The Defence Will State Their Case

[[...]]

Honestly, and respectfully, the idea that they used actors as the police and the jury does sound a little mad.

Yes quite honestly it does Baz......

But doesn't the fact they tampered with the evidence and didn't use proper protocol sound even more ridiculous to you????

I could say a pig flew past my window Baz....  Wouldn't change the fact that they didn't follow the law.... And made complete utter fools out of the entire country..... who they expect to uphold the laws of this land....

The respect that I was taught as a young girl for the laws of this land has flown past the window with the pig... I have never felt so distrushut upl of our system as I do today....

And that is something they will have a hard time changing... That case made a laughing stock of our Judicial System...  And there must be many who hold our system dear who feel utter shame!!! (imo)

[Baz]

Yes quite honestly it does Baz......

But doesn't the fact they tampered with the evidence and didn't use proper protocol sound even more ridiculous to you????

No it doesn't, sorry.

In fact evidence tampering, if there were any, would make a hell of a lot more sense in trying to wrongly convict someone than hiring professional actors to play the police and jury!

[[...]]

No it doesn't, sorry.

In fact evidence tampering, if there were any, would make a hell of a lot more sense in trying to wrongly convict someone than hiring professional actors to play the police and jury!

And there you have it...  Someone who believes evidence tampering to convict someone is "A" ok.....

It would make more sense.. "that evidence tampering may have happened"....  Try did happen..  if the images of Flat 1 are anything to go by....

I do not understand why no-one takes this cases seriously..... bar a few.....

Circles I go round in Circles... No-one will ever do anything about this .. thats for sure..... And when we go back to the good old days of rioting on the streets... you can tell them that it 'A" ok... because the law doesn't give a F*** anymore.... You can make your own laws up as you go along.... As long as you can convince a Jury that it's "A" ok!!!

[Baz]

I do not think it is ok to tamper with evidence to convict someone. Please do not misrepresent what I say.

[Leonora]

Hi Mrswah,

I can see your point about this but I would suggest a different point of view.

If we momentarily accept the evidence of the pornography on his computer and his visiting the prostitutes then could this not be seen as a kind of escalation. He goes from the imaginary experience that porn provides to the simulated experience with a prostitute. Perhaps this lead to an increase in confidence and desire. When he finds himself in Joanna's flat he sees an opportunity and tries to capitalise on it but it goes wrong, he panics and the worst happens. I admit that I haven't looked deeply into the porn/prostitute allegations but this is at least a scenario that makes some kind of sense.

I can't agree with your "he hasn't done anything like it before therefore he must be innocent" assertion because there is a first time for everything. And I certainly don't think that he never tried it on with anyone outweighs an un-retracted confession.

Isn't it also possible that other women did come forward with stories about Vincent that were not taken to trial because they already had his guilty plea and so did not feel the need to present this evidence?

Regardless of what Mrswah accepts or does not accept, there was NO EVIDENCE of porn or prostitutes. Please remember that in one of his more lucid moments, the judge told the jury must base their verdict on the evidence that they heard, and nothing else. You and mrswah and the rest of the world may pass judgement that is based on hearsay, but it is just that. There is no doubt that porn exists and that prostitutes do ply the hotel bedrooms of California, but allegations that VT viewed porn and paid prostitutes were and remain hearsay.

No witness was ever identified who could testify to the viewing of porn by the defendant on a computer, nor were any affidavits by any of the prostitutes ever referred to by the lawyers who made these allegations (under the protection of the court), nor by any of the journalists who faithfully reproduced them without stating that these allegations were hearsay. It is an astonishing "oversight". Regardless of whether it was brought before the jury or not, the absence of these guarantees that there were evidence, rather than mere hearsay, makes any discussion of VT's private sexual behaviour (other than his own testimony under oath) futile, very offensive, unserious, and suggestive of somene who prefers to believe what they want to believe, rather than a contribution to an understanding what what really happened.

[[...]]

For Baz  http://wlv.openrepository.com/wlv/bitstream/2436/14408/2/Ramage%20MPhil%20thesis%202007.pdf

[[...]]

No it doesn't, sorry.

In fact evidence tampering, if there were any, would make a hell of a lot more sense in trying to wrongly convict someone than hiring professional actors to play the police and jury!

