The Defence Will State Their Case

[justsaying]

Why should Nine look at other cases? Numerous anomalies have been pointed out in this one!?

Because she will find that more or less the same "anomalies" will arise in other cases. Maybe these "anomalies" arise in this case because she has not been privy to all the legal documents and is relying on things like social media and news reports to gather her information...

[jixy]

That wasn't my point and I apologise if it's been taken out of context.

Not every one who looks at cases like this can remain objective because of the emotion it stirs up in them.

Why should Nine look at other cases? Numerous anomalies have been pointed out in this one!?

I agree.  Nine has put at lot of time and effort into this case and maybe looking at others both guilty and ones claiming to be innocent will give a better view on the issues she is having understanding this case.

[jixy]

Because she will find that more or less the same "anomalies" will arise in other cases. Maybe these "anomalies" arise in this case because she has not been privy to all the legal documents and is relying on things like social media and news reports to gather her information...

I replied before I read your reply. Its good to compare and maybe things will be clearer or maybe it will all look the same!

Some of the things seem strange that would have most probably happened if he had gone not guilty. Think that is a sticking point!

[justsaying]

I replied before I read your reply. Its good to compare and maybe things will be clearer or maybe it will all look the same!

Some of the things seem strange that would have most probably happened if he had gone not guilty. Think that is a sticking point!

Of course it is good to compare, the justice system is far from perfect -but that does not mean every person found guilty must be innocent... The answers he gave in court clearly scream guilt, and if I thought he were innocent before I certainly would not after reading what he said in court... Not that I ever have! He is a confessed killer and paedophile!

[jixy]

Not sure how you come to find this case or this forum justsaying but despite all the efforts and long posts, I havent changed my mind on Tabak either . In fact the more you read the worse it all sounds..

Conspiracy theories dont help. The facts known about that night, the meeting and how he came to be in the flat are only from what Tabak chose to put forward. Who knows what he was thinking or doing, whether he planned it or not.

I have yet to see one point raised that makes me think for a second he was wrongly convicted. The fact that he has never said that either confirms it

[Nicholas]

Thank you....

The confusion with me still lies.... Firstly I do not know when Clegg was first given this case to be the defence for Dr Vincent Tabak, I do not know what questions Clegg posed to Dr Vincent Tabak, as far as I am aware Dr Vincent Tabak stated nothing, his Police interviews according to DCI Phil Jones were of a No Comment variety, apart from something surrounding a mobile phone...

I believe Dr Vincent Tabak said nothing else..

He has had many solicitors representing him before he got to trial, we are not aware of what if anything Dr Vincent Tabak told Paul Cook, we do not know if the supposed confession stemmed from there....

We do not know if Paul Cook transferred any information he held on Dr Vincent Tabak to Clegg and his team.. And we do not know if Clegg acted upon what was in that information...

There may be a confession in there, there maybe not, we just don't know... This is why we need to know when Clegg first acted for Dr Vincent Tabak... What was Clegg aware of if anything... Because I still cannot understand why bail was never applied for.... I cannot understand why no-one applied for bail for this man....

We have a man whom has had a duty solicitor, a man who has had Paul Cook and Micheal Fitton represent him, yet we do not know why he changed council to Clegg.... And more importantly when he changed council to Clegg...

The only concrete piece of information I have in terms of anything legal, is the court case against various media publications.. A case that was settled I believe on the 29th July 2011, A case i cannot comprehend, why Dr Vincent Tabak's name was even mentioned, and mentioned in such a way that it was to leave everyone in no doubt that Dr Vincent Tabak was indeed the man that had killed Joanna Yeates..

The statement about Dr Vincent Tabak was used to prove to everyone that CJ was wholly innocent... Now I am not arguing that fact, that this case brought forth exactly... I am trying to understand, why Dr Vincent Tabak's name was even mentioned!!!

Not only was his name mentioned but his plea was mentioned.... According to the document, Dr Vincent Tabak pleaded not guilty to Murder on the grounds of Diminished Responsibility...  But guilty to manslaughter....

Now I am a bit of a stickler... I like to understand why....

I like to understand how that may transpire within a legal setting... Did everyone at this time know the details, of how and why Dr Vincent Tabak apparently killed Joanna Yeates??

Manslaughter and Murder are two completely different charges and carry considerably different sentences...

 
Mental State.....  Did Dr Vincent Tabak speak out of turn or did he speak on the advice of his council??   Was Clegg at the hearing at The Old bailey in May 2011??

The glaringly obvious part of the whole trial, was that "Diminshed Responsibilities" NEVER played a part in the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak, when clearly we see here that there was apparent grounds for him to do so.... There was NO medical expert called to the stand to tell us of Dr Vincent Tabak's state of mind... Ad what is more glaringly obvious is that the Defence, never once stated that Dr Vincent Tabak denied murder on The Grounds of Diminshed Responsibilities....

