The Earlier Reports Made about the case

[[...]]

Yes they filmed DS Mark Saunders outside 44,Canygne Road on the 22nd December 2010.. The Forensics where also in the house on the 22nd December 2010 ......

But I have just found something else.... It's amazing how timelines change in this case !!!!!

This is a report from ITN News... A short but important clip! 7 seconds long!!

From The Ram pub last Friday night the 25 year old called a friend, they discussed her Christmas and New Year Plans..

So are they referring to Rebecca Scott????

If Not Which other Friend??   If it's Rebecca Scott... What time did Joanna Yeates leave "The Ram Pub"??? because the phone call was supposed to have taken place at 8:30pm for approx 15 mins...

Things are not adding up again..... This report is on the 22nd December 2010... It's one of the very early reports into the case ...

When did the timeline start to change ???? Maybe when they realised Dr Vincent Tabak had an alibi ?? The phone call of Rebecca Scotts has changed on more than one occasion... It started off as a 15 minute phone call... and by the time it reached trial it had become quite vague in it duration...

If Joanna Yeates was talking to Rebecca Scott in The Ram Pub at 8:30pm, then it clearly shows that the Tesco video as I have said all along is incorrect....

So at a starting point of 8:30pm... Followed by a 45 minute journey home visiting 3 shops... that makes the time that Joanna Yeates could possibly arrive home is 9:15pm.. So all the scream I never saw as evidence can be immediaetly discounted... And you also have the "Prosecution putting Dr Vincent Tabak in his own Flat for 1 hour before he went to ASDA....

If Dr Vincent Tabak was seen at 10:13pm on Friday 17th December 2010... Means that He could not possibly have gone around to Flat 1 an hour before he left for ASDA.. as Joanna Yeates would not have arrived at this time ...!!! That if she arrived home at all!!!! ....(IMO)


Three Options...

(1): She called Rebecca Scott from The Ram Pub on Friday 22nd December 2010 at 8:30pm....

(2): She did call Rebecca Scott at 8:30pm

(3): She called another person altogether from the Ram Pub on Friday 22nd December 2010 at sometime....

Was there someone else who Joanna Yeates talked too... Or did they forget to tell us the Phone Call was made from The Ram Pub!!!

http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/659243696

[attachment deleted by admin]

[[...]]

Well done for finding this clip! It is the earliest evidence of such a big police presence at 44 Canynge Road - but not as early as we would like! Were these vehicles present the day before, when the family made their first TV appeal? Were they present on Monday 20th, when the slopes of Avon Gorge were being scoured?

I have a clip for the 22nd December 2010 of The Family and Greg Reardon at The Press Conference... For obvious reasons I am not going to put that particular clip on... but it gives you an indication leonora of how EVERYTHING was put into motion straight away.....

[[...]]

So.... We have in 2 days of each other two Senior Police Officers making appeals in relation to Joanna Yeates... Each of these Officers are part of The Cold Case Team.. Investigating unsolved crimes that may have links...

We have DS Mark Saunders on the 22nd December 2010.. making his appeal... Followed by...

DCI Garth Bevan on the 23rd December 2010 and his Missing Pizza appeal.... "The word wrappings" seems to be important...(IMO)..

Gareth Bevan... quote

Within the flat we can find no evidence of this pizza, or any of the wrappings, and so I would like to make an appeal, firstly for anyone who has any information about where Joanna (was) is now, or any information (about) that can indicate what's happened to her. I'd also like to make an appeal to anyone who knows where this pizza is,or whether any of the wrappings are or where the box is

So DCI Bevan... was that nearly past tense ??

DS Mark Saunders

We are all trying to guess various scenario's of what could have happened.. Erm.. The work that's going on in there at the moment is just looking for evidence that may give us a clue as to where she might have gone, or anyone she might have meet up with or anything like that.

http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/659164676

http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/659244566

[attachment deleted by admin]

[[...]]

I remember the early report about the DNA... And the DNA that was found on Joanna Yeates lips....

To find reports in the papers today on this DNA sample on her lip, is virtually impossible... But I managed, And it wasn't easy believe me... They had censored the article.... So I have managed 2 different way in obtaining what it said....  I have attached various images of the said page.... The article is printed 4 days before Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest...