The importance of the tampering of the evidence in what we know as Flat 1 is crucial to the Prosecution and The ill written words of The defence...

If I have shown on numerous occasions, the work that was done in Flat 1 before the jury arrived to view it, then that should cause concern.... I'll refer back to the tiles painting of the kitchen window sill....

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg418939#msg418939

Image comes from Daily Mail UPDATED: 11:46, 20 October 2011 which when they took the image is not known, because by the time we have the jury visit the window sill is fully painted.. image attached .Also the air vent is not broken... but by the time the Jury see it the Air vent is Broken having only one half of it in place .....



If we can see that these tiles have been painted for what ever purpose... Then why do we believe Clegg's opening statement....

The kitchen blind was broken and so stayed up all the time, as Greg Reardon had
confirmed.

This being pivitol in Dr Vincent Tabak being able to gain entry to Joanna Yeates Flat, as she was apparently inviting Dr Vincent Tabak in to her home....  And he apparently saw Joanna Yeates through her kitchen window... I do not believe this !!!!

If we cannot trust the evidence and integrity of the Flat itself... How can we trust what was supposed to have taken place.... There was NO FORCE ENTRY.... Yet we have tile painting instead....

No jury if they had been aware of the tampering of this Flat would have believed anything that the prosecution had claimed, as the evidence of this tampering is only too clear to see by all....

Who ever wrote Dr Vincent Tabak's "Court Lines".. failed to check anything in regards to this case... As not only did Clegg have his client in his own residence until 9:29pm on Friday 17th December 2010.. He failed to point out the tampering that had taken place......

But he took the word of a man simply because he was the partner of the victim, without establishing if what this man was saying was the truth....  Nothing established this man's testimony apart from himself... And Clegg with his vast experience shouldn't take one mans word against another... Court is about proving the facts,....

And nothing was there to prove that the Blind in Flat 1 was actually broken.... And nothing to prove that the people who painted the tiles in the kitchen window around the time of the the tile painting didn't actually brake this Blind themselves....

And with that I would have thought the case would and should have collapsed... You can't tamper with a Crime Scene!!!


http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/vincent-tabak-trial-jury-visits-flat-int-interior-of-news-footage/656494322

http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf

[Baz]

For Baz  http://wlv.openrepository.com/wlv/bitstream/2436/14408/2/Ramage%20MPhil%20thesis%202007.pdf

Thanks for the link. Have to admit I haven't read the whole thesis but I skimmed a few pages. Not sure how relevant a masters in philosophy is when questioning someone's legal credentials. Perhaps her undergraduate degree was in law.

[Baz]

The importance of the tampering of the evidence in what we know as Flat 1 is crucial to the Prosecution and The ill written words of The defence...

If I have shown on numerous occasions, the work that was done in Flat 1 before the jury arrived to view it, then that should cause concern.... I'll refer back to the tiles painting of the kitchen window sill....

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg418939#msg418939

Image comes from Daily Mail UPDATED: 11:46, 20 October 2011 which when they took the image is not known, because by the time we have the jury visit the window sill is fully painted.. image attached .Also the air vent is not broken... but by the time the Jury see it the Air vent is Broken having only one half of it in place .....



If we can see that these tiles have been painted for what ever purpose... Then why do we believe Clegg's opening statement....

This being pivitol in Dr Vincent Tabak being able to gain entry to Joanna Yeates Flat, as she was apparently inviting Dr Vincent Tabak in to her home....  And he apparently saw Joanna Yeates through her kitchen window... I do not believe this !!!!

If we cannot trust the evidence and integrity of the Flat itself... How can we trust what was supposed to have taken place.... There was NO FORCE ENTRY.... Yet we have tile painting instead....

No jury if they had been aware of the tampering of this Flat would have believed anything that the prosecution had claimed, as the evidence of this tampering is only too clear to see by all....

Who ever wrote Dr Vincent Tabak's "Court Lines".. failed to check anything in regards to this case... As not only did Clegg have his client in his own residence until 9:29pm on Friday 17th December 2010.. He failed to point out the tampering that had taken place......