The who trial was based around intent... No mitigating factors reached the juries ears... Nothing to tell the Jury why a Placid Dutchman, had for NO apparent reason, decided to kill his next door neighbour he had never met...


So what were the Grounds for Diminished Responsibilities?? Why did Clegg NOT follow that through?? Did Clegg believe at that point that Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty of Murder?? I don't know.... But what I do know is that the Defence was lacking in Dr Vincent Tabak's trial.. I believe The Defence could have been more robust... I believe the Defence could have supported Dr Vincent Tabak better.....

I'm going to be a mind reader now and guess what people may say on this matter.... That there was no mental health issue that Dr Vincent Tabak had, therefore Clegg couldn't use tis as a Defence....

But I would come back to the fact that everyone appeared to already know that Dr Vincent Tabak was going to plead guilty... The Yeates had taken a special trip to be at The Old Bailey, when everyone else was left stumped and was still waiting to see Dr Vincent Tabak appear at Bristol Crown Court.... And found themselves waiting to see Dr Vincent Tabak and what may transpire... Yet they found out that there had been a sudden shift of venue...

So.. If everyone was aware that Dr Vincent Tabak was going to enter a plea of guilt, that in itself tells us that The Defence should know what the plea is going to be and on what grounds.... It stands to reason...(imo)

In saying that I am of the understanding whether correct or not that Dr Vincent Tabak's council was aware of Dr Vincent Tabak's plea and that Dr Vincent Tabak's plea was that he did not Murder Joanna Yeates on the grounds of diminished responsibilities..

Whether or not we believe that Dr Vincent Tabak had grounds for a case of diminished responsibilities, we need to know whether or not council advised their client to plead on said grounds... Was council shocked, that their client stated this... I don't know...

I have wondered what the story then would have been stated on the stand, if "Diminished Responsibilities" was entered into the argument... Would it have changed?? 

You see, this opens up  a whole can of worms,... Clegg states he will only say what happened and not defend a man who admits to Murder... He may advise his client and mitigating circumstance should come into play, I believe...

But we have a story....

A story that after passing a window on his way to Asda, he was invited in, chatted for 10 minutes, took his coat off and hung it on a stand, was offered a drink, declined said drink, chatted and he misinterpreted Joanna Yeates sunny disposition for flirting, he moved in for a kiss, she screamed, he tried to silence her, she screamed again and within 20 seconds she was dead.......

We have to believe that when Dr Vincent Tabak made his plea at the Old bailey, The Defence where fully aware of what had taken place at this point... We have to believe that The Defence knew the story that Dr Vincent Tabak was to tell us on the stand...

Did Dr Vincent Tabak just ignore his council and blurt out that he denied Murder on the grounds of diminished responsibilities and council could not control their client.. Or did council advise Dr Vincent Tabak on said plea??

Begging the question what mental health problems did Dr Vincent Tabak suffer from, to go from a Placid Computer geek, to a killer within 10 minutes... Attacking and killing his next door neighbour for NO apparent reason...

We have been made aware that Dr Vincent Tabak did not know Joanna Yeates in any shape or form.... Well .. nothing was stated at trial for us to believe any different... One question that could have been put, was did Dr Vincent Tabak ever communicate with the person we know as Joanna Yeates.. Did he ever have a time when he maybe talked via the internet to a person with a username, that may well have been Joanna Yeates??

It may seem an odd question, but I do not understand why a man would kill his next door neighbour, why his next door neighbour would welcome into her home a complete stranger, when she was alone and not very comfortable with the idea... "NO FORCED ENTRY"... that has been established long ago... It was all over the news.... So why would Joanna Yeates invite Dr Vincent Tabak into her home at night, having never meet or set eyes on him before...

A lady with street smarts I would say... A lady who cannot have been that lonely that she would invite a stranger into her home and offer them a drink.... A lady if we remember was enjoying pre christmas drinks with work colleagues, whom see could have stayed with if she was that lonely and in need of company....

But lets not detract too much...  I want to under stand , how the story that was told on the stand could come under the guise of "Diminished Responsibilities"? How anything in that story no matter how small or insignificant, would have a jury believing that Dr Vincent Tabak may have had a mental episode.... For him to plead diminished responsibilities in May 2011, either was a case of Dr Vincent Tabak having at that time a 'Mental Episode"  and unbeknown to his council decided to throw this plea out there... Or council knew why Dr Vincent Tabak plead guilty to Murder on the grounds of diminished responsibilities.....

Either way Dr Vincent Tabak should have had a psychiatric evaluation... (imo) To either establish why a man of apparent sound mind, whom apparently hadn't said anything up until this point, would suddenly exclaim he was not guilty of Murder on said grounds....

Or that council advised him to plead this way.... And if council advised him to plead this way, on what grounds of diminished responsibility were council going to introduce at trial, and why didn't council introduce grounds for diminished responsibility at trial??