Question does anyone else get the same view as me of this article .. Or am i mistaken that it has been greyed out???

Sunday, January 16, 2011
Jo Yeates: Murder of Joanna being used to collect DNA..using Jo's mother in her grief , a dispicable tactic !!!!!
THE GRIEVING mother of Joanna Yeates last night called for all her daughter’s friends and colleagues to be DNA tested to eliminate them from the murder inquiry.

Teresa Yeates has urged detectives to focus DNA sampling on the small group of people her daughter knew and then to include men in the upmarket district of Clifton in Bristol where Jo lived with her boyfriend Greg Reardon.

Her call comes as a national poll conducted by the Sunday Express shows a majority of people across the UK want all 250,000 men in Bristol to be DNA tested.

Nearly 2,000 people in major towns and cities were asked by OnePoll if all men in Bristol should have DNA testing and 57 per cent said yes.

In Bristol 245 people were interviewed with 54 per cent for and 46 per cent against.

Last week Kerry McCarthy, Labour MP for Bristol East, led the calls for citywide DNA testing but so far murder squad detectives have ruled out a mass DNA trawl of the city. They may change their minds after considering the views of the Yeates family.

It is thought a tiny sample of DNA was found on Jo’s lips. It may have got there when the killer was dumping her body, which was found covered in snow on Christmas Day three miles from her home.

Speaking from her home in Ampfield, near Romsey, Hampshire, Mrs Yeates, 58, said: “To be honest, I don’t think all men in Bristol should be DNA tested. I think it would be pointless. I think there should be DNA testing for people who live in the Clifton area and DNA testing of people Jo was acquainted with.”
   
SEARCH UK NEWS for:

 SubmitSubmit
Asked if that should include Jo’s colleagues, she replied: “I don’t see why not. I don’t believe any of her work colleagues were involved in any of this. I haven’t met all of them but that is my gut feeling. It is better to eliminate them.”

It is understood police have been highly selective in who they ask for DNA swabs but they have tested some of her 200 Facebook friends.

Colleagues who were connected to her social networking site, or who had sent her e-mails or texts outside of work, are thought to have been asked to supply swabs.

Dr Carolyn Morton, a principal lecturer in forensic science at the University of West England in Bristol, said it was possible the DNA could have come from anyone Miss Yeates was with on the evening she went missing, including colleagues she could have kissed when she left the pub. She said the police had to find where the saliva came from. So far none of her workmates who joined Jo for Christmas drinks on the day she went missing, Friday, December 17, has been named or has spoken publicly about her.

BDP, the company for which 25-year-old landscape architect Jo worked, is talking to her mother and father David, 63, about a suitable memorial.

A spokeswoman said: “Jo loved flowers, so a beautiful landscaped space would perhaps be the most fitting memorial.”

It is unclear whether Jo’s 27-year-old boyfriend Greg will return to work for BDP in the office he once shared with Jo. He has told friends that even the thought of a brief return to Bristol upsets him.

Mrs Yeates confirmed to the ­Sunday Express that she would now not be playing the part of her daughter in a BBC Crimewatch reconstruction to be broadcast on January 26.

As she is the same height as her daughter and looks similar, she had been prepared to go through the ­emotional ordeal.

Last night she said: “They will be getting somebody else for the reconstruction but it is definitely not me, I can confirm that.”

It is thought either an actress or a serving Avon and Somerset female police officer will play the role for the programme which frustrated detectives hope will produce a breakthrough lead.

Police sources say they have found no significant links between Jo’s murder and that of Glenis ­Carruthers, a young woman strangled in Clifton 37 years ago, after cold case detectives reopened their files last week.


: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/223433/DNA-all-Joannma-Yeates-friends-begs-her-mother/DNA-all-Joannma-Yeates-friends-begs-her-mother#ixzz1BCf45ZTp

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/223433/DNA-all-Joannma-Yeates-friends-begs-her-mother/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latestNewsViaRoyphjacobsInGoogleReader+%28%22latest+news%22+via+royphjacobs+in+Google+Reader%29&utm_content=Twitter

'It is thought a tiny sample of DNA was found on Jo’s lips."

That sentence is important... I remember other Newpaper Articles running this story... Then the story disappeared....  Why was that ????

