Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Today's News

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 28-10-2011, 02:54 PM   #1481
soleil
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,991
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Vincent Tabak found guilty of Joanna Yeates murder

Vincent Tabak has been found guilty of murdering landscape architect Joanna Yeates.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...es-murder.html
soleil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-11-2012, 07:54 AM   #1482
truthspoon
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: North Africa........ The pirate-coast! Yarrh!
Posts: 20,360
Likes: 278 (169 Posts)
Default

http://vincent-tabak-is-innocent.blo.../01/media.html


Quote:
A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE

On 28th October 2011, at Bristol Crown Court, Dr. Vincent Tabak was found guilty of murdering landscape architect Joanna Yeates on 17th December 2010 and sentenced to life in prison, with a minimum tariff of 20 years. The evidence proving that he is the victim of a cruel and deliberate miscarriage of justice to protect the real killer is summarized point-by-point in "Guilty until proven Innocent". The news media and even the Leveson Inquiry have been muzzled to prevent them from exposing this horrible scandal. Disclaimer - Everything on this unofficial web site that is not formulated as a question is derived from published information.
The media and Lord Leveson
“I love a ballad in print, a-life, for then we are sure they are true.”
- Mopsa, a shepherdess, in “The Winter's Tale”, by William Shakespeare

Be that as it may, nearly all the facts reported here were obtained from the British media, notably the local sources Small World News Service and The Bristol Evening Post (This is Bristol).

Only two days after Joanna Yeates went missing, the media, led by the BBC and The Telegraph, and encouraged by the video appeal released by Avon & Somerset Constabulary, turned her disappearance into a matter of national importance. This was partly because her boyfriend seems to have a connection to the police. When her death became a murder inquiry, the pressure on the detectives at A & S Constabulary, led by DCI Phil Jones, to make an arrest was enormous.

The general public did not learn about the DNA allegedly taken from Joanna Yeates's body soon after it had been found until 3rd January 2011, in an exclusive story in The Mail, that was based on unattributed sources, probably someone at LGC Forensics. On the evening of Sunday 2nd January 2011, according to Amanda Hirst's testimony to the Leveson inquiry, there were negotiations between Avon & Somerset Constabulary and a journalist and the editor from a national tabloid newspaper (evidently The Mail) to avoid the publication of potentially compromising detail relating to DNA found on Joanna's body. The negotiations, she asserted, resulted in a compromise. The Mail claimed that a single sample of DNA had been found on the body. The newspaper wrote that the revelation had been made the day after police had released the landlord, but that attempts had been made soon after the DNA was found (i.e., before the arrest of the landlord) to match this DNA with DNA already on police records and with DNA samples taken during the investigation.

On 5th January 2011, ITN was banned from a police press conference because the station in its news broadcast the day before had criticized Avon & Somerset Constabulary for their handling of the investigation. They were to react with the same paranoic sensitivity later in the month to criticism from Vincent Tabak's family after his arrest.

On 7th January 2011 The Sun newspaper offered a £50,000 reward for information leading to a conviction. The Sun has not stated whether it ever paid out the reward nor to whom. After Vincent Tabak's arrest, The Sun carried an unattributed report that A & S Constabulary had received a telephone tip-off from an unidentified "weeping woman". No reference was subsequently made in court to this tip-off. At the time, his family stated publicly that this allegation did not refer to his girlfriend. The Sun was the only news media to report that his girlfriend visited him in prison as soon as she was allowed to do so. Editors at The Sun have a habit of revising online articles several days or even weeks after the date of publication, without stating what has been altered, nor even what the original publication date was.

On 12th January 2011 The Sun carried an unattributed story about DNA from saliva on Joanna's body. On 13th and 17th January 2011 The Mail carried unattributed stories about DNA from saliva and partial DNA respectively on the body. The timing of these stories contributed to giving LGC Forensics's proprietary DNA-enhancement process the honour for the arrest of Vincent Tabak on 20th January 2011.