Did Council have the story in May 2011 of how Joanna Yeates came to her demise?? If not why not....
Why allow there client to make such a statement at the Old bailey if that were the case....

And if council had these events in there possession and knew what Dr Vincent Tabak had done...what was so extraordinary about Dr Vincent Tabaks mental state, that he entered a plea of not  guilty to Murder on the Grounds of Diminished Responsibility.... When the story told on the stand wouldn't support that , as there were NO witness's called for Dr Vincent Tabak to state otherwise....

So maybe you can understand why I get confused, why i do not see this case as fair in any shape or form... And why I always have questions i feel need answering...


http://iclr.co.uk/document/2011201901/%5B2011%5D%20EWHC%202074%20(Admin)/html

Continuing from my above post about Diminished Responsibilities.......

What evidence did council have to put forward such a plea??

What was missing from Dr Vincent Tabak's statement that was told on the stand that could possibily hint that there could be a remote possibility that Grounds of Diminished Responsibility could be used as a defence?

The truth was not stated at this trial... that is for sure....

If Dr Vincent Tabak never admitted to "MURDER" to the defence, what did he say to them, as we are aware he couldn't have represented him as Justsaying posted..

Because he cannot have said it was an accident as I was trying to stifle her screams... Diminished Responsibilities therefore would not have come into his plea at the Old Bailey....

What parts of this story are Missing?? And if they are Missing why?? Or is nothing Missing?

Thinking about this.... Say I am the defence council, my client has told me how when and where said deed was committed, and how this accident came about...  Would I then go to The Old Bailey and try to cop a plea of not guilty to Murder on The Grounds of Diminished Responsibilities??

You see I don't know how the law works, so I am stumped.... 

(A): Diminished Responsibilities = Mental Health Grounds

(B): Manslaughter = Accident no intent

(C): The charge should have been changed to manslaughter??

(D): The intent was not to kill and I therefore do not need to enter a plea at this time, being the 5th May 2011, as
       the charge still stands at MURDER

* Again if we go with (A), then on what mental health grounds did Dr Vincent Tabak believe would support his story
   on the stand?

* If I go with (B), then Manslaughter should have been the charge

* If I go with (C), why wasn't the charge changed??

* And if I settled on (D) why would Dr Vincent Tabak enter a plea of not guilty to Murder on the Grounds of
   Diminished Responsibilities on the 5th May 2011? Why would he simply not say NOT GUILTY!  And leave it until
   trial for the jury to decide whether or not this was an accident or whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak intended to kill
   Joanna Yeates as the charge was not changing anytime soon.


This is where my lack of knowledge fails me.... This is why I cannot understand why a plea of Not Guilty to Murder on the grounds of Diminished Responsibilities was entered into at all and why we know this fact as the document tells us so....

The Defence Council could do with making their position clear for this time, because even if i do not know the law, the fact that "Diminished Responsibilities" was put forward as part of Dr Vincent Tabak's plea... We need to understand why this fact appears to have been ignored..... And why Dr Vincent Tabak, himself or his council would enter such a plea in May 2011, when at trial in October 2011 the case for the Defence was about intent...

Therefore making me question why in the first place "A" plea to Not Guilty To Murder on The Grounds of Diminished Responsibility was ever entered into!!


Confused.. Yes....

"The prosecution has refused to accept Tabak's manslaughter plea and a murder trial will go ahead on 4 October.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-13290187

"He researched "body decomposition time" and an article about a man who strangled his wife and pleaded diminished responsibility. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/oct/19/vincent-tabak-joanna-yeates-death

Homicide Act 1957
2 Persons suffering from diminished responsibility.

(1)Where a person kills or is a party to the killing of another, he shall not be convicted of murder if he was suffering from such abnormality of mind (whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury) as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing.
(2)On a charge of murder, it shall be for the defence to prove that the person charged is by virtue of this section not liable to be convicted of murder.
(3)A person who but for this section would be liable, whether as principal or as accessory, to be convicted of murder shall be liable instead to be convicted of manslaughter.
(4)The fact that one party to a killing is by virtue of this section not liable to be convicted of murder shall not affect the question whether the killing amounted to murder in the case of any other party to it.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/5-6/11/section/2/1991-02-01?timeline=true


His pre trial assessment reports (medical report) most probably showed he was of sound mind.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/docs/2015/crim-proc-rules-2015-part-25.pdf

https://mentalhealthcop.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/diminshed-responsibility/

"The 2012 FBI report states that the unique ability of psychopathic criminals to manipulate law enforcement authorities poses legitimate challenges for the criminal justice system. During interrogations, psychopaths are not sensitive to altruistic interview themes such as sympathy for their victims or remorse for their criminal acts.

As a result of their arrogance and illusions of invulnerability, they are more likely than non-psychopaths to deny charges brought against them by authorities. According to the FBI, there is also evidence that psychopaths are able to influence the system to either receive reduced sentences or appeal their sentences to a higher court.