Did Joanna Yeates have DNA on her lips???  It is more than probable... (IMO)...  There was the "Full DNA Profile" that didn't belong to Dr Vincent Tabak... that mysteriously was forgotten about at trial....

Is it because Dr Vincent Tabak mentions in his trial he tried to kiss her the reason the DNA on the lip didn't come into play???? Because it would have shown that Dr Vincent Tabak's DNA was NOT on Joanna Yeates lip...

Is that why the 'Trying to kiss her story comes to court" ??? They know she had DNA on her lip....  It is almost like they try to see how blatant they can be in this whole trial... Without anyone making any type of objection.....

There were definitely more articles in the media on this story... But they appear to have gone... WHY.. If DNA is found on Joanna Yeates Lip did it not come to trial???

Why was this story not Mentioned in the Leveson Inquiry....

Was this the only real area that DNA was actually recovered from Joanna Yeates , and because it didn't match Dr Vincent Tabak... this Information was suppressed ????

Someone has gone to a great deal of trouble to make this Important Piece of Evidence Vanish.. And I mean A lot of trouble....

Because you would have thought that a flat out denial at the time of print would have gone a long way into supportting the fact that this information wasn't true.... But instead.. We have 'Censored Text"... And articles on this Particular piece of Evidence removed from The Internet......

Why would they wanna go and do a thing like that !!!!!!

When you click on the links that the article has got its information from the Information is No longer there:....


Edit.... why did Jo's mum only think people in The Clifton area should be DNA tested ??? And People she was acquainted with ?? Why not some random stranger ??

Speaking from her home in Ampfield, near Romsey, Hampshire, Mrs Yeates, 58, said: “To be honest, I don’t think all men in Bristol should be DNA tested. I think it would be pointless. I think there should be DNA testing for people who live in the Clifton area and DNA testing of people Jo was acquainted with.”

   


https://steelmagnolia-gossips.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/jo-yeates-murder-of-joanna-being-used.html?m=0

[[...]]

The links from the Article at Steel magnolias  leads me to this page of the Express.... I have attached a screen shot because the headlines talk about coldplay... But Joanna Yeates  parents are slap bang, sat there in this article... So it has been changed....


But interestingly enough the Comments are still there relating to the fact that the article did have the information that there was indeed DNA on Joanna Yeate's lip.....

ReplyShare0

2419 days ago
Noel O'Gara
DNA on lip does not prove murder\r\rFirst they need to eliminate the cat.
DNA may have come from a kiss of a friend, how could anybody deduce that it was planted by a killer?
Also that dna trace may have been there for weeks if not months. The obvious first person to eliminate would be her boyfriend in order to avoid mass testing.
If it is the boyfriend's dna, that proves that he kissed her on the lips. Big deal. It does not record the time of the kiss and dna thirty years old has been used by police to convict people.
DNA is a very dangerous tool which is open to abuse by unscrouplous policemen who need results. You can draw all sort of inferences from it.
Public confidence in it is misplaced.

So indeed there has been censoring of this most Important piece of Evidence..... (IMO)...


Edit.... I would just like to add that, this is the reason that I link, transcribe and screenshot everything.. Because as we know .... Things have a habit of disappearing in this CASE!!





[attachment deleted by admin]

[Francesca]

Hi Newbie here - first post.

Followed this case from the very beginning.

In the first Daily Mail article, which is now no longer on the internet. GR said that that their cat Bernard's litter tray was stinking, but  GR made no mention of a messy flat that came later!

In court GR said '"I didn't really think there was a big problem. I thought she may well have gone away visiting friends'.

So flat is in 'a mess' with 'stinky litter tray' but even though GR had not spoken to Jo since the Friday GR didn't think it was a big problem.

'"So I thought she may have been away doing fun things, so not having been able to get hold of her phone ... I wasn't sure." Is this not an odd way of speaking? 'Away doing 'fun things'??

''I went, trying to find out what she was wearing by looking at what was out''. Bizarre language. By looking at what was out GR might discover what Jo was wearing? &%+((£ 

'Mr Reardon said that he thought his girlfriend had been locked out of the flat with all her possessions inside'.
Yet another odd statement. If Jo had been locked out, would she not have been able to contact the landlord Chris Jefferies and get back in then?