In the middle of January 2011, a filmed reconstruction of Joanna Yeates’s last walk home was produced for the BBC’s “Crimewatch” series. It was scheduled to be shown on 26th January 2011 but was not shown on TV until 6th November 2011. A specialist firm was engaged to put down artificial snow for outdoor scenes at Longwood Lane. On 18th January 2010, watched by invited journalists, an actress dressed in clothing that matched Joanna’s was filmed going into Tesco Express in Clifton village and buying a mozarella, tomato and basil pesto pizza. Besides her black rucksack, she carried a white plastic bag containing two bottles of cider bought in Bargain Booze, and a black plastic bag containing (according to PA) something whose identity the police refused to reveal, on the grounds that it was not significant.

The nimble real-life Joanna had managed to scan the pizza, operate the automatic check-out and pay her bill using only her left hand, clutching her two plastic bags in her right hand all the time, whereas the actress purposefully put her two plastic bags down beside the till and used both her hands to scan the pizza.

Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones said: “The [Crimewatch] programme allows us to visually recreate the route home she took with the aim of jogging the memories of those people who may have seen her. The reconstruction may also jog the memories of those people who used Longwood Lane in Failand on Friday 17th December 2010 or over that weekend and have not come forward. This is a valuable opportunity for us to reach out to the nation in their homes.” The scene with the actress in Tesco was shown on TV two days before Vincent Tabak's arrest. The sequence of events was all carefully orchestrated.



The Sun and The Mail were prominent in citing unidentified sources suggesting that Vincent Tabak and his girlfriend had split up months before his arrest, in September, that she had talked to the police before he was arrested, that Vincent Tabak and Joanna Yeates knew each other professionally through joint projects, and that he could get a good view of Joanna's legs as she went past his window. None of these has ever been substantiated, and the latter would occur only if she went right round the back of the house and then up the driveway on foot wearing a skirt rather than jeans during the eleven winter days when they were actually neighbours. Witness testimony at the trial showed conclusively that Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson were still a close couple at least up to four days prior to his arrest.

It was the pressure of the media that led to the police's readiness to find not one but two scapegoats.

On 5th January 2011 A & S Constabulary banned ITV News from a press conference.

The national media chose to ignore the death in Yorkshire of another young woman, Anna Banks, who was strangled five days after Joanna Yeates by her boyfriend, Daniel Lancaster, who had suspected her of infidelity and was sentenced on 11th August 2011 to only four years' imprisonment for her Manslaughter, six weeks before Vincent Tabak signed his own statement pleading guilty of manslaughter.


Vincent Tabak in custody
wearing borrowed glasses
As long as he was still being held on remand, many of the media reproduced an attractive smiling studio portrait of Vincent Tabak that he had used for his own CV. However, A & S Constabulary released a grim-faced mugshot of Tabak that clearly reveals how brutally they had been treating him in an effort to extract a confession. It must have been taken soon after he was arrested, as he is still wearing the plastic glasses the police loaned him while his own were taken away for forensic testing. This is the insulting photo of him that was used with uncanny unanimity in every news media immediately after he was convicted and helped convince everyone that really he was the killer of the cuddly smiling girl shown in all the photos of Joanna Yeates. He had not shaved for several days, his hair was unkempt, and the photographer had not encouraged him to relax and smile cheerfully for the camera. There is more than a hint about this face of the use of ruthless interrogation techniques and possibly sophisticated mind-bending drugs developed for use with stubborn captives in Iraq and Afghanistan. This photo also demonstrates that A & S Constabulary treated Tabak in flagrant violation of their own standards of conduct, which state that “Police officers act with self-control and tolerance, treating members of the public and colleagues with respect and courtesy.” How could he look his accusers in the eye when his own customized glasses had been taken away from him and replaced by standard prison issue with plastic lenses to prevent him from committing suicide? He could not see who was speaking to him with the plastic glasses.

