The Defence Will State Their Case

[John]

I disagree, the conviction is safe. Nine, you haven't answered my question and I've answered a lot of yours. Why do you think he has not appealed the conviction if he is not guilty of killing Jo?

I think this was asked previously somewhere in the labyrinths of this topic. My own thoughts on this are that he has accepted his stupidity and guilt and just wants to do his time and get out eventually and hopefully start a new life somewhere that he is not known.  Starting an appeal and opening up old wounds doesn't appeal to everyone.

[Nicholas]

Jixy has already pointed out the answer to one of your questions i.e. you yourself saying you know nothing about the case. In relation to your other one, were you not claiming in earlier posts that Nine had a point in what she was saying? and she is claiming Tabak is innocent so...

Innocence and guilt aside. Is the conviction safe in law?

(1): I agree that not everyone who makes a statement to a crime will be called as a witness, but if they have relevant information to the events that took place, then i believe they should be called.. If they are the partner of the accused, I believe they can provide invaluable evidence, one way or another. If they witnessed someone at a gate on the relevant evening, they could add to either the defences or prosecutions case... If they found the body of Joanna Yeates, I believe they should be called....

(2): If they were so certain that Dr Vincent Tabak was the man that killed Joanna Yeates and Dr Vincent Tabak apparently states in May 2011 that he was guilty of her Manslaughter, why would the Police need to hold back any information?? Surely there should be something that only Dr Vincent tabak knew.... as you state, that is why the Police hold information back... But i would have thought that was only whilst Investigating and not when a trial is to take place for the man they charged with this Murder...

(3): I agree... It would be impossible for the Newspapers to print every aspect of a trial.... Yet they printed many aspects before the trial...!

(4): Again that statement is true in a sense... I have NO Evidence to prove that NON Disclosure was an issue in this case, and therefore would have to concede that to a degree... But then question what the Defence did in relation to their client?? Because I can only go off what we are aware was produced at trial and who did and who did not take the witness stand... I can only go off the tweets that tell us about physical evidence... And no physical evidence puts Dr Vincent Tabak inside Joanna Yeates Flat.... I would have thought that the prosecution would have used this evidence of Dr Vincent Tabak being in Joanna Yeates Flat and Joanna Yeates being in Dr Vincent Tabak's Flat as proof of his connection to the Murder....

(5): The Defence did have a choice, they had a choice early on in the game when the could have challenged the evidence.. When they could have applied for bail.. long before Dr Vincent Tabak made a plea at the Old Bailey.... They had a choice NOT to put their client on the witness stand at trial, as his story was the only evidence that stated what he apparently did on Friday 17th December 2010.... No Dr Vincent Tabak on the witness stand... No conviction for Murder!

(6): So the only apparent confession, is what Dr Vincent Tabak said on the witness stand at trial... The information wasn't available beforehand, he said NO Comment!! And I cannot see what evidence supported the claim that was made on the stand... unless the jury were aware of other information that was not presented as evidence...

(7): The trial should have been about the  truth.... The trial should have answered so many questions... The trial should not have been about a jury finding a man guilty when they were already aware he plead guilty to Manslaughter... The word "Manslaughter" being used daily by the media... The word "Manslaughter being used in the court room.... How was that not prejudicial?

(8): Just like I use theory in my posts... But in a court of law, I would like evidence to support said theory and not let everyone interpret what they choose suits their ideas.... Like how it would be impossible for Dr Vincent Tabak to have Joanna Yeates in the boot of the car that was shown on CCTV coming down Park Street... He wasn't on his way to Asda then as it was implied..... The time stamp may be Missing... But the date of the 18th December 2010 on the CCTV makes that an impossibility, seeing as this all apparently took place on the 17th December 2010...

And as you know Justsaying... I have never professed to know anything abut the law or trial procedures, as you have all come to the conclusion that I have proven I am an uneducated women that doesn't have a CSE to rub together....

So my ramblings are my opinion... my opinion may be flawed... But that shouldn't stop people from wondering what this case is really about... That shouldn't stop people questioning how our justice system works... That shouldn't stop people from contesting whether an Innocent man or woman has been sent to prison....