"I started to ring around her friends and my friends in Bristol to try and find out where she was, if she was with them over the weekend," he told the jury.

"I rang ALL THE PEOPLE SHE HAD BEEN IN CONTACT WITH FRIDAY NIGHT -and any of her friends that I could think of that might have seen her''

No he did not!! The one person who would have been the obvious person to contact > Rebecca, Jo's 'best friend'  GR didn't even call !! And that is just incredible in my book!

Not only the fact that he never rang Rebecca, but then went on to claim in court that he had rung all those Jo was in contact with Friday night. &%+((£

It was the police that woke Rebecca up to tell her that Jo was missing in the early hours of Monday 20 December.

Dare I need say that I do not believe that Vincent Tabak murdered Jo Yeates.

Nex GR discovers earrings one in the bed and one on the floor. Why was this even mentioned in court? Jo' was found wearing stud earrings as I recall.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/boyfriends-panic-over-missing-joanna-yeates-2371910.html

[Leonora]

'"So I thought she may have been away doing fun things, so not having been able to get hold of her phone ... I wasn't sure." Is this not an odd way of speaking? 'Away doing 'fun things'??
...
"I started to ring around her friends and my friends in Bristol to try and find out where she was, if she was with them over the weekend," he told the jury.

"I rang ALL THE PEOPLE SHE HAD BEEN IN CONTACT WITH FRIDAY NIGHT -and any of her friends that I could think of that might have seen her''

No he did not!! The one person who would have been the obvious person to contact > Rebecca, Jo's 'best friend'  GR didn't even call !! And that is just incredible in my book!
...

Welcome to the biggest mystery since the disappearance of the little princes in the Tower!

Not until nearly 5 hours after he got back to their flat did Greg phone Joanna's parents in Hampshire, who told him to phone the police at once. What was he really up to in those 5 hours?

Why did the police respond to his 999 call so promptly, and rouse the other occupants of the house, all in the dead of night? Normal practice is to advise waiting till morning to see if the missing person turns up at work. Normal practice is to suspect a lover's tiff, a misunderstanding, drunkenness, or infidelity.

That first week was almost like a Punch & Judy show, with Detective Superintendant Mark Saunders - a very experienced member of the serious crime team - asking, "Where is she? This is most unusual" while the audience chorused, "It's the boyfriend!" so loudly that DCI Phil Jones was obliged to declare that Greg Reardon IS NOT A SUSPECT.

[[...]]

Hi Newbie here - first post.

Followed this case from the very beginning.

In the first Daily Mail article, which is now no longer on the internet. GR said that that their cat Bernard's litter tray was stinking, but  GR made no mention of a messy flat that came later!

In court GR said '"I didn't really think there was a big problem. I thought she may well have gone away visiting friends'.

So flat is in 'a mess' with 'stinky litter tray' but even though GR had not spoken to Jo since the Friday GR didn't think it was a big problem.

'"So I thought she may have been away doing fun things, so not having been able to get hold of her phone ... I wasn't sure." Is this not an odd way of speaking? 'Away doing 'fun things'??

''I went, trying to find out what she was wearing by looking at what was out''. Bizarre language. By looking at what was out GR might discover what Jo was wearing? &%+((£ 

'Mr Reardon said that he thought his girlfriend had been locked out of the flat with all her possessions inside'.
Yet another odd statement. If Jo had been locked out, would she not have been able to contact the landlord Chris Jefferies and get back in then?

"I started to ring around her friends and my friends in Bristol to try and find out where she was, if she was with them over the weekend," he told the jury.

"I rang ALL THE PEOPLE SHE HAD BEEN IN CONTACT WITH FRIDAY NIGHT -and any of her friends that I could think of that might have seen her''

No he did not!! The one person who would have been the obvious person to contact > Rebecca, Jo's 'best friend'  GR didn't even call !! And that is just incredible in my book!

Not only the fact that he never rang Rebecca, but then went on to claim in court that he had rung all those Jo was in contact with Friday night. &%+((£

It was the police that woke Rebecca up to tell her that Jo was missing in the early hours of Monday 20 December.

Dare I need say that I do not believe that Vincent Tabak murdered Jo Yeates.