This is likely due to the fact that psychopaths are extremely meticulous, compulsive and relentless by nature which helps them to coerce criminal justice practitioners. Moreover, psychopaths are very adept at imitating emotions such as remorse or guilt in the courtroom if they believe it will mitigate their punishment.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/wicked-deeds/201605/understanding-psychopathic-criminals

[[...]]

I agree.  Nine has put at lot of time and effort into this case and maybe looking at others both guilty and ones claiming to be innocent will give a better view on the issues she is having understanding this case.

Claims of Innocence are not proof of Innocence, and silence is not proof of guilt either... The reasons for staying silent may be many... To protect someone else who may be guilty... To protect someone else who may be threatened.. To make sure your incarceration isn't anymore difficult than it needs to be... Or to go towards a parole hearing where an admission of responsibility for the crime you are incarcerated for will aid in your release...

Not everyone will be heard either.... there are many whom have made claims of Innocence and it is only new evidence and a team of people whom believe in that persons Innocence that may get somewhere in to getting freedom and justice for that person...

But as in this case, there is virtually no-one who believes in Dr Vincent Tabak's Innocence or the suggestion that he may be innocent and seem to need a declaration from him since his sentence to shed light on a conviction that a few may feel is unsafe...

There is no team batting in his corner... There are no lawyers tackling this case, there are no members of the public even looking at this case.... Dr Vincent Tabak had legal aid for his trial, he obviously does not have the funds to start fighting his case therefore one would need a pro bono lawyer to fight for him as for some reason he was not entitled for an appeal... And that is probably because he stated that he was guilty and told a story on the stand....

But..... And it is a long but... questions should be asked, questions should be asked of the police in this case, a case where we were all too aware from the beginning what apparently took place and what didn't...

A case where the media appeared to have unprecedented access to an Investigation of a Missing person... Where from the very start we knew who was who.... Why would the Police allow this access.... Access onto what could be the first scene of crime and the secondary scene of crime... People wandering about crime scenes whom have no business being there....

* We knew about what apparently had been left behind,

* We knew that the neighbour from 42, Canygne Road had been taken in to answer questions and assist the Police
   with there Inquiries,

* We knew that CJ saw 3 people at the gate...

* We knew that Rebecca Scott had called Joanna Yeates on the evening of the 17th December 2010,

* We knew which shops she had visited,

* We knew that the Police said Greg was a witness and not a suspect,

* We knew that Greg had been away for the weekend,

* We knew that Greg had his car jump started by neighbours...

* We knew that an old man handed in a sock, we see images of this happening at Canygne Road...

* We knew what time the Police contacted Rebecca Scott...

* We knew that text messages had been sent...

* We were informed by the family they believed their daughter had been abducted and to bolster that idea the
   media pan right to CJ and his knowledge of seeing people at the gate... But the Police do not confirm or deny the
   yeates fears...

* We knew the Pizza was Missing...

* We knew the sock was Missing...

* We knew that a note had been sent to the Ram,

* We knew that she had a cat...

* We knew that there was NO forced entry...

* We knew that there were injuries, that changed from insignificant to 43 injuries whilst fighting for her life...

* We knew she was discovered somewhere on Longwood lane....

* We knew that the Police respond immediately to this Missing persons case with full attention., leaving no-one in
   any doubt that foul play had to be a reasonable possibility.... 

* We saw many fire engines attending the second scene of crime planting firmly in our minds that something of
   great significance had happened...

* We have the press allowed to enter the flat during the trial to show anyone who may have an interest what the
   crime scene looked like... telling us it is frozen in time , when it is apparent that it is not....

* We have the press having access to the back on the building, whilst snow is still on the ground, where under said
   snow any evidence may have been disturbed, or trodden into the ground...

* We know about the earring found...

* We have web pages giving us information that contradicts the apparent evidence.. by this I mean the date of
   Gregs phone call to the Police..

* We are constantly pointed in a direction by the Police and their use of the media.. A Police Force who could curtail
   the media's access and there distance from any possible crime scene...  People whom could have been possible
   witness's getting their story in the papers....

* We know that various witness's whom heard various screams on various days at various times....

* We know DS Mark Saunders telling us they have CCTV of Canygne Road for that time... 

* We know that Gre went to Sheffield for the weekend

* We know when Greg returned from Sheffield...

* We know he went to see his nieces

* We know Rebecca Scott recorded an Interview telling us what a great couple Greg and Joanna were..

* We know that Joanna Yeates visited the Hope and Anchor at lunchtime

* We know the Police had a Facebook advert

* We saw a full on Forensics taking place, for what should have been a Missing person..

* We knew the landlord was arrested

* We has various ex Policemen giving us there take on what had happened, before she was even discovered...

* We have the media permanently parked outside 44,Canygne Road whilst she is a Missing person and during the
   investigation to find her killer..

