The Defence Will State Their Case

[jixy]

That is a really good explanation justsaying.  Clear and to the point! Maybe sticking to the facts in this case, as with Luke Mitchells and things wont get so complicated

Once conspiracy theories come in to it... its all gets tangled!

[justsaying]

As a further point Nine, considering the trial was about the level of intent, ask yourself what those list of witnesses could have brought to the trial to help prove that Tabak was indeed guilty of murder rather than manslaughter...

Nothing at all.

[[...]]

Nine, you do not seem to be fully aware of the law and/or trial procedures, I may be wrong but that is what I am getting from your posts.

1. It is not necessary for every person who has given a statement to be called as a witness during the trial, their statements will not have been in dispute hence the reason they were not called. (i.e. why call a witness who heard a scream, the fact she screamed was not disputed, it was in fact admitted by Tabak and was supposed to be the reason he covered the victim's mouth and subsequently strangled her)

2. Police do not release every bit of information in relation to their investigations, this means that they will have evidence which only the killer would have known about - I assume the same will have happened in this case.

3. Newspapers do not print every aspect of the trial, that is the problem with getting information from news reports, there are bound to be huge gaps.

4. No evidence of non-disclosure.

5. As explained previously, the defence had no choice but to paint him the way they did, the jury already knew Tabak had pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

6. You cannot be found guilty on confession alone, there has to be evidence linking you to the crime. Be that circumstantial, direct, indirect etc... (the law states this)

7. Once again, the trial was never about establishing whether Tabak killed the victim, he had already admitted that part.

8. The Crown are allowed to introduce theory on what allegedly happened, not what the actual evidence is. (whether true or not, that is why it is called theory)
 

If everyone knows this then it is hardly undisclosed...

(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??

[justsaying]

(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....

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?

(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...

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.

(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...!

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

(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....

Speculation then...

(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!

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

(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...

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.

(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?

The trial was based on his confession of manslaughter.

(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...

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

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....

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

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....

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!

[[...]]

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

You see, you have a good argument there for why we shouldn't have juries... Then everyone can be royally stuffed by the system even more.....  As jurors do not have understanding of the law or court proceedings either...And are picked from a wide ranging population... A jury who should be given all the evidence to make their opinion on guilt or Innocence... Not Cherry Pick what they may or may not see at trial.... A Jury that believe what the Defence and Prosecution bring to the table... A Jury who believe that if the Defence isn't Defending their client... then he must be guilty!!

My god... why have uneducated people making decisions that they possibily cannot have a clue about....

We better leave it to those who know best eh.... And thank our lucky stars that no-one has decided to brand us as being a witch, and duck us to find out whether or not we are Innocent....

So I leave it to your better judgement Justsaying... You appear to have a better handle on what is legal, than I do... And I shall keep my opinions to myself in future.... We do not want decent in the masses now do we... Oh no... People thinking for themselves... whatever next!!

[justsaying]

You see, you have a good argument there for why we shouldn't have juries... Then everyone can be royally stuffed by the system even more.....  As jurors do not have understanding of the law or court proceedings either...And are picked from a wide ranging population... A jury who should be given all the evidence to make their opinion on guilt... Not Cherry Pick what they may or may not see at trial.... A Jury that believe what the Defence and Prosecution bring to the table... A Jury who believe that if the Defence isn't Defending their client... then he must be guilty!!

My god... why have uneducated people making decisions that they possibily cannot have a clue about....

We better leave it to those who know best eh.... And thank our lucky stars that no-one has decided to brand us as being a witch, and duck us to find out whether or not we are Innocent....

So I leave it to your better judgement Justsaying... You appear to have a better handle on what is legal, than I do... And I shall keep my opinions to myself in future.... We do not want decent in the masses now do we... Oh no... People thinking for themselves... whatever next!!

Sorry but you make no sense. Juror's may or may not have an understanding of the law, it is the very reason why they have a judge to direct them.

[jixy]

I think the Jury were given a huge helping hand when he admitted killing her dont you? The jury cant be blamed for that.  Murder or Manslaughter was the decision!

[justsaying]

I never once said you were uneducated either Nine, I said you have a lack of understanding when it comes to law and trial procedures.

