The Defence Will State Their Case

[Caroline]

Barking i tell you.... this is barking....

Good to see you admit it! 

[Real justice]

FFS! Tabak admitted to manslaughter prior to his trial - the state didn't agree that he had killed her by accident so he was charged with (and went on trial for MURDER!) Had he won his case, he would have been sentenced in accordance with his manslaughter plea. How can you not understand this? 

Manslaughter and murder are TWO DIFFERENT categories!

I’m pleased I’ve been out all day, I can’t be bothered to explain it anymore.  In fact, if I had two choices, explaining to Nine and making him understand the difference between Manslaughter and murder or emptying the River Thames with a bucket full of holes, I  honestly think I would take the bucket.

[[...]]

FFS! Tabak admitted to manslaughter prior to his trial - the state didn't agree that he had killed her by accident so he was charged with (and went on trial for MURDER!) Had he won his case, he would have been sentenced in accordance with his manslaughter plea. How can you not understand this? 

Manslaughter and murder are TWO DIFFERENT categories!

Two Different Categories... So how are you guilty of one and on trial for the other, and everyone knows you apparently pled guilty to manslaughter....

The Justice system is Real's bucket of holes!

[[...]]

I understand the difference between Manslaughter and Murder, that was never my issue...

My issue, was that.... We the public knew that Dr Vincent Tabak had apparently pled guilty to manslaughter in May 2011..  If a plea was accepted that should be the end of the matter..

The prosecution didn't want to accept it, but to be honest i thought that was the judges decision... Anyway...

Knowing that Dr Vincent Tabak was facing trial in October 2011, NO_ONE should have been aware of the plea until after the trial was over.... not before or during, no reminders day in and day out...

Therefore a man of presumed Innocence is facing trial... what he decides to say is another matter....

So the bit my tiny little mind doesn't compute, is how are we allowed to know that someone has pled guilty to a lesser charge when facing a more serious charge at trial, when the word "MANSLAUGHTER" is no different in some respects than Murder, circumstance etc, not a deliberate act.... Resulting in death all the same....


That is what I do not comprehend.... That is what I believe is unfair as a way to conduct a trial, that I believe is prejudicial to any trial...

WE SHOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN!!!

It's like a dessert, you make the cake and then add the topping.....   The topping hasn't hid the cake, it just enhanced it... A bit like the story on the stand!... That anyone could have told....

[[...]]

The system is a shambles, very much like the country, no-one knowing if they are on their arses or their elbows... A dead democracy, a sham... The whole country a joke.....

Whether any one cares what i think is neither here nor there....

What is important, is as our country behaves in the manor it does, the next generation are lost in it's complexities, which is fine for those privileged few...

The most shocking thing i heard from one of my children, was when I criticised the PM... My child believed that it was against the law to criticise any MP .. Or PM and you were not allowed to do this....

What sort of country have we become.... Our history is shameful, the treatment of the poor, is shameful, homelessness is shameful.... But hey ho... lets spend Big Bucks on Bollocks and hope no-one says anything....

So you have your laws how you want them... Stacked  high against anyone who may find themselves at the wrong end of them, who doesn't have influential friends to help... And enjoy the delights they bring you...

All we need now is FULL CENSORSHIP and it's check mate.....

And  the PM said she was proud of this country.... My God.... Time she took her blinkers off....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ywouk6do_JA

The Country as it is.... Working for the few..... And Crucifying the many!....

Why don't we save even more money and do away with courts... Just bring back the old ducking stool.... If they float, they're guilty!

Edit.. Her actual words were' "enduring gratitude to have had the opportunity to serve the country I love. ...."

Wonder why she loves it so much????  probably because she can afford sanitary wear and doesn't have to wonder whether or not she can feed herself or pay for rent, electric or gas... Oh yes, and by a pressie or two for the children...

What possible reason has she not got to love this country, it's served her well hasn't it....

[Myster]

Has William Clegg replied to your email yet, or could he not be bothered wasting time on your mind-numbing twaddle?

[Real justice]

I understand the difference between Manslaughter and Murder, that was never my issue...

My issue, was that.... We the public knew that Dr Vincent Tabak had apparently pled guilty to manslaughter in May 2011..  If a plea was accepted that should be the end of the matter..