Nex GR discovers earrings one in the bed and one on the floor. Why was this even mentioned in court? Jo' was found wearing stud earrings as I recall.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/boyfriends-panic-over-missing-joanna-yeates-2371910.html

Hi and welcome Francesca....  great to have more on board.... And yes indeed you may say that you do not believe that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates...  I have said this loud and clear for a very long time....

The things you have mentioned I do remember being said...... But most of it went out of the window by the time it reached court....  Realistically .. Clegg should have had Greg's original statement sat in front of him if he was any kind of Lawyer....

I do remember him saying he rang around all of her friends, because it surprised me  her phone didn't have a lock on it....

Have you been following our thread?? or have you just come across it???

Hope you stick around and post... 

[mrswah]

Welcome Francesca.

I, too, remember reading that Joanna was found with her stud earrings in place. There is no evidence that she was wearing the amethyst earrings on that Friday: she had probably just left them on her dressing table. How one came to be in her bed, and one on the floor is a mystery, as are so many things about this case.

It is possible that Greg did not ring Rebecca because she did not live in Bristol. He knew Joanna had been with certain people in the Ram pub: he probably knew them, as the landlord of the Ram pub did say that he knew both Joanna and her boyfriend. So, he probably wanted to check that she had been with them, and to ask them if she had said anything about what else she had planned to do over the weekend. He wouldn't have expected her to have seen Rebecca that weekend-----IMO.

[nina]

How do we know he wasn't lying?

Will you all please think about why a successful young man would `sign away' his life, to spend it in prison with all the perils that must go with that.

What could anyone offer a man or VT to make him say "Yup I'll throw away my life"

There is nothing that I can see that would benefit VT or any innocent party to do that on this murder charge.

Yes I know that you will come back at me with all the usual ways and how people do confess to crimes they didn't commit...... but again I'll remind you all that this is not Guantanamo Bay, it's Avon & Somerset police in Bristol, UK.

At the end of the day VT DID say he had killed Joanna Yeates and if anyone should know it's him.

[[...]]

sorry wrong place

[nina]

Nina the reason I had thought possible before... Was that they confused him with English Law.... And told him he would be charged under Joint Enterprise, for assisting CJ move his car off the Driveway... And after the telephone call to the Police about a car changing position... If as they say he did it because he believed  CJ guilty... He therefore, would be seen as an accessory....

If he had to make a choice as to whether to go to trial for Murder and not Manslaughter... Maybe that could be a reason he chose Manslaughter... And once the Manslaughter Plea is entered into... He's scuppered.... The world and their dog knew about The Manslaughter Plea.....

He was never to know that CJ had been released from Bail...  If he was told he could be charged with Joint Enterprise... maybe he thought Manslaughter was the cheaper option.....

The don't actually have to charge him under this charge... Just make him believe that we have that Law available in this country..... And as an accessory he in the eyes of the Law would be classed as just as "Responsible".. as CJ.... 

How is he to know what is really going on in the real world once he is locked up.... No-one did him any favours.. They used plenty of tricks before he was at trial... And during the trial (IMO)...

So who's to say they didn't threaten him that he would be on a Murder Conviction,under " Joint Enterprise"  because he had helped move a car.....

Joint Enterprise has been used for years to put Innocent people away....


i'll try think of other options but it's a hard one....



Edit..... Nina i don't believe Dr Vincent Tabak ever admits to killing Joanna Yeates.... He says he is Responsible!!!


Your only other possible option is he is protecting someone.....

If it had been me in VT's position it would have been a first time arrest for me too and to tell you the truth I wouldn't have had a clue as to what was (a) going on and (b) Joint anything's. I wouldn't have known the law and I am a Brit through and through. I expect that VT must have felt the same. Did they do him for Joint whatever?

This is a man who is multilingual, has been working in the uk since 2008, was it? Is obviously very intelligent. You don't send idiots to Arab countries. He would have had to have known a bit about local law there depending on where he was, like don't ask for a drink etc., so I'm sure, that like me he would have known just enough about English law.

I think that you are splitting hairs, what's the difference, in this case, between responsible and killed? He admitted the killing in court and apologised to Mr & Mrs Yeates.