On 24th January 2011, Vincent Tabak's family engaged a Dutch media consultant called Paul Vermeij to protect them from the curiosity of the British media. He did his best, but he was no match for the A & S Constabulary's manipulative Amanda Hirst. He issued a couple of sympathetic photos showing Vincent Tabak as a loving human being enjoying family life with his seven young nieces and nephews, but none that showed him enjoying academic life with his fellow students in Eindhoven, nor emphasizing his professional skills and achievements. The media welcomed his statements, as they went a little way to counteract the efforts of the police and the CPS to portray Vincent Tabak as a brutal non-entity who opened his mouth only to say his name. Paul Vermeij ceased to represent the Tabak family after the Old Bailey hearing on 5th May 2011, when he acknowledged total astonishment that Vincent had pleaded guilty of manslaughter.

Joanna Yeates's boyfriend had a better media adviser than Vincent Tabak's, namely Avon & Somerset Constabulary's Director of Corporate Communications Amanda Hirst. Probably acting on her suggestions conveyed by Family Liaison Officer Russ Jones, Greg Reardon from time to time issued a wide variety of cheerful photos showing himself and Joanna together - and the media used these lavishly each time a new batch was released.


29th December 2010
In his second witness statement to the Leveson Inquiry dated 10th January 2012, Daily Mirror editor Richard Wallace stated: “When Mr. Jefferies was arrested on 30th December 2010 the Content Desk informed me that (off-the-record) the police were saying that they were confident Mr. Jefferies was their man. It is not uncommon for the police to give such an indication. I believe that our coverage of this news story should be viewed against that background.”

It was the effort that Avon & Somerset Constabulary put into producing the video of her parents' emotional appeal on 22nd December 2010 that turned Joanna Yeates's disappearance into a national crisis. Neither the three other persons who went missing nor the other young woman who was strangled that week received any attention in the national media. Because the victim was a young professional woman living in a prosperous suburb, the serious media picked up the story as quickly as the tabloids did. By focussing suspicion on the boyfriend, did the media pressurized A & S Constabulary into stating that he was a witness and not a suspect. At dawn the next day police arrested the landlord, diverting the attention of the media from Greg Reardon.


The Old Bailey
On 5th May 2011, after Vincent Tabak had been remanded in virtual isolation for over three months, during which he had been tricked by a retired Salvation Army prison chaplain into a fake confession, the judge and the QCs in the case blackmailed the media to be party to an astonishing and unprecedented conspiracy to deceive and manipulate the public and pervert the cause of justice by destroying the personality and reputation of the accused man. To achieve this, they changed the date of the plea and case-management hearing and its venue at 24 hours' notice, but tipped off the press and the parents of the victim. By holding it in the Old Bailey in London, they ensured that no other members of the public were witness to the conspiracy. The accused's manslaughter plea at this hearing was not as sensational as it might have been, because the public had no idea that after his arrest he had denied knowing Joanna Yeates and challenged the validity of the alleged forensic evidence against him. The judge and the QCs staged a highly theatrical discussion about evidence of the accused's sensational (but utterly phoney) "bad character". The outcome was that the judge Mr. Justice Field ruled that the jury must not hear this, and consequently the media must not report it until after the trial. Furthermore, the media were forbidden to report that this discussion had taken place, nor any details that the court might impose on the way the "evidence" might be represented. The prosecution used the "bad character evidence" to broker an astonishing, unreported deal that would prohibit the jury from hearing the far weightier evidence of the defendant's good character.

The media had six months to chew over the pornographic videos and the prostitutes. While the jury was out, Counsel for the Prosecution applied to the judge to continue the reporting restriction after the trial was over. Alarmed at the prospect of being denied a sensation, the media, who had had all their copy and research into prostitutes ready for months, banded together to hire a barrister, Adam Wolanski (who was jointly instructed by The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Sun newspapers and the BBC), and succeeded in getting the judge to lift the reporting restrictions on the "evidence" itself once the verdict had been delivered. The Press Association and the Bristol Evening Post had each made a separate written submission to the judge. However, he did not lift restrictions on reporting the date and place when the discussions had taken place, so the public assumed that these had been during the trial itself rather than six months previously.

