We've been sat here for months talking about this case and Dr Vincent Tabak's apparent Plea of "Guilty to Manslaughter"...
Now... that has got me thinking ...
The offence of manslaughter Manslaughter is a crime that can be broken down into two groups. These are described as:
voluntary manslaughter - where the offender intended to kill or cause really serious harm but is not guilty of
murder due to provocation or mental incapacity (described as diminished responsibility); and
involuntary manslaughter - where the offender did not intend to kill or cause really serious harm but where
death results from an unlawful act or from gross negligence.
So which 'Manslaughter did Dr Vincent Tabak Plead Guilty too???
(A): Voluntary Manslaughter ??
or
(B): Involuntary Manslaughter ???
Looking at the description for "Manslaughter as a Plea.".. I am guessing.... And this is only because at the Trial The Defence stated that Dr Vincent Tabak "Did Not Intend to kill Joanna Yeates."....
He applied no
more than moderate force on a scale of one to three - light, moderate and severe. He did
not intend death or serious injury.
And from The Justice Gap
The only issue in the trial was intent and not sexual motive. That depended on the level of force and the time it would take to kill.
The Prosecution..
Mr Lickley said Tabak had intended to kill the landscape architect or cause her really serious harm because he gripped her throat for long enough and hard enough to end her life.
So looking again at The Old Bailey... which Manslaughter Plea did Dr Vincent Tabak enter into????
(A) Or (B)...
Or was it just your Common or Garden Manslaughter Plea...
Where you don't have any guarantee of an acceptance of your "Plea".. and put yourself at the Mercy of a Jury ready to find you guilty of a more serious charge .... Because The Head Of The Complex Crime Unit has you on her Radar and will not let you go to court for anything less than "Murder" and has never had any intention of accepting the "Manslaughter Plea" that you have just sat in her lap....... Whilst your own Council just looked around the room and said... Ok ..trial it is then.... (IMO).. Not securing any plea deal before The words "Guilty to Manslaughter".. were uttered
This is "WHY" there were no Psychological assessment made and presented at Dr Vincent Tabak's Trial... (IMO)... They didn't need to as he never entered 'A Voluntary Manslaughter Plea ".... (Common or garden Variety was his choice apparently)
So why waste good tax payers money for a Defence... when Dr Vincent Tabak was only entitled to receive a "Base Metal" Service????
He didn't plead "Guilty" To "Manslaughter" with diminished responsibilities... (Common or Garden variety was his choice apparently)...
Neither did he plead 'Guilt to "Involuntary" Manslaughter.... (Common or Garden Variety was his choice apparently)... Although William Clegg was letting The Jury Know that this was possible by his description of what were supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak's actions.... Leaving the Jury to wonder if that NVQ on "Manslaughter Law they thought they might gain ....would be a good idea, if ever they were to be picked for jury service on a "Murder Trial"....it may come in handy......
No......He just went for 'Pot Luck "Manslaughter" on the ground that he thought that England had a fair Judicial System... And everyone would see straight through the fact that it was impossible for him to commit this "Murder"...
So my question must be.... How can you provide a Jury the opportunity to decide whether or not Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have committed " Voluntary Manslaughter verses "Involuntary Manslaughter.... "When The question of either type of "Manslaughter was never put to them... only a description of intent was ever provided .... I believe ...
And only a "Charge of Murder" was what the Jury had to decide upon... How can a Jury Make an Informed Fair above board decision on "The Guilt" of A Defendant... when in reality... They were never aware of the type of "Manslaughter Plea Dr Vincent Tabak had entered into apparently.... ??
You are now in the realms of expecting a Jury to know `Law" and with their vast knowledge on the subject decide from amongst the EVIDENCE.. that was put before them... That Dr Vincent Tabak did indeed kill Joanna Yeates whether it was intentional or not.... Because apparently an NVQ in "Understand Law on "Manslaughter pleas before you become a juror are available to your left hand side....
Therefore giving you the legal knowledge you must need to be at liberty to decide a Defendant fate when your only choice is "Guilty' to Murder.... And a little "manslaughter will be thrown in... Which you have all read about in the paper back in May 2011... But please don't let that influence you.. put that to one side and get ready with you NVQ's because we are about to test you on your knowledge of "Manslaughter In Law" without full direction or knowledge of whether the defendant pleaded Guilty to either catergory....... .(IMO)...
Do you know something.... I always thought that NVQ stood for "Not Very Qualified"....
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-murder-trial-vincent-275776http://thejusticegap.com/2011/10/vincent-tabak-and-the-law-on-bad-character/http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf