I'll apologise for the long post before I start.....
Baz you don't need to ask me that question, it is obvious... Now the point of this is because, This entire exercise appears to be electronic....
What hard copies are there in evidence from this trial.... ??? All of the information that has been gathered and was used at trial was from computers, phones etc.... There was nothing physical in this case...
Dr Delaney explains his findings... which one would expect, Same for Lyndsey Lennen and Tanja Nickson... Tanja Nickson... Lynsday farmery uses a slide show if I remember correctly....
I have posted about Dr kelly Sheridan's article where she talks of fibre analysis and test on an ikea duvet, but she wasn't present at trial to tell us her findings...
Lyndsey Lennen in an article has told us about the 48 hour turn around of the physical evidence including fibres from the coat of the suspect... she has to mean Dr Vincent Tabak.... But where was the coat at trial? what exhibit number was this coat of Dr Vincent Tabak?
Shouldn't Dr Kelly Sheridan have appeared at trial as she is a fibre expert to tell the jury of her expertise and what HER findings were....
The photo's around the internet of this case tell us what...?? That Dr Vincent Tabak has changed... looks very different... The man was supposed to have lost weight not gained it....
The experts in any field we are supposed to trust, we believe that their greater knowledge will leads us to the truth, we have protocols etc to make sure that everything is above board...
But what was put in place in the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak?? We don't know.. As leonora has pointed out before, who identified the man on the Live Link as Dr Vincent Tabak??
Tanja Morson did not give any statements once Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested... Tanja Morson did not attend trial... She didn't identify him... His family didn't take the stand and only appeared on one day it seems and they have said nothing... We only see them walking across the road, we do not know if they actually went into the court room where the trial is taking place..
I point this out because from the oodles of court drawing I have seen, the Tabak family do not appear in any of them.. So how are we to know who was actually inside said court room??
If they have been told they may be called as witness's of this trial, they would have to wait outside and not be able to see any of the proceedings, and that could happen throughout the entire trial... They might not have seen the man whom took the stand and said that he was Dr Vincent Tabak and then told a story of how he apparently killed Joanna Yeates..
The Yeates didn't know who Dr Vincent Tabak was either... they saw him apparently via video link at The Old Bailey.. I found that strange that they attended what was a plea and management hearing...
Now we come to William Clegg... Did he meet Dr Vincent Tabak?? Did he know for sure that the man in the dock was Dr Vincent Tabak?? Or did he assume it was?? We expect our experts to follow protocols, but what if they don't... what if they cut corners.... What if he sent someone else to take a statement...
I believe that it would be possible to get the infomation needed from your client without actually talking to him... We have to remember that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't say anything... he made "NO Comment' interviews with the Police....
He signs an enhanced statement in September 2011 and the case then goes ahead... But what is this enhanced statement?? Was this statement electronic?? Was this statement physically signed by Dr Vincent Tabak?
Did Dr Vincent Tabak have a meeting and sign this enhanced statement?/ Or was it all electronic?? Who knows what Dr Vincent Tabak's signature looks like?? Who could confirm it??
Was each of these statements actually signed.... I don't know, but i am expected to believe someone whom is called an expert... Who physically collected the written statements from Dr Vincent Tabak?? Who meet with Dr Vincent Tabak of the people who represented him?
Before you think I'm accusing people of misconduct, lets remember that my opinion changes about this trial... I had come to the point of not knowing if this trial was actually real.... I have said on many occasions it all could be a farce....
If the people we see at a trial walk past a camera, does that mean that they are those people? The media may have identified those people as certain people , but are they? This trial could be part of a wider sting operation for all I know... And the like of Clegg, Lickley and Reddrop were just playing their part.. The media are the ones telling us about this trial, and tweeting about this trial, which i myself cannot believe how a whole criminal trial was allowed to be tweeted from a court room....
If the trial was about something else, then the media would not be allowed to report on this.... And maybe that is why they do not talk about the Dr Vincent Tabak Case... So there are other options that can be applied to this case... Therefore I am asking, who verified anything in this trial??
As it is clearly possible for anyone to fill out forms (I will post on that)...
We are told that the Police applied for a warrant, well... Was the warrant granted?? You can sit at a computer and physically apply for it... But who signed and sealed it??
