Even though this account of Dean Armstrongs isn't verified I am under the impression it has to be his account based on the tweets and retweets and this tweet he 'liked' about himself from Nick Sutton of the BBC"s Editor of News website.
Nick Sutton
Verified account
@suttonnick
Follow Follow @suttonnick
More
LISTEN: Vincent Tabak's barrister, Dean Armstrong, on the impact social media is having on justice in UK. #wato
7:01 AM - 29 Dec 2011
10 Retweets 1 Like Dean ArmstrongLaurenceVicklawmentor.co.ukHarrietClare CampbellLegal WeekClare Precey
0 replies 10 retweets 1 like
Reply Retweet 10 Like 1
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/152403828199796736This has a recording of Dean Armstrong talking about the impact of social media and the case of Dr Vincent Tabak.
Dean Armstrong Retweeted
The Daily Record
Verified account
@Daily_Record
24 Oct 2011
More
UK & World News: Joanna Yeates murder trial: Neighbour tells he heard no screams on night Vincent Tabak strangle... http://bit.ly/qQeqeK
0 replies 1 retweet 0 likes
Reply Retweet 1 Like
https://twitter.com/Daily_Record/status/128474613637316608Is it usual for a lawyer to retweet a case he's worked on?
Retweets are difficult to know when someone has actually done the retweeting I can't assume it was done on the 24th October 2011, even though at first I thought this was the case.. And Mr Armstrong would have made a school boy error if that was the date he retweeted this tweet.
The article mentions Mr Armstrong, I suppose he liked seeing his name in the papers..
The tiny url leads to this article:
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2011/10/24/joanna-yeates-murder-trial-neighbour-tells-he-heard-no-screams-on-night-vincent-tabak-strangled-tragic-jo-86908-23511935/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitterJoanna Yeates murder trial: Neighbour tells he heard no screams on night Vincent Tabak strangled tragic Jo
Geoffrey Hardyman, who lives in the flat on the top floor of 44 Canynge Road, said he was ill with a cold on the night of December 17 last year.
ByDailyrecord.co.uk
14:45, 24 OCT 2011 UPDATED19:55, 1 JUL 2012
A neighbour of Joanna Yeates did not hear any screams on the night she died at the hands of Vincent Tabak, a court heard today.
Geoffrey Hardyman, who lives in the flat on the top floor of 44 Canynge Road, said he was ill with a cold on the night of December 17 last year.
He said that even though he had gone to bed at 11pm - after Miss Yeates was killed by Tabak - he heard nothing of the events inside her ground floor flat.
Bristol Crown Court heard that Mr Hardyman knew nothing of the 25-year-old landscape architect's disappearance until he was told on the following Monday by her and Tabak's landlord Christopher Jefferies.
"On Friday December 17 2010 I fell ill with a cold and stayed in all day," Mr Hardyman said in a statement read to jurors by junior defence counsel Dean Armstrong.
"I was unaware of any activity outside my flat. I went to bed at 11pm. I slept really well until 6.30am.
"The following morning I felt worse and cancelled a lunch appointment that day.
"I sat in my flat all day Saturday and Sunday and was unaware of anything out of the ordinary outside of my flat.
"I finally become aware that Joanna was missing when Christopher Jefferies told me on Monday morning."
The retired teacher, who has owned his flat for around 20 years, said he had met Miss Yeates and her boyfriend Greg Reardon briefly.
"I actually only met Greg and Joanna on three occasions while I was working in the garden," he said.
"I have had a friendly conversation with Joanna about her cat who I like to see in the garden.
"I would describe them both as nice and friendly and I was impressed with them."
Miss Yeates's parents, David and Teresa, and her boyfriend Mr Reardon sat in the public gallery to hear Mr Hardyman's statement read to the court.
After the statement had been read, William Clegg QC formally closed the defence case.
Jurors were told to return to court tomorrow when closing speeches by prosecutor Nigel Lickley QC and Mr Clegg will begin.
Tabak, 33, a Dutch engineer, denies murder but has pleaded guilty to Miss Yeates's manslaughter.
Her snow-covered frozen body was found by dog walkers on Christmas Day last year in Longwood Lane, Failand, North Somerset - about three miles from where she was last seen alive in Clifton.
Jurors have been told that Tabak was arrested on January 20 after a DNA swab he gave matched that of samples found on Miss Yeates's body and clothing.
Giving evidence Tabak tearfully apologised to her family for putting them through hell.
He said his actions were "horrendous" as he showed jurors with his own hand how he strangled his next-door neighbour.
Tabak said he had been attracted to her and "made a pass at her" when she invited him in.
The trial continues.
Slightly inappropriate retweeting about a case from a media report, even if your name is mentioned. (imo) It hardly is an example of ones work, seeing as the defence lost.
Another tweet about Dean from Nick
Nick Sutton
Verified account
@suttonnick
Follow Follow @suttonnick
More
Dean Armstrong, lawyer for Vincent Tabak, tells #wato concerns about Twitter "assuaged" in his case and backs televising court proceedings.
5:26 AM - 29 Dec 2011
1 Retweet 1 Like Dean Armstrong
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like
https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/152379997963821056Dr Vincent Tabak's lawyer would like court proceedings to be televised in his case, does that mean the case against Dr Vincent tabak?
Don't know what other cases he did at the time.
I mentioned a school boy error.. The timing of the retweet is vital to know, as it could be seen that it had been tweeted whilst the trial was still active and not concluded...
But sometimes I think these actions are done deliberately, As if the trial by media of Dr Vincent Tabak in itself was a test
to see how it played out whilst a trial took place.... And if social media is let loose would it compromise a trial?
Then I come back to whether this case is real or not... Or was it an exercise in handling the media whether it be the tabloids or social media..
Too much information about this case was in the public domain from day one, all over social media, and on the TV... So much so, that nothing was a surprise at trial, realistically... No-one questioned when details changed slightly... Going from no significant injuries to 43 significant injuries.
Is this case basically about the media and social media? I keep thinking about The Leveson and The Papers being taken to court for contempt, but how can the papers be in contempt, when CJ was never charged with anything, so it wouldn't prejudice a trial...
This case is back to front.... Making no sense to me...
But I am no expert, so I may have made school boy errors myself...