There are also clear signs that the judge has imposed terms, especially on the editors of the serious media, to groom the media by censoring any reports of the "bad-character evidence" that go into sufficient depth to expose it for the confidence trick it is. It was also conspicuous that all the media abruptly started to use the insulting police "mugshot" of Vincent Tabak once he had been convicted, as if the judge had insisted on it as a condition of lifting reporting restrictions. In a shameless display of cronyism, several lawyers not connected with the case publicly praised the judge for withholding the "evidence" of Vincent Tabak's "bad character" from the jury to prevent his subsequently claiming that his trial had been unfair. However, the course of this case shows that as long as he is represented by Ian Kelcey, he is not going to be allowed to complain about anything.

The Daily Telegraph noted on 11th October 2011 that Counsel for the Prosecution "did not offer an explanation for why Tabak attacked Miss Yeates". Its correspondent Martin Evans did find out that San Luis Obispo, where Vincent Tabak stayed one night at his own expense during his five weeks in California in 2010, is about a four-hour drive north from Los Angeles (28th October 2011). The journalist even admitted that it was unclear whether he had made contact with escort girls in the area.

The behaviour of The Guardian was especially revealing, as it was through its "Soulmates" dating site that Vincent Tabak had met his girlfriend three years prior to the murder - and without her he would never have moved to Bristol. The Guardian made a great sensation out of Vincent Tabak's interest in porn and prostitutes, even though its readers might expect your average murderer to have these kinds of tastes anyway. The paper's correspondent, Steven Morris, had been in court and was well aware that Miss Yeates had neither been sexually assaulted nor engaged in consensual sex with Vincent Tabak. He can hardly have been unaware that, whatever the motive had been for strangling her, it had not been sex. Yet he wrote: "When police examined his background after his arrest over the death of Joanna Yeates they unearthed a secret life that they believe helps to explain why he killed his next-door neighbour... Police found that on the morning of the killing, 17 December 2010, Vincent Tabak had accessed a pornographic website, although it is not clear if he viewed any films" - "Detectives claim they established that he made late-night calls to numbers associated with escort agencies. In November Vincent Tabak went to California on business and again began researching sex sites and contacting escort agencies." (The Guardian, 28th October 2011.) Admittedly Steven Morris did report that San Luis Obispo was 150 miles from Los Angeles. Yet The Guardian never once raised with its educated readership the sensational and bizarre unlikelihood that anyone who was purposeful enough to obtain a Ph.D but had no motive would murder a complete stranger. The Guardian never once drew its readers' attention to the sympathetic appreciative humanity displayed in the Preface to Vincent Tabak's doctoral thesis nor the five years he had spent researching it.

The Independent's Mark Hughes and Sarah Morrison noted, in an article published one month after the disappearance of middle-class, photogenic Joanna Yeates from a wealthy neighbourhood (17th January 2011), that three other missing persons who vanished in the same week had gone unnoticed by the media. They failed to speculate about a possible link between Joanna's boyfriend and the police. When it came to the "bad character evidence", The Independent was no better than other serious media, belying its name and founding principles, and echoing all the other media, by emphasizing after the trial (29th October 2011) that the jury was not told about Vincent Tabak's "fetish for strangling blonde women". What possible difference did they expect it could have made to the jury's verdict of murder? Its journalist had had six months to reflect on the bizarre representation by the prosecution of the bespectacled young academic in court as a sexual pervert who stood accused of a motiveless murder with no sexual assault involved. Its journalists did not tell their readers that the jury was not told about Vincent Tabak's irreproachable character, high education and well-paid job (except by the defendant himself), owing to a sordid lawyers' deal that was kept from the public. With newspapers like that to dance to the police's and the prosecution's tune, who needs a Propaganda Minister and a secret police? Journalist Terri Judd described Vincent Tabak as “a fan of submission pornography in which women were choked, bound and gagged. His computers revealed violent images of females being held by the neck, degraded and sexually abused”, she continued luridly. “He surfed sex sites for escorts, using the cover of business trips for his assignations... His double life can only be revealed now... police revealed that his DNA had been sent out to forces around the UK, as well as his native Holland, to see if it matched with other sex attacks.” She did not bother to identify the police officers who made this peculiar revelation, nor did she seem to have taken in the fact that all the evidence presented in court had suggested that the attack on Joanna obviously had some other motive than sex.