The prosecution didn't want to accept it, but to be honest i thought that was the judges decision... Anyway...

Knowing that Dr Vincent Tabak was facing trial in October 2011, NO_ONE should have been aware of the plea until after the trial was over.... not before or during, no reminders day in and day out...

Therefore a man of presumed Innocence is facing trial... what he decides to say is another matter....

So the bit my tiny little mind doesn't compute, is how are we allowed to know that someone has pled guilty to a lesser charge when facing a more serious charge at trial, when the word "MANSLAUGHTER" is no different in some respects than Murder, circumstance etc, not a deliberate act.... Resulting in death all the same....


That is what I do not comprehend.... That is what I believe is unfair as a way to conduct a trial, that I believe is prejudicial to any trial...

WE SHOULD NOT HAVE KNOWN!!!

It's like a dessert, you make the cake and then add the topping.....   The topping hasn't hid the cake, it just enhanced it... A bit like the story on the stand!... That anyone could have told....

Nine, the defendant first appears at a Magistrates court and enters a plea, because of the nature of offence it goes to Crown Court, before the trial there is a preliminary hearing, this is to establish what plea will be made in the case, if he enters not guilty or no plea, the CPS will have a date then to serve all the  evidence they have to Tabak or his Lawyer.  There will be another hearing before the Crown court case. 

The prosecution charged Tabak with premeditated murder, Tabak admitted killing Joanna, but wanted the lower charge of manslaughter which carries a lower sentence.  If the jury wasn’t told about Tabak’s plea, Tabak may never have got a chance for manslaughter, how could the case evolve without the jury knowing of Tabak’s plea, the jury has to be told what Tabak has pleaded, for the jury not to know, Tabak’s defence would have had to say he’s not guilty of killing Joanna.

Our Courts are open to the public, knowing what someone has pleaded is open to everyone, he was trying to get out of being found guilty of murder with intent, not manslaughter.  What do you want, trials behind closed doors  in secret and no press reporting?

If Tabak had changed his mind, first pleading guilty and then pleading not guilty, this would have to go in front of the judge again before trial, the judge would have to establish why he had changed plea and the reason why.

[Real justice]

The defendant can also change their plea from guilty to not guilty, but the court will only approve this if there are exceptional circumstances.

[[...]]

Nine, the defendant first appears at a Magistrates court and enters a plea, because of the nature of offence it goes to Crown Court, before the trial there is a preliminary hearing, this is to establish what plea will be made in the case, if he enters not guilty or no plea, the CPS will have a date then to serve all the  evidence they have to Tabak or his Lawyer.  There will be another hearing before the Crown court case. 

The prosecution charged Tabak with premeditated murder, Tabak admitted killing Joanna, but wanted the lower charge of manslaughter which carries a lower sentence.  If the jury wasn’t told about Tabak’s plea, Tabak may never have got a chance for manslaughter, how could the case evolve without the jury knowing of Tabak’s plea, the jury has to be told what Tabak has pleaded, for the jury not to know, Tabak’s defence would have had to say he’s not guilty of killing Joanna.

Our Courts are open to the public, knowing what someone has pleaded is open to everyone, he was trying to get out of being found guilty of murder with intent, not manslaughter.  What do you want, trials behind closed doors  in secret and no press reporting?

If Tabak had changed his mind, first pleading guilty and then pleading not guilty, this would have to go in front of the judge again before trial, the judge would have to establish why he had changed plea and the reason why.

The prosecution charged Tabak with premeditated murder,

How do you know this Real??

What evidence did the prosecution have to charge with premeditated Murder??

Is there such a charge?? I don't think so... But what do I know.... FA...

It doesn't say it here.... https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-manslaughter

Isn't that a charge in American law?

Thought the trial was in this country.... Or are you trying to tell me something else???

[[...]]

The defendant can also change their plea from guilty to not guilty, but the court will only approve this if there are exceptional circumstances.

ERM..... like he didn't do it?? There were witness's?? The story doesn't add up.... All the evidence was already in the public domain....

Did he change his plea and it was denied??  They wouldn't tell us that though would they, if that happened...

[[...]]

