Tweets about the Case:

[[...]]

he wasnt wrong though was he? He said if they accept his plea of manslaughter...and if they had then the trial wouldnt have gone ahead!

My my.... Your a blast from the past...  Made me chuckle seeing your reply..

It's not so much what he said as when it was said... I keep saying Jixy that this case is made up from social media...

I find the man odd to be fair... I know nothing of him and he's built a reputation up from his appearances on TV... The little ITV clips of him only came to my attention because , in a way they are after the fact...  Because I found them when I started writing on here... And he was by this time all over the media..

I assumed he would be interested in this case.... But NO..!!

Question being, why did he even suggest that they might not accept the Manslaughter Plea?? 

This is what I do not understand... we should not have know that information before a trial had taken place..(imo) And of course we all knew about the Manslaughter Plea up until trial and all the way through trial...

Do you know Mark Williams Thomas Jixy... Is that what made you respond...

[[...]]

MWT has a verified account, but the person whom I have also quoted doesn't, I do not know if this has always been their name on twitter, but this is what they are called now.....

Lizard Hol Cottages
‏
@lizardpeninsula

On Thursday at The Old Bailey, Vincent Tabak charged with the murder of Joanna Yeates will declare if he is innocent or guilty of the charge

4:20 PM - 3 May 2011

Lizard Hol Cottages
‏
 
@lizardpeninsula
Follow Follow @lizardpeninsula
More
Sitting outside The Old Bailey in London waiting until Court 2 opens to hear how Vincent Tabak is going to plea in Joanna Yeates case.

8:27 AM - 5 May 2011

Mark Williams-Thomas
‏
Verified account
 
@mwilliamsthomas
Following Following @mwilliamsthomas
More
RT @rupertevelyn: Old Bailey list 4 tomorrow Ct 2 plea hearing for Vincent Tabak accused of killing Jo #yeates - http://tinyurl.com/3fb6fv9

9:22 PM - 4 May 2011

The reason for the post, is I do not know how a random person knows on the 3rd May 2011, that Dr Vincent Tabak is going to be at The Old bailey on the 5th may 2011... as far as I was aware most people were surprised by the sudden change of venue...

I know on leonora's blog that he had covered the Old bailey, and he may also be surprised at this information,

The original venue and date, Bristol Crown court on 4th May 2011, was changed at short notice, but the change was notified to the press, so anyone else who wished to be in court missed this hearing. Joanna Yeates’s parents, however, had been tipped off, and had travelled to London to be in court for the occasion. None of the defendant’s family or friends was in court.

Leornora, has extensively researched this case over many years.....

So how did some random person have the information on the 3rd May 2011 that the venue had been changed? It was only because MWT had tweeted on the 4th may 2011 that I could see that some in the media had known before hand.....

I just don't know when MTW started his career with the media.... Or did he just offer his advice to ITV at that time? He did a couple of pieces to camera about the case at the time... But I am not sure if he was classed as media back then....

But if he was, then his tweet of the 4th May 2011 confirms that the media were told by the 4th May 2011 that there had been a change of venue....

But the randomer?? How did they know?? A full day before anyone else appeared to know??

Did The Yeates hear about The Change of venue from The Police, or did they find out via twitter?? Seeing the tweet opens up all sorts of possibilities..

This person followed the case to a degree... They tweeted about Dr Vincent Tabak and him attending court, they have not tweeted about Joanna Yeates being Missing as far as I can see now...  They apparently attended Bristol Magistrates court on the 24th January 2011... An apparent packed venue.... I hadn't heard of anyone other than the media before being at this venue ,so it came as a surprise to me....  And whilst searching twitter, this is their first tweet about the case, as far as I can see.....

Lizard Hol Cottages
‏
@lizardpeninsula

Vincent Tabak will apply for bail tomorrow in connection with the Joanna Yeates murder. Made it into Court 1 @ Bristol today by 3 seats.

10:09 AM - 24 Jan 2011

So who are they.... and how did they manage to get the information about a change of venue, before anyone else appeared to know???? And how did they know that Dr Vincent Tabak would appear at Bristol Magistrates Court first thing on Monday 24th January 2011....

Dr Vincent Tabak's appearances at court appear to be this persons only interest in the case.....