There was mountains of evidence moved from the property being 44. Canygne Road, but did they have a warrant to move all of that evidence,... And did they need to strip the Flat of everything?? Only items that may relate to the crime are usually taken, but there are hundreds of items taken... Hoiw long would that take to turn around the forensics on all of those items??
Now I have just downloaded a search warrant and it bring fore and interesting point....
1. Complete the box above and boxes 1 to 8 below. If you use an electronic version of this form, the boxes will expand. If you use a paper version and need more space, you may attach extra sheets.
2. Complete the declaration in box 9 and the authorisation in box 10.
3. Attach the draft warrant(s) you are asking the court to issue.
4. Send or deliver a copy of the completed form and draft warrant(s) to the court. You may send them by secure email. Make sure the court knows if the application is urgent. Your time estimates will help the court to allow enough time to prepare for the hearing.
Then:
1) The main search power. Make sure the court has a copy of the legislation which allows it to issue the warrant(s) for which you are applying (the main search power), and any legislation which allows you to make this application if you are not a constable. If necessary, attach a copy of the legislation when you send or deliver this form to the court.
(a) What legislation allows the court to issue the warrant(s) for which you are applying? This is the main search power.
(b) If you are not a constable, how does the legislation allow you to make this application?
What does it mean if you are NOT a Constable??? Anyone can apply?? So whom made the application??
10) Authorisation
I have reviewed this application and I authorise the applicant to make it.
Authorising officer’s name: ……………..…………………..…………..…………………………………..…
Rank or grade: ………………………………………..…………..…………………………………………..…
Signed:7 ……………………….…………………………………….………………….… [authorising officer]
Date: …………………………. Time: ………………………….
And more to the point who authorised it? And we then need to know was it a paper application or an electronic application?? And what was the signature on the bottom of this authorisation?? Who's was it?? Mickey Mouse??
Was the warrant granted? Everything in this case is so irregular... everything is the opposite of what it is supposed to be.... But the public aren't taking any notice...
They had so many civilian staff working this case, it is possible that anyone could have done anything.... People assumed roles, we know this... Civilian Andrew Mott has assumed the role of an SIO... he has assumed the role of a Forensics Officer, Brotherton assumed the role of Chaplain.... Who else assumed a role... It appeared that Clegg assumed the role of prosecutor in this case in the way he did not defend his client to the best of his ability..
You see, did someone assume the role of a high ranking Officer?/ we do not know... No Officer of any rank attended the trial and stood in the witness box, we were even told that DCI Mark Luther was in charge of this case.. And we know that to be untrue...
So if someone at the time of filing in these warrants assumed a role, does it mean that these warrants are invalid?? I would say so.... Nothing is corroborated in this case, it would appear and that is worrying.. Who filled in the forms?? Do we know, do we just assume that they are accurate?? Again I will say were these warrants granted??
I question this and the thoroughness of the defence, because if simple things like the application for bail was never made for Dr Vincent Tabak how can we know what other evidence was investigated by the defence, Was it robust enough?? Kelcey Hall has told us about clients getting a platinum serivce..
Speaking at the Law Society’s criminal law conference, Kelcey said there is a limit to what firms can be expected to do on legal aid rates: ‘We can’t supply a platinum level of service with base metal rates of pay.’ He suggested that firms be open with clients about how much the government pays and explain the constraints this puts on them.
And Dr Vincent Tabak was base metal.... So were they being slack?? I don't know.. But I do worry that everything that could be done for Dr Vincent Tabak to receive a fair trial wasn't (imo).. Did Dr Vincent Tabak receive good council?? I don't believe so... Were all the T's crossed and the I's dotted?? I cannot say... But I can say that the trial was a joke... A performance... And the evidence that was presented had already been in the domain of the public or media, via press reports, tweets forum posts or facebook posts, before the trial took place..(imo) So what new evidence came to trial to support the idea that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates??
None... Nothing zilch... And it is very possible that the entire trial was made up from these electronic forms/ messages/tweets/ etc... We do not know.... But we do know that NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE ever made it to trial.. Which is rather alarming...(imo)
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/legal-aid-equality-a-myth-says-solicitor-advocate-kelcey/65516.article