[justsaying]

I think the Jury were given a huge helping hand when he admitted killing her dont you? The jury cant be blamed for that.  Murder or Manslaughter was the decision!

  Yes they were definitely given a helping hand by his confession.

 And, were definitely given a helping hand as to the law by the judge from his directions I would expect.

[[...]]

Yes they were definitely given a helping hand by his confession.

 And, were definitely given a helping hand as to the law by the judge from his directions I would expect.

I still stay confused.....

OK... Who is Dr Vincent Tabak??  Everyone is convinced that he is guilty of Manslaughter, this was stated in the media about his appearance at The Old Bailey with a unique number U20110387.

Is he and was he known by another name??

We may see images of a man they call Dr Vincent Tabak, but is it?? We know little to zero about him....  I keep trying to understand why it doesn't make sense....  And why Joanna Yeates was killed....

The determining of his guilt was set in stone by the 29th July 2011,... And probably at The Old Bailey, but it is the 29th July 2011 that we are made aware by the Attorney General and the Case taking place at that time that Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty of Manslaughter at least...

The way the trial played out across the media in October 2011 had me questioning everything about this case... And it is from the trial and what i know that i determined that Dr Vincent Tabak was Innocent.... But... I maybe need to look at this differently...

The question keeps coming back to who is Dr Vincent Tabak?? Is he really an engineer? Was he an undercover Police Officer??  Was he trying to silence Joanna Yeates....

The trial is seperate from everything else I believe... And as everyone keeps pointing out to me it was about INTENT... And not whether or not he did it.... Which on the surface seems strange...  I don't know law, but it appears all wrong... I cannot think of any case which is similar to this one...

I believe everyone knows that the tale told on the stand was a tall story and it realistically came from what was already known in this case... There were no surprises to be had, and there should have been....  The media went along with the tall tale told... They tweeted about it... (highly unusual).. No criminal case had ever had live tweets before... They reported it on line...  The Defence sounded like the Prosecution at times and The Prosecution and even the Judge sounded like the Defence at times.. But why??

I don't get it i don't understand...

I have gone back to :Attorney General v MGN Ltd
                               29 Jul 2011 [2011] EWHC 2074 (Admin), DC

And there are a couple of paragraphs that make me question everything again.....

The proceedings arise from the killing of a young woman, Joanna Yeates, in Bristol on 17th December 2010.  Her landlord, Christopher Jefferies, was arrested on 30th December on suspicion of her murder.  He was released from custody on unconditional police bail during the evening of 1st January 2011.  On 22nd January another man, Vincent Tabak was charged with the murder of Miss Yeates.  On 4th March Mr Jefferies was informed that he was released from police bail.  On 5th May Tabak admitted that he was responsible for killing Miss Yeates when, at the Central Criminal Court, he pleaded guilty to her manslaughter.  He denied murder on the basis of diminished responsibility.  The trial of that issue will take place in the autumn.

So from that quote, I understand that a trial has been agreed to contest INTENT??  But what was the trial really about... Was it putting INTENT on trial?? Was Dr Vincent Tabak ever really on trial in October 2011?? Or did we just have "INTENT" in the dock? I question this because...

There is therefore no doubt about the identity of the man who killed Miss Yeates or that Mr Jefferies is innocent of any involvement in it.  By way of emphasis, he is not simply presumed in law to be innocent of the killing.  As a matter of fact and reality he is innocent.  He is not facing trial, and he will never face trial.  However at the time when the articles complained of were published, he was under arrest.  For the purposes of the Act proceedings against him were active.  No one was to know that before very long he would be entirely exonerated.  That feature makes this an unusual case. The articles complained of did not have and could not have had any impact whatever on a trial of Mr Jefferies, just because – as we now know - there will never be one. From the point of view of the defendants that was purely adventitious, and as we shall see, it is irrelevant to our decision.  It is also irrelevant that the way in which some elements of the media may have treated Mr Jefferies may justify a substantial award of damages for defamation.  This is a prosecution for contempt of court, not an analysis of any possible civil claim by him for compensation.

"There will never be one"...  So there will never be a trial full stop if I understand that correctly... The matter must be settled, but it was played out in the media because???

That I do not know....

Something has been covered up, that is obvious, CJ couldn't confidently push forward so early on before a trial his claims for compensation.. You would have imagined he would have waited... I don't understand why the AG has got involved... That is usual... is it??

According to the second paragraph, Dr Vincent Tabak pled not guilty to Murder on the grounds of diminished responsibilities... But guilty to her Manslaughter....

But at trial, nothing to support diminished responsibilities was entered into evidence.....  No medical reports, nothing about his character, in fact nothing about him whatsoever... Nobody there to take the stand in his defence at all...

Do we question what the trial was about, or do we question how Joanna Yeates was killed, and in what capacity? Or both??

It appears that they know for certain that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates, the question is why do they know for certain?? It appears that they had in fact decided and concluded this in May 2011, evidence must have appeared at the Old Bailey to support this... I have know idea what is spoken about behind closed doors... Or why Dr Vincent Tabak would have 2 different trial numbers.... But there has to be more to this than meets the eye if he was taken to the Old Bailey, and The Attorney general is happy to state that Dr Vincent Tabak IS guilty of the demise of Joanna Yeates and Christopher Jefferies is wholly Innocent....

I kept saying that Dr Vincent Tabak could retracted his plea at any time, (imo) which makes The Attorney Generals statement even more strange.... And I'm still stumped as to why he got involved...

Would I say that Dr Vincent Tabak is still Innocent..... Yes, because someone is Innocent until proven guilty and we do not know what actually took place, and why The Attorney General was satisfied that Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty back on the 29th July 2011 is beyond me....

Did a real trial take place in October 2011?? I don't know... But a lot off people wanted everyone to know about Dr Vincent Tabak for some reason, so in their eyes he must be guilty of something... But not what we have been told.. (imo) I say a real trial because i do not know of any legal documentation of R V Tabak.. There could be, it would be great if someone could point us to it please.... (Or is it sealed somewhere after his Old Bailey appearance?)

Is Dr Vincent Tabak free somewhere carrying on life as normal?? Well no one can locate him... I wonder if it was some special Police Operation that went awry.. I don't know... But there are 2 people in this case that we know little to nothing about, 2 people who history should have been part of a trial, 2 people who have been all over the media and 2 people no-one will talk about....

So who is Dr Vincent Tabak really??
Who is Joanna Yeates??

And what is it about this case that it gets quoted in many many publications, without anyone questioning anything that I have brought to the table.... Why was it so important for Joanna Yeates case to be mentioned at the Leveson??

I have wondered why The Yeates haven't said anything else since... I have wondered why the Tabak's haven't said anything else since... And it's odd...

Is Dr Vincent Tabak related to the Yeates ??

Have the Yeates been silenced by some court order??

Have the media been silenced??  I don't know.. But this case makes no sense to me and i want to know why everyone believes that Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty of MANSLAUGHTER and on what grounds.... I want to know why they all talk of a confession and when and where this confession took place and were they privvy to this confession...

I want to know if I have just been wasting my time....


http://iclr.co.uk/document/2011201901/%5B2011%5D%20EWHC%202074%20(Admin)/html?query=tabak&filter=content-available%3A%22Transcript%22&fullSearchFields=&page=1&sort=relevance&pageSize=10

[[...]]

Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWHC 2383 (Admin)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECO/3685/2011

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

ADMINISTRATIVE  COURT

Royal Courts of Justice

The Strand

London

WC2A 2LL

 

Friday  29  July  2011

 

B e f o r e:

 

THE  LORD  CHIEF  JUSTICE  OF  ENGLAND  AND  WALES

(Lord Judge)

 

LORD  JUSTICE  THOMAS

 

and

 

MR  JUSTICE  OWEN

 

B E T W E E N:

 

 

HER  MAJESTY'S  ATTORNEY  GENERAL

Claimant

and

 

(1) MGN  LIMITED

(2) NEWS  GROUP  NEWSPAPERS  LIMITED

Defendants

_______________

 

Computer Aided Transcription by

Wordwave International Ltd (a Merrill Communications Company)

165 Fleet Street, London EC4

Telephone No: 020 7421 4040

(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

_______________

 