The judge Mr. Justice Field refused to let the sex-fixated Counsel for the Prosecution Nigel Lickley QC tell the jury about Vincent Tabak’s allegedly “reprensible secret life” of viewing everyday internet pornography and contacting prostitutes, but after the trial he removed reporting restrictions on these. The judge entered into a deal with counsel to groom the journalists so that they would blazen Vincent Tabak's innocuous secrets in return for even the serious media not drawing the public's attention to his obvious lack of any real motive for the killing.

With the help of telephone numbers furnished by the prosecution, the tabloids had a field day after Vincent Tabak’s conviction, publishing interviews not given under oath, in which the call girls the journalists had contacted recounted their alleged encounters with Vincent Tabak the woman strangler. These encounters are certainly complete fabrications, as the shy Vincent Tabak did no more than engage in sexy telephone chat, and the prosecution would have lost no opportunity to present a sworn testimony in court to support its allegation of Vincent Tabak’s strangling fetish if he had ever tried anything like it with any prostitute. Not even the serious media stopped to think that publishing these allegations turned their readers and viewers into voyeurs and was a cruel violation of the innocent girlfriend’s private life. In further demonizing Vincent Tabak, even the serious media also disregarded the obviously huge scale of the sex industry and its implications for the large number of normal, non-strangling, loving men on business trips other than Vincent Tabak who pay for bedroom comforts as a substitute for those they are missing from their regular (and in many cases glamorous and loving) partners.

Until well into the 18th century, women who were convicted of prostitution in France and other countries were publicly humiliated as well as being cruelly punished. It can be conjectured that the men who had patronized them were particularly prominent among the crowds who turned out to watch their humiliation. After the ending of the 2nd world war, some of the women in the liberated countries who had fraternized with German soldiers were publicly humiliated by being stripped naked and shorn of their hair. It can also be conjectured that the lawyers and journalists who were so eager to humiliate Vincent Tabak publicly after his trial are themselves enthusiastic viewers of internet pornography and frequent clients of prostitutes while they are away on professional assignments.

There was something phoney about the way the media threw themselves upon Vincent Tabak's harmless personal and private secrets after the trial, mercilessly fuelled by the relentless and false insistence of the prosecution behind the jury's back that he had strangled Joanna Yeates for sex. It exposed the trial itself and the lawyers themselves as imposters. The orgy of the public humiliation of Vincent Tabak as an alleged sexual pervert with a strangulation fetish after the trial was deliberately instigated by the judge in collaboration with the prosecution. It had the effect of giving the media a very strong incentive never to reveal this obvious miscarriage of justice. If Vincent Tabak ever lifts his head again, the media all risk libel settlements that would make the landlord's look like pin money by comparison. Did the Attorney General, The Rt. Hon. Dominic Grieve QC, give the media an unreported licence to defame Vincent Tabak, on condition that they never reveal what they know about the sordid deal between Mr. Lickley and Mr. Clegg?

After Vincent Tabak was sentenced, a police spokesman read out a statement on behalf of the Yeates family, containing the following text: "The best we can hope for him is that he spends the rest of his life incarcerated, where his life is a living hell, being the recipient of all the evils, deprivations and degradations that his situation can provide." The purpose of the police's unsubstantiated allegation, made after the trial, about images of child abuse being found on Vincent Tabak's computer, was directed at the inmates of the prison where Vincent Tabak would be serving his sentence. In reporting this uncritically without exposing it for the fraud that it obviously was, the media was acting as a pseudo-judicial agency to instigate those inmates to carry out the Yeates family's wishes.