That shouldn't stop anyone from viewing the videos that have been made from people connected to this case... Video's that they are seen to contradict themselves in.... And why DCI mark Saunders CCTV of Canygne Road was NOT played to a Jury to establish whether or not Joanna Yeates actually reached her home on Friday 17th December 2010....

You may be able to accept a confession, or whatever you want to call it Justsaying.... But the facts should support said confession, and if Joanna Yeates did not reach home on Friday 17th December 2010, then I contend that Dr Vincent Tabak did not kill her as was stated at trial...

Surely we need  to know the original scene of Crime and if the victim was there at the said time or at her home at all over that weekend... That I would say is more pressing.... And that I would say should have been of primary concern, in this case....

Edit....

(1): Yes not everyone will be called as a witness... but their evidence should be amongst the disclosure for the defence to view(imo)... The Defence themselves can then decide whether or not a person who made a statement, is relevant to a trial.... The possibility that someone made a statement that contradicts what has been stated at trial, could be nestled away in that disclosure bundle.... (imo)

Just like Kingdon. who made a statement to the Police apparently about hearing someone cry "Help Me" mid morning on the 18th December 2010...  Did that not get disclosed??? Or did that just get ignored??

Why would they call these witnesses when the trial was in relation to culpability? Was the person who found her disputed that he did in fact find her?

They will have held back information from their investigation for when they caught the killer or for when he came forward - as they do in many cases. It stops random people from admitting to crime's they have not committed.

Yes but not every aspect and it will have certainly been cherry-picked!

Speculation then...

They did not have a choice, he admitted being a killer! The trial was about culpability!

You do not know this. Again, speculation!  Were you present during any video links - he confessed prior to trial, hence the trial was about culpability.

The trial was based on his confession of manslaughter.

Theory and conspiracy theory are 2 different things. The prosecution theorized based on evidence and fact, you do not.

I never said this, but your lack of understanding is transparent.

He is not innocent, he is a confessed killer.

Everything else you have said is irrelevant on the basis he confessed and on the basis he is not disputing the conviction!

actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

"Detectives combing Tabak's home during the murder investigation also discovered 145 indecent images of children stored on the Dell laptop.

Today, Bristol Crown Court heard how the most sickening images involved pre-pubescent girls.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/561436/Vincent-Tabak-Jo-Yeates-child-porn-images

[jixy]

Thankfully a sensible Judge and an admission of guilt. Least he had the shame to put his head in his hands but when you like pictures of children what else can you do really?

[[...]]

I have a question.... I was looking at duplicity and came across this information that appears to apply to Health and Safety...

Quote from this page...

18. Some defects in an information (and in a summons based upon it) are more serious than others. They can be split into three broad categories:

First, an error may be so minor that no amendment is required. If the defendant knew the true basis of the allegation in the information, a conviction will be upheld even on an unamended information. 14
Second, an error may be substantial enough to require amendment but not so serious that it cannot be cured. Examples include:

The wrong date of offence;
The place of the offence is inaccurately described;
The defendant is wrongly named (but is not the wrong defendant).

In such a situation the court has the power to allow an amendment, although the defence may be allowed an adjournment in the interests of justice.
Third, an error may be so serious that it cannot be cured by any amendment. In such a case, the charge alleged will fail. For example, if the wrong defendant is named in the information, it cannot be amended to show the name of a different defendant. A new information would have to be issued with the correct details and a new summons served.

Now does this just apply to Health and Safety or does this apply to Criminal Court also eg.. A Murder charge???   
I am particularly interested in the part where it says that the defendant is named wrongly, but it is the right defendant...

Second, an error may be substantial enough to require amendment but not so serious that it cannot be cured. Examples include:

The wrong date of offence;
The place of the offence is inaccurately described;
The defendant is wrongly named (but is not the wrong defendant).

http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/pretrial/preparing-drafting.htm

[Baz]

I have a question.... I was looking at duplicity and came across this information that appears to apply to Health and Safety...

Quote from this page...


Now does this just apply to Health and Safety or does this apply to Criminal Court also eg.. A Murder charge???   
I am particularly interested in the part where it says that the defendant is named wrongly, but it is the right defendant...