Nine, the defendant first appears at a Magistrates court and enters a plea, because of the nature of offence it goes to Crown Court, before the trial there is a preliminary hearing, this is to establish what plea will be made in the case, if he enters not guilty or no plea, the CPS will have a date then to serve all the  evidence they have to Tabak or his Lawyer.  There will be another hearing before the Crown court case. 

The prosecution charged Tabak with premeditated murder, Tabak admitted killing Joanna, but wanted the lower charge of manslaughter which carries a lower sentence.  If the jury wasn’t told about Tabak’s plea, Tabak may never have got a chance for manslaughter, how could the case evolve without the jury knowing of Tabak’s plea, the jury has to be told what Tabak has pleaded, for the jury not to know, Tabak’s defence would have had to say he’s not guilty of killing Joanna.

Our Courts are open to the public, knowing what someone has pleaded is open to everyone, he was trying to get out of being found guilty of murder with intent, not manslaughter.  What do you want, trials behind closed doors  in secret and no press reporting?

If Tabak had changed his mind, first pleading guilty and then pleading not guilty, this would have to go in front of the judge again before trial, the judge would have to establish why he had changed plea and the reason why.

Tabak may never have got a chance for manslaughter, how could the case evolve without the jury knowing of Tabak’s plea, the jury has to be told what Tabak has pleaded, for the jury not to know, Tabak’s defence would have had to say he’s not guilty of killing Joanna.


Says it all really....

Yes and i know that they couldn't say that because they then couldn't represent him, after the plea at the Old Bailey....

So why the F*** did they carry on representing him??? Only to throw him to the lions at the end....

Clegg... do us a fav Mr Tabak, just tell the jury how ya did it.... cheers mate....

Come on..... Clegg should not have represented him... (imo)

Is this the modern day version of hung drawn and quartered?

[[...]]

It is ALL WRONG..... Why does no-one say anything!

[Real justice]

Tabak may never have got a chance for manslaughter, how could the case evolve without the jury knowing of Tabak’s plea, the jury has to be told what Tabak has pleaded, for the jury not to know, Tabak’s defence would have had to say he’s not guilty of killing Joanna.


Says it all really....

Yes and i know that they couldn't say that because they then couldn't represent him, after the plea at the Old Bailey....

So why the F*** did they carry on representing him??? Only to throw him to the lions at the end....

Clegg... do us a fav Mr Tabak, just tell the jury how ya did it.... cheers mate....

Come on..... Clegg should not have represented him... (imo)

Is this the modern day version of hung drawn and quartered?

Errm am I swearing at you when I’m debating, I’ve tried to explain the best I can.  They represented him, because Tabak wanted them to, he has a choice.  They tried to get Him the best verdict with the evidence presented.  Have you ever thought, Tabak might have wanted to get it off his chest and be honest that he had killed Joanna, he might have felt so much remorse that his conscience got the better of him, pleading guilty might have relieved this burden.

[Real justice]

ERM..... like he didn't do it?? There were witness's?? The story doesn't add up.... All the evidence was already in the public domain....

Did he change his plea and it was denied??  They wouldn't tell us that though would they, if that happened...

If he had changed his mind it would have been reported.

[[...]]

Errm am I swearing at you when I’m debating, I’ve tried to explain the best I can.  They represented him, because Tabak wanted them to, he has a choice.  They tried to get Him the best verdict with the evidence presented.  Have you ever thought, Tabak might have wanted to get it off his chest and be honest that he had killed Joanna, he might have felt so much remorse that his conscience got the better of him, pleading guilty might have relieved this burden.

I am not swearing at YOU.... I am swearing full stop.... I appreciate you taking the time to explain...

Lets put Dr Vincent Tabak to one side for a moment.... It was how the whole episode was conducted that is the problem... But no one give a ship...

Anyway I remember the country doesn't allow for disorder or opinion holy ship... Time to be a non person...

Or would they prefer everyone to throw in the towel like Sol..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOV8mBjHHYg

That was his way out when reality dawned....!!

There's something I never covered, euthanasia.... thats a whole new ball game... But as you keep informing me, what I have stated counts for nothing ....

Live Long and Prosper... Now beam me up Scottie.... !