* We have Geoffrey Hardyman brought to our attention, in a way as to suggest a serial killer is at large..

* We have the head of The Complex Crime Unit Investigation Dr Vincent Tabak in Late December 2010, when
   realistically there was no evidence at this time to suspect him...

* We know the Pizza and packaging were separate, As no sign of either was at the Flat, and the Police mention the
   packaging as a separate item, not that they were taken away or that Joanna Yeates got a lift from someone had
   shared her Pizza around at their home...

* We know the last sighting was at the Hop House Pub

* We know a couple walking their dog found Joanna Yeates on Longwood Lane

* We know that the Ikea delivery men delivered Furniture to Joanna Yeates Flat on the 9th November 2010

*  We knew he keys, purse and bankcards were at home..

* We Know that a receipt for a Pizza had been found

* We knew that the Flat was in a mess

* We knew that cider had been drunk from a bottle

* We knew there was No signs of a struggle, as Greg Reardon would have called the Police sooner

* We knew how long Greg and Joanna had been together..

* We knew that Joanna Yeates had been strangled

* We knew that her body had frozen

* We knew Tanja Morson was Dr Vincent Tabak's girlfriend

* We knew that Dr Vincent Tabak had moved out of Canygne Road

* We knew the apparent layout of the basement flats

* We knew that the Police carried bags and bags of Forensics out of the Flat

* We knew that a suitcase or some similar was used to transport Joanna yeates from the Flat

* We knew it was called Operation Braid

* We Knew that samples of DNA were found on Joanna yeates Jeans

* We knew samples of DNA were found on her body

* A sexual assault was being implied

*  We knew of the times Joanna Yeates visited each shop

* We knew that Rebecca Scott and Joanna Yeates talked of their Christmas plans

* We knew all about Dr Vincent Tabak and his girlfriend before he was charged with this crime

* We knew that Dr Vincent Tabak had a brother called Marcel

* We knew Dr Vincent Tabak had a mother called sonia

* We knew that his father had died

* We knew he was Dutch

* We knew Joanna Yeates apparently arrived home at 8:45pm

* We knew that Joanna Yeates final text message was sent to Mathew Wood

* We knew that Joanna Yeates was found fully clothed

* We knew that her boots were found at home

* We knew her coat was found at home

* We knew she was home alone

* We knew that Joanna Yeates didn't always answer her phone or respond to text messages

* We knew that Joanna Yeates phone still worked after not being charged all weekend

* We knew that the front door was removed

We knew virtually every little bit of information about this case before it had gone to trial.... At trial nothing significant or new came out.. Nothing in Dr Vincent Tabak's tale on the stand, differed from the information everybody already knew about this case...

This is another reason the story on the stand bothers me.... Another reason to question why nothing different came to trial than was already held in the public domain.... Anyone and I mean anyone could have said they had done it, and told the exact same story as Dr Vincent Tabak told.... Because anyone who followed the story knew all the detail already.....

The surprises only came after trial, when DCI Phil Jones tells us that a trainer with blood spots on them were under the kitchen sink, And Colin Port stating that The Hop House Pub was the last known sighting of Joanna yeates...

Shouldn't it have been Dr Vincent Tabak revealing something nobody knew about this case whilst he was on the stand, so as to put to bed any doubts anyone may have about said story.....

I wonder why the Justice System appeared happy with the so called evidence that was at the trial, where everything we heard had already been stated or said, where the only knew thing that came to light was that Joanna Yeates had a flower patterned top on, clearly suggesting she had either been re-dressed, or that she had changed her own clothes at some point.... No wonder Dr Vincent Tabak couldn't answer over 80 questions, if he had no idea what the answer to those questions should be ..as everything else he stated had been in the public domain before trial....

And that is really the point.... There should have been real evidence at trial.. something that only connected the killer to Joanna Yeates.. Something that would categorically to to bed any doubts that people may have had....

The Prosecution themselves should have had something to offer at trial we didn't already know....  And i don't mean putting someone in a boot of a car, which miraculously had no evidence inside, apart from a spot of blood that was on the rubber seal according to DCI Phil Jones.... Dr Vincent Tabak managed to put Joanna yeates body in a cover as to stop any transfer, odd that seeing as we had already heard about some type of item being used to transport her in from the flat....

So the story told on the stand, basically mirrored what was stated in the press... Hardly evidence of Dr vincent Tabak being the man that killed Joanna Yeates...(imo)

[jixy]

I agree Nine that claiming to be innocent is indeed not proof but you cant say staying silence isnt proof of guilt can you?

He didnt stay silent. He said he was guilty in a court of law and went on long enough to say sorry. That isnt silence. Maybe guilt did take over and he was genuine about his remorse. We dont know him or know anyone who does to know that is in fact the case either. He said it and lets hope for the family he did mean it!

We could go on and on with various scenarios about why he said sorry but we will never know!