Lord Leveson's Inquiry

On 27th March 2012, Chief Constable Colin Port, Head of Corporate Communications Amanda Hirst and Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones were cross-examined at the Leveson Inquiry into the witness statements they had submitted about the conduct by Avon & Somerset Constabulary of the Joanna Yeates investigation, and about the role played by the media. The Inquiry failed to expose even a whisker of the massive conspiracy at the Old Bailey to delude the public, pervert the course of justice and subject the defendant to a subsidiary "trial by media" by the use of the so-called "bad character evidence" and the unreported suppression of "good character evidence" between 4th May and 28th October 2011.

The Leveson Inquiry failed to cross-examine the witnesses from Avon & Somerset Constabulary about two other issues of major ethical significance related to the Joanna Yeates case:

On his arrest, Vincent Tabak formally protested about the misuse of his case to promote LGC Forensics by means of stories leaked to selected newspapers. This can be seen both from the stories actually published and also from the trial, which was the first occasion when the general public learnt of his objections. The fact of his conviction does not lessen the legitimacy of this as a serious matter for public concern.
On Vincent Tabak's arrest, Amanda Hirst leaked stories to selected tabloids alleging (1) that this was the result of an anonymous tip-off the police had received from a weeping girl and (2) that his girlfriend had left him some time ago. Since the absence of any foundation for both of these allegations emerged at the trial, the systematic manipulation by police of the media to alienate a suspect's partner or spouse is a legitimate matter for public concern that is not lessened by his conviction



Hugh Grant and Divine Brown in police custody
The hypocrisy and malice of the media is revealed by the difference between their reaction in 2011 to Vincent Tabak's use of an adult services portal while away on two business trips with their reaction to that of British actor and Leveson Inquiry witness Hugh Grant, who in 1995 was convicted of illegally having sex with a prostitute in a car parked in a Los Angeles street. In contrast to the reporting of Vincent Tabak, no newspaper reported Grant’s misdemeanor as “Respectable life of loving boyfriend revealed as a sordid lie”. Even the journalists employed by the serious media - who themselves, of course, never view a pornographic video, nor visit a prostitute - were unanimous that it was a scandal that the jury trying Vincent Tabak was left ignorant of what "the police believed was important evidence". The real scandal is that the Leveson Inquiry remains ignorant of the important evidence Vincent Tabak could testify about his own "trial by media".
truthspoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-11-2012, 10:24 AM   #1483
yass
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 9,551
Likes: 10 (8 Posts)
Default

Off the top I hope this gets copied and sent to inmates at the prison Vincent Tabak is staying at. The more the better so maybe word gets around. It is said that a man knows the truth when he hears it.

I wonder if Tabak joined the masons then either told a secret or tried to quit them and this whole thing was orchestrated to punish him. I thought of all the characters in this, the judge, the lawyers, the media as practicing satanists.
__________________
:*¨¨*:··:*¨¨*:··:*¨¨*:··:*¨¨*:·:*¨ ¨*:··:*¨¨*:

You've been up all night just listening for his drum
Hoping that the righteous might just might just might just might just come
I heard the general whispering to his aide de camp
Be watchful for Mohammed's lamp
yass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-11-2012, 11:42 AM   #1484
dopey
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

The way press reported about VT after his conviction is no different from how they report any other person convicted of such a crime. They can, and do, say what they like and the more twisted what they report is, the more people will devour it. Its not right, but thats what always happens.

I dont see how this points to his innoocence though. I followed this case closely at the time. I'm open minded where all convictions are concerned but in his case I saw..or rather read...nothing to give me any serious doubts that he wasn't the one who did it.

