that knew him better and had a lot more interactions with him that would be able to offer a much more accurate analysis of his character than his landlord?

Offline Baz

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1525 on: July 02, 2018, 04:47:34 PM »
Unless he used social media/media , he couldn't bring any evidence to trial... Because I believe the trial is made up entirely of comments posted on social media and reports in the media... And as CJ had denied to the media that he saw anything and the media was mistaken... He had denied in front of camera that he had witnessed anything..

Therefore he witnessed nothing... Even if his Police statements said he did and his Leveson statement states that also....

So CJ's statements are irrelevant as far as that trial was concerned! (imo) As it had been denied by CJ that he saw people at the gate!!

CJ's Videoed denial....

Therefore CJ has denied all knowledge and has anything he stated in the media was only that interview.. that makes him a person who witnessed nothing... As far as this trial by media, whether it's social or the usual media outlets..


https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/christopher-jefferies-speaking-to-press-sot-it-is-a-news-footage/659148876

To be frank this sound like more unsubstantiated conspiracy nonsense in my opinion.

Offline mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1719
  • Total likes: 652
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1526 on: July 02, 2018, 10:38:01 PM »
True but surely there were people that knew him better and had a lot more interactions with him that would be able to offer a much more accurate analysis of his character than his landlord?

I agree entirely, but none of these people were called to give a character reference.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1527 on: July 03, 2018, 11:49:50 AM »
To be frank this sound like more unsubstantiated conspiracy nonsense in my opinion.

Not quite Baz.... I have spent the last few days looking at facebook and trying to understand certain questions I had about why I believe it has everything to do with social media....

And as leornora can vouch for me and you probably too... I tend to write what I am thinking... so occasionally I ask a question and then appear to answer my question in the same post.... Because that is how I post and whilst i am posting i remember something and leave what I started to post still in my finished post....

So I did go back to the facebook.... and am about to post about that on "A Case Built On Social Media.. topic....

Because whilst you ask me questions I have all sorts zooming around my head.... But the post I'm about to post on the topic I have just said... should explain some of your questions... and CJ.....


Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1528 on: July 05, 2018, 10:23:30 AM »
This quote always lead me to believe that it was on her lip... I had coupled it with Andrew Mott saying he had tried to stop a body from thawing....


Quote
DCI Jones said a DNA sample found on the landscape architect's body is a key piece of evidence which could lead to ‘her killers’.


But now I believe I missed what could be starring us in the face.... One piece of DNA......linking the killers.....

Answer........ Twins...

Dr Vincent Tabak didn't have a twin did he???

DCI Jones said a DNA sample found on the landscape architect's body is a key piece of evidence which could lead to ‘her killers’.

Edit... If not twins then a relative... The sample was 1/1000... must be a relative... it has to be (IMO)



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343805/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Desperate-police-turn-Facebook-hunt-killer.html


So who was the relative that apparently helped Dr Vincent Tabak?? or is this proof it wasn't him??



[attachment deleted by admin]

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #1529 on: July 09, 2018, 02:07:29 AM »
I keep thinking about what her father said:

What was left behind!

You have a fit young woman.... Who for all intense and purposes should have been able to defend herself, But she couldn't or didn't, and there has to be a reason for that..

We have the "Missing Sock"..   And we don't question the other sock that DCI Phil Jones shows us on the 5th January 2011 at a press conference..

Her parents talking of her being abducted... Which always seemed a little strange... But...

The Front Room which thinking from my own perspective appears crammed...

We do not have any medical records of Joanna whatsoever, which really we do... We have a court drawing of her in a foetal position and that is all we have to go from, but no person was allowed to draw from inside the court room.... And both her feet have no socks on them..


I had this god awful thought....

Did Joanna Yeates have an amputation or did she have a prosthetic leg/limb??

There has to be something of significance as to why... what was left behind is important.... And 'The Missing sock"

If the other sock is left attach to the prosthetic/ prosthetics.. and was dirty, on the sole, maybe It is the evidence that DCI Phil Jones is holding up...


The furniture then being so close together would aid in getting around the flat... Everything positioned to be able to grasp something....

Those marks on the wall in the hallway that are at the exact same height when I believed that something was attached there between the bedroom and the lead into the front room....

For her parents to believe she was abducted, there has to be a reason,

The bathroom having 2 tooth brush cup holders at different heights...

The room looks staged, but maybe it isn't completely.... Two sets of everything

Her being found miles away from home, has to be significant... She doesn't catch a bus, she doesn't get a taxi, ...

Is the reason we have never seen Joanna Yeates car because it's been adapted somehow?

I have the parents talk of Jo arm wrestling springing to mind.... 

The Intercom, that has been kept quite... to allow someone in...?

I think it was Lickley who said that Joanna Yeates had settled in for the evening..... Well, how would he know??

There had to be something that indicated this to him... And not the story on the stand by Dr Vincent Tabak....

Was Joanna Yeates unable to defend herself?? How big would someone have to be ?? Not that tall really..

The Police treating it as a Major Incident, for what was a 'Missing person's Inquiry...

The Intention to kill... has to be key... If she is unable to defend her self... 

The suitcase being reported about by channel 4... why even mention transporting her that way... 

Did she uses crutches at home ??  What is left behind??

Was Joanna Yeates disabled?/ Was she registered disabled??  There has to be a reason she isn't able to fight back!

There has to be a reason why the Police responded so, quickly...
There has to be a reason why her mother and father, went straight to Bristol
There has to be a reason why they believed she had been abducted..
There has to be a reason why was the Police had the Incident van parked out side as early as 22nd Drcember 2010
There has to be a reason why they stayed with 44,Canygne Road


What were they looking for at that address?? It can't have been Joanna Yeates.

She must have had a routine...

BDP  remark that it was unnecessary...  odd choice of words...

It's something to consider...

The only Information that we have is all from social media...

The images, the theories , the neighbours on the facebook forum... No real facts are know...No facts were at trial... We skirt around a few... Not even the full autopsy... Maybe the autopsy would tell us, and described Joanna Yeates physical self...

It cannot be  simply because Joanna Yeates was a young woman who went Missing.... Too much happened so soon.... The appeals by her parents,, and not just worried... they were devastated from the outset..

Anything in this case is possible.... And i am trying to understand why Joanna Yeates would allow a complete stranger, into her house and then, not put up a fight, when attacked and strangled... 43 injuries...

The search and rescue team were out straight away looking for her also... `there had never been any suggestion that she left voluntarily... Or could have gone out... Greg apparently rang his mum when he got home about 8'oclock.. telling her Jo wasn't there... Maybe he was wondering what to do, before contacting her parents and worrying them...

As i say... the case is strange... Yet complexed at the same time and it shouldn't be.... And there has to be something that we do not know, that was NOT brought to trial...