Author Topic: The Defence Will State Their Case  (Read 161560 times)

0 Members and 12 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #450 on: July 27, 2017, 12:33:12 PM »
Oh... What do I know.... I seem to be banging my head against a brick wall...

All is fair in LOVE AND WAR... But not in "JUSTICE" it appears to me.... I am just a citizen who believes a Placid Dutchman is Innocent... And feel that his rights were violated.... And The Evidence doesn't add up...

But I can waffle on until the cows come home...
No-one as far as I can tell is going to do anything about this... And seeing as I don't live next to the farm anymore I don't think they will know where to find me.... And I've probably bent everyones ears enough by now...

 I don't know what more I can add... Unless I find something new ...


 

Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #451 on: July 27, 2017, 01:07:33 PM »
Ok... here's another thing to ponder.....

Where was Dr Vincent Tabak held before he appeared at Bristol magistrates Court???

Dr Vincent Tabak should still have been held at The Police Station as far as I can tell....

No application for Bail was ever entered into... Why??

But he appeared in court on the 24th January 2011

Dr Vincent tabak was then:

So where did they take him?????

January 26, 2011   | by SWNS Reporter
If Dr Vincent Tabak has not applied for bail... How can they hold him in "Gloucester Prison"... Or any prison for that matter before Bail has been applied for ??...

I could understand him been held at the Police Station... But Not "PRISON"...

His first appearance at court should have been for Bail whether it was accepted or denied... (IMO)... So how do they manage to put Dr Vincent Tabak in Prison before he has applied for bail?????


It only says he was being held in "Bristol".... That could mean the Police Station!!!


Edit.... Not only That he is sent to Long Lartin... before BAIL is 'Accepted "or "Denied".. How does that work!!!


Double Edit.. Now don't got telling me it was for his own safety... because CJ was out on Bail at this time.... And they didn't let the world no he was Innocent... They didn't release CJ from Bail until March 2011..

So why was Bail NEVER applied for ??????



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8280005/Joanna-Yeates-murder-suspect-Vincent-Tabak-enjoyed-normal-family-Christmas.html

http://swns.com/news/vincent-tabak-moved-prison-over-attack-fears-14290/

https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_rights_of_defendants_in_criminal_proceedings_-169-EW-maximizeMS-en.do?clang=en&idSubpage=2&member=1
Vincent Tabak was remanded in custody in Bristol prison for the one night between his appearance before the Magistrate and his appearance the next day for the abortive bail hearing before judge Treacy at Bristol Crown Court. The press claimed at the time that he spent a night of terror, as local feelings ran high. This was the explanation why he was moved to Gloucester, and then to Long Lartin. However, I have come to believe that this was just an excuse.  Since he is not a Moslem, nor a violent man, the only explanation has to be that he was considered a threat to national security, but that the public is not supposed to be told. Long Lartin prison specialises in terror suspects, persons who cannot be deported, and especially violent criminals.

Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #452 on: July 27, 2017, 01:22:25 PM »
Well as I said.... The Flats have been causing me a headache....  And trying to establish, how the building is set out...

When watching CJ... In The lost Honour of CJ... He says he is in flat 5.....  For the past few days my heads been going round and round... trying to work out what is staring me in the face.... I know I am missing something... That is obvious..
Christopher Jefferies doesn't say anything in "The Lost Honour..." It is actor Jason Watkins who impersonates the landlord whose honour was lost. The honour of each of them has been seriously compromised by this case, since they have chosen to appear in public, and reinforce, and even supplement, the massive falsehoods that have been disseminated about the case.

The police never said anything to suggest that they suspected Mr Jefferies and Vincent Tabak may have been accomplices in this crime. It was the landlord himself, evidently, who, in a TV interview, attributed this theory to the police. He didn't believe it himself, but he had to have an answer to all the people who asked him why he thought he had been held on bail so long. He couldn't reply, "They needed to ensure that I didn't talk to the press and tell what I knew", though this is the answer which best fits the facts.

Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #453 on: July 27, 2017, 02:51:39 PM »
And I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't actually live in the Flat at the back of the building...(IMO)....  We only have the media's word that he did....

CJ never says anything publicly... I don't know why he doesn't ... But there must be a jolly good reason he has...  And no-one else in the building has spoken publicly either....
Right from the time he was arrested, Vincent Tabak was described as Joanna's neighbour - a resident of the flat next to hers - not a resident of the same house. Surely at that stage in the case, when the journalists were still displaying a measure of healthy scepticism, they must have satisfied themselves of these basic facts? The journalists talked to anyone in Canynge Road who would listen, so surely the neighbours who knew who lived in which flat would have spoken out if Christopher Jefferies did NOT live in the flat immediately adjoining the front door, and Vincent Tabak didn't live in the flat directly underneath him?