Lizard Hol Cottages
‏
 
@lizardpeninsula
 29 Oct 2011
More
I am delighted he has been found guilty of the murder of Joanna Yeates. The skill of his deception lead the jury to take nearly 2.5 days....

Lizard Hol Cottages
‏
 
@lizardpeninsula
 3 May 2011
More
On Thursday at The Old Bailey, Vincent Tabak charged with the murder of Joanna Yeates will declare if he is innocent or guilty of the charge


Lizard Hol Cottages
‏
 
@lizardpeninsula
 5 May 2011
More
Vincent Tabak has plead GUILTY to the manslaughter of Joanna Yeates but INNOCENT of her murder!!!Trial will start in Bristol on 4th October



Lizard Hol Cottages
‏
 
@lizardpeninsula
 5 May 2011
More
Sitting outside The Old Bailey in London waiting until Court 2 opens to hear how Vincent Tabak is going to plea in Joanna Yeates case.

Lizard Hol Cottages
‏
 
@lizardpeninsula
 24 Jan 2011

Vincent Tabak charged with the murder of Joanna Yeates & his plea & direction hearing is scheduled for 29th April - the trial will b later.

Lizard Hol Cottages
‏
 
@lizardpeninsula
 5 May 2011
More
The job of the CPS is to now prove that Vincent Tabak is guilty of Joanna Yeates murder.


Lizard Hol Cottages
‏
 
@lizardpeninsula
 24 Jan 2011
More
Vincent Tabak will apply for bail tomorrow in connection with the Joanna Yeates murder. Made it into Court 1 @ Bristol today by 3 seats.

So are they connected to the Police?? The CPS?? The Media???

How did they end up with this information????

Edit..... I would attach images of these tweets but the site won't let me attach any.... don't understand why...

https://twitter.com/lizardpeninsula/status/65435606695690240

https://twitter.com/lizardpeninsula/status/66041424830939136

https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/65873924977737729

http://vincent-tabak-is-innocent.blogspot.com/2012/01/preliminary-hearings.html

https://twitter.com/lizardpeninsula/status/29480838034882560

[[...]]

I have found another interesting tweet by the random person, which peeked my interest:

Lizard Hol Cottages
‏
 
@lizardpeninsula
Follow Follow @lizardpeninsula
More
Vincent Tabak charged with the murder of Joanna Yeates & his plea & direction hearing is scheduled for 29th April - the trial will b later.

1:09 PM - 24 Jan 2011

Now I had to look up about a Plea and Direction hearing, of course not knowing law i had never heard of it.... The only article i could find on the subject was this....

LAW REPORT: New rules on Crown Court pre-trial hearings
LAW REPORT 18 September 1995

Practice Direction: Crown Court Plea and Direction Hearings; Lord Taylor of Gosforth, Lord Chief Justice; 25 July 1995

New rules establishing plea and directions hearings (PDHs) in the Crown Court now apply to all cases (other than serious fraud) in Crown Court centres which have notified magistrates' courts that such hearings have been introduced. At the PDH, pleas are taken and, in contested cases, prosecution and defence must assist the judge by identifying the key issues and providing any additional information required for the proper listing of the case.

Lord Taylor CJ said detailed operation of the rules, which replace those issued on 25 October 1994, will be a matter for the judiciary at each Crown Court centre. The main provisions are as follows.
In every case, other than serious fraud cases in which a notice of transfer to the Crown Court is given under s 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987, and child-abuse cases transferred under s 53 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, the magistrates' court should commit the defendant to appear in the Crown Court on a specified date, fixed in liaison with the Crown Court listing officer, for an initial PDH.

The purpose of the PDH will be to ensure that all necessary steps have been taken in preparation for trial and to provide sufficient information for a trial date to be arranged. Where practicable, the advocate briefed in the trial will normally be expected to appear at the PDH.

At least 14 days' notice of the PDH shall be given unless the parties agree to shorter notice. The PDH should be within six weeks of committal in cases where the defendant is on bail, and four weeks where the defendant is in custody.

Where the defendant intends to plead guilty to all or part of the indictment, the defence must notify the probation service, the prosecution and the court, as soon as this is known.

The defence must supply the court and the prosecution with a full list of the prosecution witnesses they require to attend at the trial. This must be provided at least 14 days prior to the PDH or within three working days of the notice of the hearing where the PDH is fixed less than 17 days ahead.