[Nicholas]

I haven' t posted theories really Jixy...  Since when have internet searches been proof of committing a crime??

And your entitled to your opinion, which differs to mine.

And i'll reiterate.. I don't know what made him make a plea of guilty to manslaughter..

If he made a plea of guilt.. you still have to back it up with concrete evidence.

If the case is closed...??   " SEND" Dr Vincent Tabak Back to his own country to serve out his sentence.. his family didn't commit any crimes, his mother is  old.. it's called compassion for them... The Tabak family are guilty off nothing!!!

This Country might despise him with a passion, But his family loves him..... 

So what is wrong with sending Dr Vincent Tabak back to Holland to serve his sentence???

You have him in Prison...  The Dutch want there offenders back to their own country, It's part of the stipulation of their EU Treaty...... which I posted the other day...

Maybe there should be a thread on sending him Back to Holland!!!!!!

Quite honestly I'd cry... He's in a hopeless situation..

Think its called Catch22

Ive looked back at a few of your first posts Nine in order to try to understand how you got involved in this case and where your interest in alleged miscarriages of justice stemmed from?

With regards his plea of manslaughter have you considered he could be a psychopath attempting to get a lesser sentence for his crimes?

And can I ask you what you consider to be "concrete evidence" with regards a plea of guilt/confession to murder?

And why a guilty plea in a court of law doesn't suffice for you?

[jixy]

Everything that we know about the case looks like Tabak was trying to get a lesser sentence. From the start  of the posts to now there doesnt seem to be anything new available that says otherwise.

Any mention of the internet searches connected to the case are always dismissed for one reason or another when they are valid to his case and decision to admit to manslaughter

[jixy]

I do not understand why no-one questions this case....  Maybe it is time this case was used to highlight the flawed Justice System.... Because if i as a person with no real knowledge of the law can highlight many problems I see with this case... Just think what an educated person with such knowledge could do.....

Or is there a reason they won't??  I don't know....

How many cases do you know of that have been questioned and challenged after someone has said they are guilty and never changed that acknowledgement themselves?

[Nicholas]

Dr Vincent Tabak was a extremely competent computer user, more than competent, he had an understanding that is greater than most people, the pic i've attached shows Dr Vincent Tabaks Qualifications and Computer skills..

Under Activities it describes that Dr Vincent tabak: Programming Active Server Pages (ASP)

(Did you understand that, because I didn't)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Server_Pages

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

I don't understand why his Lawyer didn't direct the Jury as to Dr Vincent Tabaks knowledge of Computing and his ability to program computer, Dr Tabak Mentions Computer Science.

So..Why didn't he show them what Asp programming was, why didn't he show the Jury Computer Script, most wouldn't be able to understand it, but it would have created doubt as to why Someone who is so computer literate would leave damning evidence on his computer, or just get rid of the hard drive.

Why Not?  He helped the Prosecution

Had the Jury know of Dr Vincent Tabaks abilities they might have found the Prosecutions claim difficult to believe...

If he is computer literate and had Committed this crime before he went to Holland, why didn't he take the hard drive with him, dump it somewhere.
(Apparently he was clever enough to dump a pizza and sock)

He clearly has a great understanding and education in Computing and would be extremly aware of what could be perceived as damaging evidence against him..
 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/nov/02/vincent-tabak-trial-tweeted

So did the computer evidence show Intention?

Because that was the only EVIDENCE they had as a way to persuade the JURY that Dr Vincent Tabak intended to murder...

If he Intended to Murder someone that evening, why didn't he just walk the streets?

He had been out earlier... He had a keen Interest in Photography..

Why Didn't his Defence mention Dr Vincent Tabak had opportunity that evening to MURDER anyone!!

If searches cannot prove intent,.. How could the Prosecution have proven Dr Vincent Tabak Intended to do anything

Like I originally posted.. when I saw Dr Vincent Tabak on the stand, I saw a man just going through the motion's..

A man that was not being defended.... A man that could see his Defence was not trying to help him,(IMO) was not challenging anything that the Prosecution placed in front of a JURY..

He just sat there as this supposed Evidence was being piled upon him..

So I can clearly understand Dr Vincent Tabak sobbing in court.. He knew the situation was hopeless, because nobody was there to help him..

No Character Witness's called to testify to his nature
No Tanja Morson called to testify to their relationship or Dr Vincent Tabak's behaviour.
No Christopher Jefferies to say whether or not he had indeed seen Dr Vincent Tabak that evening or moved the car.
No Family to testify what A loving son he is and they couldn't understand him being charged.
No employer to testify as to his Character.
No friends to testify to any knowledge they had good/or bad
Even his Lawyer had nothing good to say about him...
That's when I thought his Goose was cooked, If Your Lawyer is against you.. You must be Guilty.. (IMO)

No Neighbours who knew him to say:http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/10/28/joanna-yeates-murder-tria_n_1063591.html

Infact he didn't have anything going for him...