[nina]

Nina the reason I had thought possible before... Was that they confused him with English Law.... And told him he would be charged under Joint Enterprise, for assisting CJ move his car off the Driveway... And after the telephone call to the Police about a car changing position... If as they say he did it because he believed  CJ guilty... He therefore, would be seen as an accessory....

If he had to make a choice as to whether to go to trial for Murder and not Manslaughter... Maybe that could be a reason he chose Manslaughter... And once the Manslaughter Plea is entered into... He's scuppered.... The world and their dog knew about The Manslaughter Plea.....

He was never to know that CJ had been released from Bail...  If he was told he could be charged with Joint Enterprise... maybe he thought Manslaughter was the cheaper option.....

The don't actually have to charge him under this charge... Just make him believe that we have that Law available in this country..... And as an accessory he in the eyes of the Law would be classed as just as "Responsible".. as CJ.... 

How is he to know what is really going on in the real world once he is locked up.... No-one did him any favours.. They used plenty of tricks before he was at trial... And during the trial (IMO)...

So who's to say they didn't threaten him that he would be on a Murder Conviction,under " Joint Enterprise"  because he had helped move a car.....

Joint Enterprise has been used for years to put Innocent people away....


i'll try think of other options but it's a hard one....



Edit..... Nina i don't believe Dr Vincent Tabak ever admits to killing Joanna Yeates.... He says he is Responsible!!!


Your only other possible option is he is protecting someone..... But if that had been the case you would have thought he'd have done that from the begining....

Did the Police let him believe that Tanja had committed this Crime ????


Double Edit... We do not know what Dr Vincent Tabak originally told police when they first went around to Flat 2 when Joanna Yeates was reported Missing.....

Did he hear anything from next door???  Did he hear a scream himself.... Did he hear arguing????  We don't know what he said..... But we do know that the Defence made sure we all knew that he couldn't hear anything because of the way the walls were....

The trouble with that is that the Floor aren't made of stone!!

It seemed strange for Clegg to get Dr Vincent Tabak to mention this detail..... But maybe Dr Vincent Tabak did hear something.....

Then all the Police would need to tell him was that Tanja never went to the party and it was an accident and the girls were fighting/ messing about...... she'd been around next door... And it was her creating an alibi with all the texts and phone calls.....

He was besotted with her..... 

It's really difficult to think of anything different than him being under Duress.. to be honest.....


http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf

Nine, VT also admitted in court that he had set Chris Jefferies up re: the car.

Your Edit: So you do admit that VT killed Joanna Yeates.

[[...]]

Nine, VT also admitted in court that he had set Chris Jefferies up re: the car.

Your Edit: So you do admit that VT killed Joanna Yeates.

No Nina i don't admit that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates at all.... I was giving you examples of what you had asked for .... Plain and simple......

I as I have said from the begining believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent.... And until someone can prove otherwise, other than that sham of a trial...(IMO).... I will not be changing my mind......

EDIT..... Let me just make it clear also....  I do not think Tanja had anything to do with this either,... before you mis-interpret what i mean.....  cheers ....

[nina]

No Nina i don't admit that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates at all.... I was giving you examples of what you had asked for .... Plain and simple......

I as I have said from the begining believe that Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent.... And until someone can prove otherwise, other than that sham of a trial...(IMO).... I will not be changing my mind......

You may see it as splitting hairs... But did he actually say that he killed Joanna yeates ??? Because it makes a great difference (IMO)...

We could have said the same thing about splitting hairs when The Prosecution asked The Jury to write the word definition in their copy of the 1300 page document because it was missed out... Changing the entire ontext of what was supposed to have been searched for .....

What sound more prejudical......

Tabak search 'Sexual Conduct   Or

Tabak searched Definition of Sexual Conduct???


So I believe splitting hairs is important..... If Dr Vincent Tabak had done something that say made Tanja jealous... he may have felt "Responsible"....

If believing that by moving the car for CJ.. helped in the disposal of Joanna Yeates ... he may have felt ..."Responsible"....


Show me where he actually says he killed her and I will change my opinion on that nina......


http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf

Oh please Nine, just answer my question about the difference between "I killed Jo / I am responsible for her death". 

It has nothing to do with the car and you do know that. All VT did was to push the car up the slight incline in the driveway, because of the snow on top of ice making life difficult for all concerned.