Leonora (and others), take a look at the following link, and please comment on what you think "Kayleigh" heard in court. I always assumed she heard something about the "bad character evidence"------------but then, I am mrswah, and I might be wrong!!!
www.yeates-archive.livejournal.com/125700.html
mrswah.... with kayleigh's comments and the comments of others, it does appear that they are talking about the porn....
Kayleigh Erin Samková
I attended this morning's session and heard a couple of the points of law, all I can say is I'm amazed at some of the stuff they're keeping from the jury and it makes me wonder how much more they've held back. Very frustrating.
last Monday · Delete Post
Caroline Louise Broome
is this 'stuff' that in your opinion would act for or against VT?
last Monday · Report
Mair Gravatt
@Kayleigh - what were these couple of points of law
last Monday · Report
Kayleigh Erin Samková
@Caroline: Almost certainly against.
@Mair: Can't say or will be in contempt of court, hopefully all points of law will be made public after the trial is over (correct me if I'm wrong)?
last Monday · Delete Post
Kayleigh Erin Samková
No problem, Dyna. It's rather maddening not being able to elaborate!
last Monday · Delete Post
Mair Gravatt
OH I see - are you a journalist\/
last Monday · Report
Caroline Louise Broome
How come they don't present this to the Jury then? Is it just so he gets a fair trial?
last Monday · Report
Sarah Ryan
@Mair Its my understanding that anyone can be in contempt of court, not just journalists.
Thank you for sharing Kayleigh.
last Monday · Report
Kayleigh Erin Samková
@Mair: Nope, turned up at 6AM and got into the public gallery.
@Caroline: It's really difficult to explain why without giving details away, but the judge concluded the jury didn't "need" to hear it.
Which brings me back to... what was in the 1300 page document?? The date on the link you give is the 25th October 2011 some of the posts say a week ago... Even if you take into account the week before... The jury still have in there possession the 1300 page document...
So you have 2 options...
(A): The Jury didn't need to hear it because it was already contained within the 1300 page document and they could read it in their delberations...
(B): The Porn never existed... It was only there for the fact that after trial they wanted to blacken Dr Vincent Tabak's character to make the public believe that he was a Nasty Man.... And his intention was sexual, everyone then could understand...
The document would be interesting to see...
Having had the 1300 page document for weeks, if there was any porn... it should have been within those pages... they obviously didn't redact the info in the document..... Did it contain references to porn, or child porn???
Or was it just a trick like all the other tricks the Prosecution used, in this trial ??? Another worrying trend that is mentioned
Anne Isherwood
@Debra Yes. Points of law are only discussed between the briefs and the Judges.
last Monday · Report
Debra Ann Clements
'Kayleigh Erin Samková
I attended this morning's session and heard a couple of the points of law, all I can say is I'm amazed at some of the stuff they're keeping from the jury and it makes me wonder how much more they've held back. Very frustrating'.
I have to say that after reading the above post by Kayleigh I was somewhat perplexed, and that my immediate thoughts were that was not how I remember it, but you have now confirmed what I recall, and is why I posted my intial comment.
last Monday · Report
Is it normal for points of law to be discussed when the public and journalists are present????
http://yeates-archive.livejournal.com/125700.html