The topological paradoxes you have revealed are nevertheless very disturbing. Is nothing sacred? How could Vincent Tabak carry the body round to his own flat if it were upstairs? - and then downstairs again to the car to which no witness testified he had access? Surely his own testimony makes it clear that his flat is at basement level?

Surely Christopher Jefferies would not deliberately mislead the public whom he loves about which flats he let out to tenants?

According to the diagrams published at the time, Christopher Jefferies's flat occupied only one-half of what is misleadingly designated the "ground floor". If there were two flats on each storey, then 44 Canynge Road would contain a total of eight flats. However, there are only five names on the plate outside the main entrance. Which of the storeys contains only one flat?


Offline AerialHunter

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #455 on: July 27, 2017, 09:31:16 PM »
Oh... What do I know.... I seem to be banging my head against a brick wall...

All is fair in LOVE AND WAR... But not in "JUSTICE" it appears to me.... I am just a citizen who believes a Placid Dutchman is Innocent... And feel that his rights were violated.... And The Evidence doesn't add up...

But I can waffle on until the cows come home...
No-one as far as I can tell is going to do anything about this... And seeing as I don't live next to the farm anymore I don't think they will know where to find me.... And I've probably bent everyones ears enough by now...

 I don't know what more I can add... Unless I find something new ...


 


Every single step is a step in the right direction. We are hunting in the dark and we don't know if we will find a mouse or a mammoth but we all believe something is there. We can't plan to attack it until we've found it and we go in nothing more than our own blind faith. It fears us more than we fear it, as do those who try to protect it. If it is there we will find it, maybe not tomorrow, or the next day, but ultimately it can only hide from a hunter or show itself as it returns an attack against unknown odds, either way it's stuffed.

Never give up, never doubt your own instinct and never, never trust a copper!
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 mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1027
  • Total likes: 462
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #456 on: July 28, 2017, 04:46:53 PM »
Every single step is a step in the right direction. We are hunting in the dark and we don't know if we will find a mouse or a mammoth but we all believe something is there. We can't plan to attack it until we've found it and we go in nothing more than our own blind faith. It fears us more than we fear it, as do those who try to protect it. If it is there we will find it, maybe not tomorrow, or the next day, but ultimately it can only hide from a hunter or show itself as it returns an attack against unknown odds, either way it's stuffed.

Never give up, never doubt your own instinct and never, never trust a copper!

My own instinct tells me that, one day  we will find out the truth about the Joanna Yeates case. Somebody will come forward with new information if there is any, or else we will discover good evidence that VT did do it. That is why it is important to have this forum standing.

I wouldn't agree that we can "never" trust coppers. We just need to be wary.

My instinct (yet again) tells me to be equally suspicious of juries, who, let's face it, are made up of ordinary members of the public, some who think constructively, and some who assume that if a person is on trial, he or she must be guilty. And, I am particularly suspicious of  "forensic" experts who tell us that enhanced DNA is good enough evidence to catch criminals.

Offline John

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #457 on: July 28, 2017, 04:51:34 PM »
My own instinct tells me that, one day  we will find out the truth about the Joanna Yeates case. Somebody will come forward with new information if there is any, or else we will discover good evidence that VT did do it. That is why it is important to have this forum standing.

I wouldn't agree that we can "never" trust coppers. We just need to be wary.

My instinct (yet again) tells me to be equally suspicious of juries, who, let's face it, are made up of ordinary members of the public, some who think constructively, and some who assume that if a person is on trial, he or she must be guilty. And, I am particularly suspicious of  "forensic" experts who tell us that enhanced DNA is good enough evidence to catch criminals.

I agree in that I believe there was more to this case than has ever been revealed publicly.  That said however, I do believe Tabak is guilty of killing Joanna but as to whether it was murder or manslaughter is another question.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes egregious malfeasance by public officials.
The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #458 on: July 29, 2017, 10:46:37 AM »
How does this sound to people ????

Quote
Mrs Yeates said: "I want nothing to do with the flat now. It was Jo's home, a beautiful place - but it's a sinister place now."

It almost sounds like Joanna Yeates owned the flat.... Maybe she did!!

Quote
She said the flat was being taken back by landlord Christopher Jefferies, the retired public school teacher who was wrongly arrested on suspicion of murder last year.

So.... Thinking about this.... Why would CJ... allow for this Flat to be kept as a Time Capsule for the Jury to come to view it, in October 2011... If he owned it....??

Wouldn't he want the rental value of this property...??

Why would he help the Police by keeping the flat empty??

Wouldn't Crime Scene Photo's surfice for a Jury???