Second, an error may be substantial enough to require amendment but not so serious that it cannot be cured. Examples include:

The wrong date of offence;
The place of the offence is inaccurately described;
The defendant is wrongly named (but is not the wrong defendant).

http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/pretrial/preparing-drafting.htm

I'm pretty sure this would be true of all criminal cases. Why the interest?

[justsaying]

I think this was asked previously somewhere in the labyrinths of this topic. My own thoughts on this are that he has accepted his stupidity and guilt and just wants to do his time and get out eventually and hopefully start a new life somewhere that he is not known.

Agreed.

Starting an appeal and opening up old wounds doesn't appeal to everyone.

Again I agree, but surely if you were innocent of such an heinous crime, or any crime for that matter, you would at least try to appeal the conviction.

[justsaying]

Lets quantify lots.... You have posted in total on this site as far as I can see 124 posts to date... some of those posts are on other topics...

My questions are many... take 'The Hundred Questions topic... that I stopped asking question when I posted 1025 questions...

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8053.0

But maybe you just mean the direct questions to you I posed?? Or are we counting every question within this whole discussion including the Hundred Questions Topic....

Just Asking.... 

I just meant the questions you had directed at me. Sorry if I missed any, it was a bit busy on this thread yesterday.

[justsaying]

Thankfully a sensible Judge and an admission of guilt. Least he had the shame to put his head in his hands but when you like pictures of children what else can you do really?

Agreed. Clearly a paedophile as well as a murderer, disgusting man.

[Nicholas]

Perhaps when you have the time you should do as Jixy suggested earlier and start looking into other cases, you may find a lot of the answers you seek that way.

Let's be objective and put personal feelings aside.

What cases do you suggest nine look into? Put your money where your mouth is and give examples.  It's clear you haven't considered all the relevant facts carefully by the amount of times your make such sweeping statements.

And what was the state of Tabaks mind when he pleaded guilty to manslaughter?

Are you familiar with the Jeremy Bamber case and the evidence of his ex girlfriend Julie Mugford that helped convict him?

[Nicholas]

Agreed.

Again I agree, but surely if you were innocent of such an heinous crime, or any crime for that matter, you would at least try to appeal the conviction.

Is that your opinion?

Innocence and guilt aside. Is the conviction safe in law?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg490946#msg490946

[Nicholas]

Tell me Nine, if all this wrong happened to him, then why isn't he trying to appeal? What exactly were you going to say to him if you did make contact... convince him he is innocent Not surprised competent people wouldn't touch this case with a barge pole. Clearly guilty as charged!

Define "competent people." Many of us here are surprised how some quite clearly guilty individuals are being supported by campaigns alleging they are victims of a miscarriage of justice.

Are these "competent people" to whom you refer "convincing" those they are supporting they are innocent and to appeal?

Let's not forget there are many opportunists out there driven by personal agendas and motivations.

What is your definition of a miscarriage of justice?

And I'll ask again. What was and is the state of Tabaks mind?

[Nicholas]

I'm pretty sure this would be true of all criminal cases. Why the interest?

"Pretty sure" doesn't answer the question Baz.

[jixy]

Agreed.

Again I agree, but surely if you were innocent of such an heinous crime, or any crime for that matter, you would at least try to appeal the conviction.

You would think so unless they think doing the sentence quietly hoping people will forget all about you is an easier option than fighting the conviction, cant see how though , You would expect people to fight with anything they could to be released or like you say at least try.

[justsaying]

He pleaded guilty to having downloaded child porn images. He admitted Killing Joanna Yeates. I really do not care about his state of mind. The people who support this beast should be ashamed of themselves - it says more about them than it does him.

Tell me what do you think his state of mind was when he downloaded such disgusting images and looked at them? Clearly a paedophile as well as a murderer - who has more than just one victim.

[jixy]

So some random comes along to claim he is innocent, he never says a word but based on that you overlook his sex offences and the fact he killed someone quite easily not the placid man he gets called on here

Yes I can see how that works Justsaying who would stop and be disgusted? any normal sane thinking person maybe?