The only thing I do recall being surprised about was the cat A prison they stuck him into whilst he was on remand.
dopey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-11-2012, 12:12 PM   #1485
truthspoon
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: North Africa........ The pirate-coast! Yarrh!
Posts: 20,360
Likes: 278 (169 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dopey View Post
The way press reported about VT after his conviction is no different from how they report any other person convicted of such a crime. They can, and do, say what they like and the more twisted what they report is, the more people will devour it. Its not right, but thats what always happens.

I dont see how this points to his innoocence though. I followed this case closely at the time. I'm open minded where all convictions are concerned but in his case I saw..or rather read...nothing to give me any serious doubts that he wasn't the one who did it.

The only thing I do recall being surprised about was the cat A prison they stuck him into whilst he was on remand.
Seems odd that his conviction seems to rest on the fact that his computer had porn on it, and one scene apparently had a man with his hands around a woman's neck.


The guy was framed for the crime to protect Jeffries, the arch classroom pervert and super-freemason scumbag.
truthspoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-11-2012, 12:21 AM   #1486
felixfelix
Restricted Profile
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,295
Likes: 2,070 (1,257 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dopey View Post

I dont see how this points to his innoocence though. I followed this case closely at the time. I'm open minded where all convictions are concerned but in his case I saw..or rather read...nothing to give me any serious doubts that he wasn't the one who did it.

The only thing I do recall being surprised about was the cat A prison they stuck him into whilst he was on remand.
The Cat A was to satisfy the mob.
Apart from his confession - and to me that seems crazy - what is there which is so compelling that he was a killer? Have you read all the "VT is "Innocent blog? Many serious doubts are raised there about the investigation and doubts raised over the judicial process - can you counter them all? It's a good base for discussion.

In a nutshell:

Woman invites complete stranger into her house. Man with no history of violence, in stable relationship tries to kiss woman unknown to him. Woman resists. Many strangles woman with his right hand only within seconds. Man carts body out of house alone into his car without anybody noticing, leaving no significant DNA trace during the process, and disposes of it. Man continues to act normally following the disapparance and the subsequently reported murder, but naturally curious about missing woman in his house....huge areas of interest and lines of inqiry completely ignored by cops.

It's not the real world.
felixfelix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-11-2012, 06:39 PM   #1487
yass
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 9,551
Likes: 10 (8 Posts)
Default


Leveson Inquiry
Gerry McCann (left) and Christopher Jefferies (right) launch a Hacked Off petition, outside the Houses of Parliament in London, to urge the Government to implement the recommendations made by the Leveson inquiry.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...#slide=1823047
__________________
:*¨¨*:··:*¨¨*:··:*¨¨*:··:*¨¨*:·:*¨ ¨*:··:*¨¨*:

You've been up all night just listening for his drum
Hoping that the righteous might just might just might just might just come
I heard the general whispering to his aide de camp
Be watchful for Mohammed's lamp
yass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-11-2012, 06:45 PM   #1488
big brother
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: the strip
Posts: 455
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yass View Post

Leveson Inquiry
Gerry McCann (left) and Christopher Jefferies (right) launch a Hacked Off petition, outside the Houses of Parliament in London, to urge the Government to implement the recommendations made by the Leveson inquiry.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...#slide=1823047
aaaaaaaarrrrrgggggghhhhh,nnnnnnnnnnooooooooooooooo ooooooo
big brother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-11-2012, 09:33 PM   #1489
truthspoon
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: North Africa........ The pirate-coast! Yarrh!
Posts: 20,360
Likes: 278 (169 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yass View Post

Leveson Inquiry
Gerry McCann (left) and Christopher Jefferies (right) launch a Hacked Off petition, outside the Houses of Parliament in London, to urge the Government to implement the recommendations made by the Leveson inquiry.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...#slide=1823047
Talk about fox and the henhouse.

Creepy. The unbridled gall of these people.... Still, the bigger the lie....