Mr Dominic Grieve QC (Her Majesty's Attorney General)

and Miss Melanie Cumberland

(instructed by the Treasury Solicitor)

appeared on behalf of the Claimant

 

Mr Jonathan Caplan QC (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain)

appeared on behalf of the First Defendant

 

Miss Adrienne Page QC and Mr Anthony Hudson

(instructed by Farrer & Co) appeared on behalf of the Second Defendant

_______________

 

J U D G M E N T

(As  Approved)

_______________

 


Friday  29  July  2011

 

THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE:

1.  The penalty for both respondents is a fine.  In fixing the fine it is irrelevant that Mr Jefferies has successfully pursued a civil remedy for damages for defamation and that damages have been agreed and that an apology has been and will be made to him.  His claim was unanswerable.

 

2.  These contempts created substantial risks to the course of justice.  Fortunately, in the end justice was not prejudiced or impeded.  That was simply good fortune.  It had nothing to do with efforts by the two newspapers with which the case is concerned to mitigate the contempts.  It no doubt depended on some further good police work and the acceptance in open court by Tabak of his responsibility for this dreadful crime.

 

3.  The Contempt of Court Act 1981 is concerned with substantial risks that justice will be impeded or prejudiced.  As we have explained, the concepts are distinct, but in most cases where a trial actually takes place, there is likely to be an overlap.  In the end, in this particular case the risks to justice did not eventuate.

 

4.  One aggravating feature of these cases is that in a broadcast on 31 December 2010 the Attorney General gave a clear and salutary warning of the risks to the administration of justice.  Unsurprisingly, he did not spell out precisely what coverage might or might not constitute a contempt.  We find it impossible to accept that no one in either newspaper knew that the warning had been given, or failed to understand its terms.  In the end it was decided nonetheless to publish the articles which we have found to constitute a contempt.  That is a significant aggravating feature.

 

5.  Even now, it is implicit in the submissions certainly by Mr Caplan QC that the coverage proceeded, and was entitled to proceed, on the basis that as a result of the "fade factor" and the robust independence of the juries, virtually anything could be published.  That was, and is, a serious misapprehension.  For the reasons given in the judgment, in every case where an individual has been arrested on suspicion of committing a crime, he must not be vilified.  There is nothing new in that principle.  It is a perfectly simple one.

 

6.  The issue which must therefore be addressed is the risk to the administration of justice, whether by impeding its proper course, or prejudicing the process.  We do not think that any editor can misunderstand the true position.

 

7.  The two newspapers are in different positions.  There were two articles in the Daily Mirror and one article in The Sun.  The articles in the Daily Mirror were more extreme, and their combined effect on the risks to justice was therefore greater.

 

8.  This case did not involve any guilty plea, or equivalent, or acknowledgement of the contempt by either newspaper.  Even now, it is maintained on behalf of the Daily Mirror that this was an issue which it was entitled to contest.  So it was.  The Sun contested it, but in the light of the judgment that has been given The Sun has offered an apology for what the court has held to be a contempt.

 

9.  Having reflected on the various different decisions which have been drawn to our attention in the written submissions on both sides, we have come to the conclusion that in relation to the Daily Mirror the fine should be fixed at £50,000.  In relation to The Sun, making an allowance even for the very late apology, the fine will be fixed at £18,000.

 

10.  The respondents will pay the Attorney General's costs on a standard basis.  They will be shared equally between the two respondents.

 

11.  As to the question of an appeal, we take the view that the judgment involved the application of clear statutory language to an unusual factual situation in which a person under arrest has been vilified.  We therefore decline to grant leave.

 

MR CAPLAN:  My Lord, may I raise one matter?

 

THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE:  Yes.

 

MR CAPLAN:  Under the Administration of Justice Act -- I think it is section 2 -- any application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court should be made within 28 days of your Lordships refusing an application in this court.  But your Lordships do have the power under section 2(3) to extend the time within which such an application could be made.

 

THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE:  Yes.

 

MR CAPLAN:  Could we respectfully ask your Lordships to agree to extend time to us to make an application on or by 16 September -- that is a further two weeks?

 

THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE:  Of course, Mr Caplan.