I remember early reports talking of the value of the flat... and that shouldn't have been relevant if she only rented it....(IMO)..

Quote
The body of 25-year-old Miss Yeates, who had been strangled, was found by dog walkers on Christmas morning, three miles from her 200,000 flat in the upmarket area of Clifton, Bristol.

Did Joanna Yeates actually own that flat... and CJ own different flats ????


It's puzzling me know.... Why would CJ... assist the Police in The prosecution of A Dutch national... by keeping the Flat that he was supposed to own as a time capsule ??? They didn't permanetly block off Longwood Lane !!

CJ.. had been held on Bail until March 2011....  Had fought to get his name cleared.... So why then would he help the Police by keeping Joanna Yeates flat as a Time Capsule ??? It makes no sense ...(IMO)...



Edit.... Or did Mr and Mrs Yeates own the flat ???? And Joanna Yeates rented it from them ??


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1342427/Joanna-Yeates-murder-Landlord-Chris-Jefferies-hold-key.html#ixzz4oDDrna4Y

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8902569/Joanna-Yeates-mother-clears-out-sinister-Bristol-flat.html

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #459 on: July 29, 2017, 11:30:29 AM »


Flat 3 is The ground Floor Flat.... I believe there would be leases to all the flats, because each flat will lease the land the whole building is sat upon....(IMO)...

I think The main question.... Is who owns "WHICH FLAT".... !!!!


http://landregistry.data.gov.uk/app/ppd/search?limit=1000&min_date=1+March+1995&paon=44&saon=FLAT+3


Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #460 on: July 29, 2017, 11:51:08 AM »

Flat 3 is The ground Floor Flat.... I believe there would be leases to all the flats, because each flat will lease the land the whole building is sat upon....(IMO)...

I think The main question.... Is who owns "WHICH FLAT".... !!!!

http://landregistry.data.gov.uk/app/ppd/search?limit=1000&min_date=1+March+1995&paon=44&saon=FLAT+3
In one of his interviews, Christopher Jefferies recounted that Greg and Joanna had contacted him about the basement flat on the day that the advertisement appeared, and that they had made a good impression on him. It doesn't sound as if there can be much doubt that he was indeed their landlord. The police and Christopher Jefferies undoubtedly have an uneasy hold over each other (probably owing to his 2nd witness statement). It can only be speculation, but perhaps part of the condition of his release from bail was that he made no attempt to re-let or re-furbish the flat until after the trial.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #461 on: July 29, 2017, 12:55:18 PM »

According to the diagrams published at the time, Christopher Jefferies's flat occupied only one-half of what is misleadingly designated the "ground floor". If there were two flats on each storey, then 44 Canynge Road would contain a total of eight flats. However, there are only five names on the plate outside the main entrance. Which of the storeys contains only one flat?


How do you know this.... And what names are on the plate ???  are they the same names that have been there the last 7 years ??

Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #462 on: July 29, 2017, 01:22:07 PM »

How do you know this.... And what names are on the plate ???  are they the same names that have been there the last 7 years ??
This photo was taken in February 2014.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #463 on: July 29, 2017, 03:15:35 PM »


It's just a list of names.... But is it correct??... It could be... But I don't know .... At The end of the day... Every man and his dog must have been to that front door... Your hardly going to advertise the fact that a flat is empty now are you!!

I'm still looking at this... And I hope I can come up with an answer ....

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #464 on: July 31, 2017, 09:01:21 AM »
Quote
(i) if the prosecutor and the court accept that plea, the court must treat the plea as one of
guilty of that other offence, but
(ii) otherwise, the court must treat the plea as one of not guilty;

I was just thinking about this....

If Dr Vincent Tabak was seen as "Not Guilty" before he faced a "Murder trial... Then does that mean he would have been free if the Jury found him NOT GUILTY of "Murder"???? As the only option Offered to the Jury was "The Murder Charge"..

You then have to ask yourself why.. Dr Vincent Tabak took the stand??

A Lawyer is there to Defend... Why didn't Clegg just tell Dr Vincent Tabak to keep quite???

It's for the "Prosecution" to prove their Case... NOT for the "Defence to "Prove" The Prosecutions case for them...


What would have happened if Dr Vincent Tabak had just sat there and not said a word???

The "Prosecution" had NO CASE!!!

It was only because Dr Vincent Tabak takes the stand that we are supposed to understand the unfolding events...

Why did "Clegg" get Dr Vincent Tabak to take the stand???

And why did "Clegg: get Dr Vincent Tabak to sign his "Statement in September 2011...
No signed statement... No Case !!!

I thought "Clegg" had a great reputation... why would he jeopardize it???


http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/2015/crim-proc-rules-2015-part-03.pdf