But he took the word of a man simply because he was the partner of the victim, without establishing if what this man was saying was the truth....  Nothing established this man's testimony apart from himself... And Clegg with his vast experience shouldn't take one mans word against another... Court is about proving the facts,....

And nothing was there to prove that the Blind in Flat 1 was actually broken.... And nothing to prove that the people who painted the tiles in the kitchen window around the time of the the tile painting didn't actually brake this Blind themselves....

And with that I would have thought the case would and should have collapsed... You can't tamper with a Crime Scene!!!


http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/vincent-tabak-trial-jury-visits-flat-int-interior-of-news-footage/656494322

http://www.criminal-lawyer.org.uk/39-CLN-JAN-2012.pdf

I don't think the tiles are painted. It looks like something in the reflection of the window to me.

[Baz]

Regardless of what Mrswah accepts or does not accept, there was NO EVIDENCE of porn or prostitutes. Please remember that in one of his more lucid moments, the judge told the jury must base their verdict on the evidence that they heard, and nothing else. You and mrswah and the rest of the world may pass judgement that is based on hearsay, but it is just that. There is no doubt that porn exists and that prostitutes do ply the hotel bedrooms of California, but allegations that VT viewed porn and paid prostitutes were and remain hearsay.

No witness was ever identified who could testify to the viewing of porn by the defendant on a computer, nor were any affidavits by any of the prostitutes ever referred to by the lawyers who made these allegations (under the protection of the court), nor by any of the journalists who faithfully reproduced them without stating that these allegations were hearsay. It is an astonishing "oversight". Regardless of whether it was brought before the jury or not, the absence of these guarantees that there were evidence, rather than mere hearsay, makes any discussion of VT's private sexual behaviour (other than his own testimony under oath) futile, very offensive, unserious, and suggestive of somene who prefers to believe what they want to believe, rather than a contribution to an understanding what what really happened.

Didn't he plead guilty to the porn charges when the case came to court?

[AerialHunter]

Yes he did plead guilty, but what was the point in not doing? The sentence, if you could call it that, would run concurrently whilst he was already in prison and might gain him category C status, away from the rest of the morons he’s had to put up with. Cat C prisoners may be nonces, but often they are educated nonces, not your average dipstick and are less prone to violent unprovoked outbursts.

[Baz]

Yes he did plead guilty, but what was the point in not doing? The sentence, if you could call it that, would run concurrently whilst he was already in prison and might gain him category C status, away from the rest of the morons he’s had to put up with. Cat C prisoners may be nonces, but often they are educated nonces, not your average dipstick and are less prone to violent unprovoked outbursts.

I guess that's a possibility.

It does seem strange to me that people here seem to think that Tabak's guilty pleas come about for every reason other than "because he did it!!"

[mrswah]

Yes he did plead guilty, but what was the point in not doing? The sentence, if you could call it that, would run concurrently whilst he was already in prison and might gain him category C status, away from the rest of the morons he’s had to put up with. Cat C prisoners may be nonces, but often they are educated nonces, not your average dipstick and are less prone to violent unprovoked outbursts.

I wonder , what was the point of putting him on the sex offenders' register, since this will have expired by the time he comes out of prison. He is not likely to commit any offences against children, or against anyone else if he is in prison now, is he, unless he is going to attack another inmate, which I somehow doubt.

Why try him for "indecent images" all that time later?  Well, he MIGHT actually be guilty (even I don't discount this completely). On the other hand, I am a cynic, and let's just suggest that it might have been done just in case the stitches started to unravel at some point.

[mrswah]

I guess that's a possibility.

It does seem strange to me that people here seem to think that Tabak's guilty pleas come about for every reason other than "because he did it!!"

Why do you assume that people who plead guilty have necessarily "done it"???

[Baz]

Why do you assume that people who plead guilty have necessarily "done it"???

I'm not quite sure what to say to that. I guess it feels to me that it's just logical that (at least) the large majority of people that plead guilty do so because they are. I guess in the States people might plead guilty to avoid a likely death sentence but I can't think of a good reason to do so here. In what situation do you think that you would admit to murder when you hadn't committed the crime?

I'm wracking my brain and but I can't think of any proven miscarriage of justice i which the person pleaded guilty in a court of law.