Because people wanted him to be the Monster..

And if you call that a fair Trial.... In My Opinion It isn't..

Though our country prided itself on being Fair Open and Honest..

In My Opinion this Trial was far from being a FAIR FIGHT...

Were you at his trial Nine?

[Nicholas]

Claims of Innocence are not proof of Innocence, and silence is not proof of guilt either... The reasons for staying silent may be many... To protect someone else who may be guilty... To protect someone else who may be threatened.. To make sure your incarceration isn't anymore difficult than it needs to be... Or to go towards a parole hearing where an admission of responsibility for the crime you are incarcerated for will aid in your release...

Not everyone will be heard either.... there are many whom have made claims of Innocence and it is only new evidence and a team of people whom believe in that persons Innocence that may get somewhere in to getting freedom and justice for that person...

But as in this case, there is virtually no-one who believes in Dr Vincent Tabak's Innocence or the suggestion that he may be innocent and seem to need a declaration from him since his sentence to shed light on a conviction that a few may feel is unsafe...

There is no team batting in his corner... There are no lawyers tackling this case, there are no members of the public even looking at this case.... Dr Vincent Tabak had legal aid for his trial, he obviously does not have the funds to start fighting his case therefore one would need a pro bono lawyer to fight for him as for some reason he was not entitled for an appeal... And that is probably because he stated that he was guilty and told a story on the stand....

But..... And it is a long but... questions should be asked, questions should be asked of the police in this case, a case where we were all too aware from the beginning what apparently took place and what didn't...

A case where the media appeared to have unprecedented access to an Investigation of a Missing person... Where from the very start we knew who was who.... Why would the Police allow this access.... Access onto what could be the first scene of crime and the secondary scene of crime... People wandering about crime scenes whom have no business being there....

* We knew about what apparently had been left behind,

* We knew that the neighbour from 42, Canygne Road had been taken in to answer questions and assist the Police
   with there Inquiries,

* We knew that CJ saw 3 people at the gate...

* We knew that Rebecca Scott had called Joanna Yeates on the evening of the 17th December 2010,

* We knew which shops she had visited,

* We knew that the Police said Greg was a witness and not a suspect,

* We knew that Greg had been away for the weekend,

* We knew that Greg had his car jump started by neighbours...

* We knew that an old man handed in a sock, we see images of this happening at Canygne Road...

* We knew what time the Police contacted Rebecca Scott...

* We knew that text messages had been sent...

* We were informed by the family they believed their daughter had been abducted and to bolster that idea the
   media pan right to CJ and his knowledge of seeing people at the gate... But the Police do not confirm or deny the
   yeates fears...

* We knew the Pizza was Missing...

* We knew the sock was Missing...

* We knew that a note had been sent to the Ram,

* We knew that she had a cat...

* We knew that there was NO forced entry...

* We knew that there were injuries, that changed from insignificant to 43 injuries whilst fighting for her life...

* We knew she was discovered somewhere on Longwood lane....

* We knew that the Police respond immediately to this Missing persons case with full attention., leaving no-one in
   any doubt that foul play had to be a reasonable possibility.... 

* We saw many fire engines attending the second scene of crime planting firmly in our minds that something of
   great significance had happened...

* We have the press allowed to enter the flat during the trial to show anyone who may have an interest what the
   crime scene looked like... telling us it is frozen in time , when it is apparent that it is not....

* We have the press having access to the back on the building, whilst snow is still on the ground, where under said
   snow any evidence may have been disturbed, or trodden into the ground...

* We know about the earring found...

* We have web pages giving us information that contradicts the apparent evidence.. by this I mean the date of
   Gregs phone call to the Police..

* We are constantly pointed in a direction by the Police and their use of the media.. A Police Force who could curtail
   the media's access and there distance from any possible crime scene...  People whom could have been possible
   witness's getting their story in the papers....

* We know that various witness's whom heard various screams on various days at various times....

* We know DS Mark Saunders telling us they have CCTV of Canygne Road for that time... 

* We know that Gre went to Sheffield for the weekend

* We know when Greg returned from Sheffield...

* We know he went to see his nieces

* We know Rebecca Scott recorded an Interview telling us what a great couple Greg and Joanna were..

* We know that Joanna Yeates visited the Hope and Anchor at lunchtime

* We know the Police had a Facebook advert

* We saw a full on Forensics taking place, for what should have been a Missing person..

* We knew the landlord was arrested

* We has various ex Policemen giving us there take on what had happened, before she was even discovered...

* We have the media permanently parked outside 44,Canygne Road whilst she is a Missing person and during the
   investigation to find her killer..

* We have Geoffrey Hardyman brought to our attention, in a way as to suggest a serial killer is at large..

* We have the head of The Complex Crime Unit Investigation Dr Vincent Tabak in Late December 2010, when
   realistically there was no evidence at this time to suspect him...