Last edited by truthspoon; 30-11-2012 at 09:34 PM.
truthspoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-11-2012, 11:25 PM   #1490
jondoeuk
Inactive
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: In My Head
Posts: 3,803
Likes: 4 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yass View Post

Leveson Inquiry
Gerry McCann (left) and Christopher Jefferies (right) launch a Hacked Off petition, outside the Houses of Parliament in London, to urge the Government to implement the recommendations made by the Leveson inquiry.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...#slide=1823047
Maybe they exchanged tips for the next time, oh wait their not that stupid
jondoeuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2012, 04:41 AM   #1491
zaren
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 26
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Few years ago I read that many of those who continually appear as if affected by a foul odour are in fact necrophiles. Movie producer A. Hitchcock was cited as one who habitually wore the expression and at least one current attention-hound has always fit the bill imo
zaren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2012, 08:01 AM   #1492
felixfelix
Restricted Profile
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,295
Likes: 2,070 (1,257 Posts)
Default

Quote:
aaaaaaaarrrrrgggggghhhhh,nnnnnnnnnnooooooooooooooo ooooooo
Now, watch this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...l-pervert.html

jefferies says:
"[I] had sold that flat to somebody else, who sold it to another person, it was that person who I eventually bought the flat from. There was a very considerable gap."

Now,
https://www.duedil.com/company/02526...limited/people
What I don't understand is that CJE Jefferies was a director of the management company of the house where Jo yeates was allegedly murdered, actually company secretary, from August 1991 to date.
Stephen Richard Johnston (convicted in March 2008, and sentenced to 7 years - but no contemporary reporting has survived on the web)

http://swns.com/news/chris-jefferies...lleague-12774/


was director from August 1991 until 11 June 1993, whereupon his position was immediately taken by Clifton College.

If Jefferies only bought the flat by such a long winded process, why was he a director of the company in 1991?? Did he live elsewhere in 1991-3?

Has Jefferies denied that he would burst into his tenants' flats unannounced? Has he sued the Telegraph?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ants-flat.html



The former tenants, who asked not to be named, rented one of the flats owned by Mr Jefferies in the Victorian mansion block where Miss Yeates lived, six years ago.

They claimed that he refused to let them fit a chain lock to their door after he allegedly let himself into their flat uninvited on several occasions.

The male tenant, 39, told the Daily Mirror: "On several occasions he even entered our flat unannounced. It was intrusive.

“He has a set of keys for all of the flats he lets out. I had a word with him and told him to only come in if it was pre-arranged."

Last edited by felixfelix; 06-12-2012 at 08:02 AM.
felixfelix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2012, 08:47 AM   #1493
truthspoon
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: North Africa........ The pirate-coast! Yarrh!
Posts: 20,360
Likes: 278 (169 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by felixfelix View Post
Now,
https://www.duedil.com/company/02526...limited/people
What I don't understand is that CJE Jefferies was a director of the management company of the house where Jo yeates was allegedly murdered, actually company secretary, from August 1991 to date.
Stephen Richard Johnston (convicted in March 2008, and sentenced to 7 years - but no contemporary reporting has survived on the web)

http://swns.com/news/chris-jefferies...lleague-12774/


was director from August 1991 until 11 June 1993, whereupon his position was immediately taken by Clifton College.

If Jefferies only bought the flat by such a long winded process, why was he a director of the company in 1991?? Did he live elsewhere in 1991-3?

Has Jefferies denied that he would burst into his tenants' flats unannounced? Has he sued the Telegraph?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ants-flat.html



The former tenants, who asked not to be named, rented one of the flats owned by Mr Jefferies in the Victorian mansion block where Miss Yeates lived, six years ago.

They claimed that he refused to let them fit a chain lock to their door after he allegedly let himself into their flat uninvited on several occasions.

The male tenant, 39, told the Daily Mirror: "On several occasions he even entered our flat unannounced. It was intrusive.

“He has a set of keys for all of the flats he lets out. I had a word with him and told him to only come in if it was pre-arranged."
He would also make lewd sexual allusions to his teenage students at the school he worked..

Textbook protected fruity paedo.

Last edited by truthspoon; 06-12-2012 at 08:48 AM.
truthspoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:49 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.