For all class 1 offences, and for lengthy and complex cases, a case summary should be prepared by the prosecution, to assist the judge at the PDH by indicating the nature of the case and focusing on the likely issues of fact and/or law. All class 2 cases should be scrutinised by the prosecution to determine whether such a summary is appropriate.

The PDH should normally be held, and orders made, in open court with all defendants present. It should normally be conducted by the trial judge or such judge as the presiding judge or resident judge shall appoint, but in cases in class 1 or 2 or serious sexual offences of any class against a child it should be conducted by a High Court judge or circuit judge or recorder to whom the case has been specifically released in accordance with the directions for the allocation of business within the Crown Court (see [1995] 2 All ER 900, [1995] 1 WLR 1083) or by a directions judge authorised by the presiding judges to conduct such hearings.

At the PDH, arraignments will normally take place. If the defendant pleads guilty, the judge should wherever possible proceed to sentencing.

Following a not guilty plea, and where part or alternative pleas have not been accepted, the prosecution and defence should inform the court of various matters (fully listed in the rules), including the issues in the case, issues as to the mental or medical condition of any defendant or witness, details about the witnesses and the evidence in the case, any facts which are to be admitted and may be reduced into writing, any alibi, any likely application for child witness evidence to be given by live television link or prerecorded video, or for screens to protect the identity of witnesses, any technical equipment likely to be required, the estimated length of the hearing and anything else that might affect the trial.

The judge may then make such orders as appear to be necessary. Each party shall confirm in writing, at least 14 days before the trial, that such orders have been fully complied with.

The defence shall apply to the court for the case to be listed for mention if they are unable to obtain instructions from the defendant. If the defendant fails to attend court, the judge will wish to consider whether a warrant of arrest should be issued.

The rules came into force immediately.

Does this explain what happened with this case? I don't even know if this still applies, but I find it interesting our random person has tweeted this....... They must have some connection to law.....

Following a not guilty plea, and where part or alternative pleas have not been accepted, the prosecution and defence should inform the court of various matters (fully listed in the rules), including the issues in the case, issues as to the mental or medical condition of any defendant or witness, details about the witnesses and the evidence in the case, any facts which are to be admitted and may be reduced into writing, any alibi, any likely application for child witness evidence to be given by live television link or prerecorded video, or for screens to protect the identity of witnesses, any technical equipment likely to be required, the estimated length of the hearing and anything else that might affect the trial.

This made me think about The prosecution not accepting Dr Vincent Tabaks Plea in May 2011..... So what other charges was he facing at the time??

Is the fact that a "plea and direction hearing" was mentioned important? Does that got to the fact that the child images were all ready being used as part of the case?


Going back to one of my posts....

Clio said:
05-04-2011 11:17 AM
Courtserve listing for the Old Bailey for tomorrow (5th May) states

Court 2 - sitting at 10:00 am


THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE FIELD

For Mention (Defendant to Attend)
U20110387 Vincent TABAK

Via PVL - Bristol Crown Court Case - T20117031
Wonder why it says "For Mention" rather than "Plea and Case Management"...

http://www.courtserve2.net/courtlist...T110505.01.htm

The defence shall apply to the court for the case to be listed for mention if they are unable to obtain instructions from the defendant. If the defendant fails to attend court, the judge will wish to consider whether a warrant of arrest should be issued.

So did the defence attend a Plea and direction hearing on the 29th April 2011??

Did the defence then apply for the "For Mention"??? It says the defendant is to attend.... But we know that came via video from Long Lartin.... We don't know if it was definitively Dr Vincent Tabak....  That has been questioned before by some...

The defence shall apply to the court for the case to be listed for mention if they are unable to obtain instructions from the defendant. If the defendant fails to attend court, the judge will wish to consider whether a warrant of arrest should be issued.

Therefore, the defence could not have received any instructions from their client Dr Vincent Tabak, if my understanding of why The Defence applies for a 'For mention" hearing...

And if they had not instructions from their client.... why on earth would Dr Vincent Tabak plead guilty to "Manslaughter"???



http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg444165#msg444165

https://twitter.com/lizardpeninsula/status/29526170806521856

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/law-report-new-rules-on-crown-court-pre-trial-hearings-1601692.html