* We know the Pizza and packaging were separate, As no sign of either was at the Flat, and the Police mention the
   packaging as a separate item, not that they were taken away or that Joanna Yeates got a lift from someone had
   shared her Pizza around at their home...

* We know the last sighting was at the Hop House Pub

* We know a couple walking their dog found Joanna Yeates on Longwood Lane

* We know that the Ikea delivery men delivered Furniture to Joanna Yeates Flat on the 9th November 2010

*  We knew he keys, purse and bankcards were at home..

* We Know that a receipt for a Pizza had been found

* We knew that the Flat was in a mess

* We knew that cider had been drunk from a bottle

* We knew there was No signs of a struggle, as Greg Reardon would have called the Police sooner

* We knew how long Greg and Joanna had been together..

* We knew that Joanna Yeates had been strangled

* We knew that her body had frozen

* We knew Tanja Morson was Dr Vincent Tabak's girlfriend

* We knew that Dr Vincent Tabak had moved out of Canygne Road

* We knew the apparent layout of the basement flats

* We knew that the Police carried bags and bags of Forensics out of the Flat

* We knew that a suitcase or some similar was used to transport Joanna yeates from the Flat

* We knew it was called Operation Braid

* We Knew that samples of DNA were found on Joanna yeates Jeans

* We knew samples of DNA were found on her body

* A sexual assault was being implied

*  We knew of the times Joanna Yeates visited each shop

* We knew that Rebecca Scott and Joanna Yeates talked of their Christmas plans

* We knew all about Dr Vincent Tabak and his girlfriend before he was charged with this crime

* We knew that Dr Vincent Tabak had a brother called Marcel

* We knew Dr Vincent Tabak had a mother called sonia

* We knew that his father had died

* We knew he was Dutch

* We knew Joanna Yeates apparently arrived home at 8:45pm

* We knew that Joanna Yeates final text message was sent to Mathew Wood

* We knew that Joanna Yeates was found fully clothed

* We knew that her boots were found at home

* We knew her coat was found at home

* We knew she was home alone

* We knew that Joanna Yeates didn't always answer her phone or respond to text messages

* We knew that Joanna Yeates phone still worked after not being charged all weekend

* We knew that the front door was removed

We knew virtually every little bit of information about this case before it had gone to trial.... At trial nothing significant or new came out.. Nothing in Dr Vincent Tabak's tale on the stand, differed from the information everybody already knew about this case...

This is another reason the story on the stand bothers me.... Another reason to question why nothing different came to trial than was already held in the public domain.... Anyone and I mean anyone could have said they had done it, and told the exact same story as Dr Vincent Tabak told.... Because anyone who followed the story knew all the detail already.....

The surprises only came after trial, when DCI Phil Jones tells us that a trainer with blood spots on them were under the kitchen sink, And Colin Port stating that The Hop House Pub was the last known sighting of Joanna yeates...

Shouldn't it have been Dr Vincent Tabak revealing something nobody knew about this case whilst he was on the stand, so as to put to bed any doubts anyone may have about said story.....

I wonder why the Justice System appeared happy with the so called evidence that was at the trial, where everything we heard had already been stated or said, where the only knew thing that came to light was that Joanna Yeates had a flower patterned top on, clearly suggesting she had either been re-dressed, or that she had changed her own clothes at some point.... No wonder Dr Vincent Tabak couldn't answer over 80 questions, if he had no idea what the answer to those questions should be ..as everything else he stated had been in the public domain before trial....

And that is really the point.... There should have been real evidence at trial.. something that only connected the killer to Joanna Yeates.. Something that would categorically to to bed any doubts that people may have had....

The Prosecution themselves should have had something to offer at trial we didn't already know....  And i don't mean putting someone in a boot of a car, which miraculously had no evidence inside, apart from a spot of blood that was on the rubber seal according to DCI Phil Jones.... Dr Vincent Tabak managed to put Joanna yeates body in a cover as to stop any transfer, odd that seeing as we had already heard about some type of item being used to transport her in from the flat....

So the story told on the stand, basically mirrored what was stated in the press... Hardly evidence of Dr vincent Tabak being the man that killed Joanna Yeates...(imo)

What makes you say this?

And you appear to have suggested numerous times his confessin was unreliable? Why? What makes you cling to this belief?

[justsaying]

There was "real" evidence presented during the trial. DNA, Internet searches regarding the differences between murder and manslaughter, body decomposition, the area where he dumped her, local bin collections because (as claimed by him) he had dumped the pizza, sock and bicycle cover in a commercial waste bin. Last but not least, his detailed confession in which it is clear he had been in her home. He explains that he knew the DNA would link him to the crime, he was panicking because he knew it was just a matter of time before he was caught. Just because you fail to accept this Nine does not mean there was no evidence. There clearly was evidence and it was quite damning, hence the guilty verdict.

[jixy]

A very good round up of the facts