From (1): What does his claim was unanswerable mean??

 http://iclr.co.uk/document/2016040877/%5B2011%5D%20EWHC%202383%20(Admin)/html

[Nicholas]

I still stay confused.....

OK... Who is Dr Vincent Tabak??  Everyone is convinced that he is guilty of Manslaughter, this was stated in the media about his appearance at The Old Bailey with a unique number U20110387.

Is he and was he known by another name??

We may see images of a man they call Dr Vincent Tabak, but is it?? We know little to zero about him....  I keep trying to understand why it doesn't make sense....  And why Joanna Yeates was killed....

The determining of his guilt was set in stone by the 29th July 2011,... And probably at The Old Bailey, but it is the 29th July 2011 that we are made aware by the Attorney General and the Case taking place at that time that Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty of Manslaughter at least...

The way the trial played out across the media in October 2011 had me questioning everything about this case... And it is from the trial and what i know that i determined that Dr Vincent Tabak was Innocent.... But... I maybe need to look at this differently...

The question keeps coming back to who is Dr Vincent Tabak?? Is he really an engineer? Was he an undercover Police Officer??  Was he trying to silence Joanna Yeates....

The trial is seperate from everything else I believe... And as everyone keeps pointing out to me it was about INTENT... And not whether or not he did it.... Which on the surface seems strange...  I don't know law, but it appears all wrong... I cannot think of any case which is similar to this one...

I believe everyone knows that the tale told on the stand was a tall story and it realistically came from what was already known in this case... There were no surprises to be had, and there should have been....  The media went along with the tall tale told... They tweeted about it... (highly unusual).. No criminal case had ever had live tweets before... They reported it on line...  The Defence sounded like the Prosecution at times and The Prosecution and even the Judge sounded like the Defence at times.. But why??

I don't get it i don't understand...

I have gone back to :Attorney General v MGN Ltd
                               29 Jul 2011 [2011] EWHC 2074 (Admin), DC

And there are a couple of paragraphs that make me question everything again.....

So from that quote, I understand that a trial has been agreed to contest INTENT??  But what was the trial really about... Was it putting INTENT on trial?? Was Dr Vincent Tabak ever really on trial in October 2011?? Or did we just have "INTENT" in the dock? I question this because...


"There will never be one"...  So there will never be a trial full stop if I understand that correctly... The matter must be settled, but it was played out in the media because???

That I do not know....

Something has been covered up, that is obvious, CJ couldn't confidently push forward so early on before a trial his claims for compensation.. You would have imagined he would have waited... I don't understand why the AG has got involved... That is usual... is it??

According to the second paragraph, Dr Vincent Tabak pled not guilty to Murder on the grounds of diminished responsibilities... But guilty to her Manslaughter....

But at trial, nothing to support diminished responsibilities was entered into evidence.....  No medical reports, nothing about his character, in fact nothing about him whatsoever... Nobody there to take the stand in his defence at all...

Do we question what the trial was about, or do we question how Joanna Yeates was killed, and in what capacity? Or both??

It appears that they know for certain that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates, the question is why do they know for certain?? It appears that they had in fact decided and concluded this in May 2011, evidence must have appeared at the Old Bailey to support this... I have know idea what is spoken about behind closed doors... Or why Dr Vincent Tabak would have 2 different trial numbers.... But there has to be more to this than meets the eye if he was taken to the Old Bailey, and The Attorney general is happy to state that Dr Vincent Tabak IS guilty of the demise of Joanna Yeates and Christopher Jefferies is wholly Innocent....

I kept saying that Dr Vincent Tabak could retracted his plea at any time, (imo) which makes The Attorney Generals statement even more strange.... And I'm still stumped as to why he got involved...

Would I say that Dr Vincent Tabak is still Innocent..... Yes, because someone is Innocent until proven guilty and we do not know what actually took place, and why The Attorney General was satisfied that Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty back on the 29th July 2011 is beyond me....

Did a real trial take place in October 2011?? I don't know... But a lot off people wanted everyone to know about Dr Vincent Tabak for some reason, so in their eyes he must be guilty of something... But not what we have been told.. (imo) I say a real trial because i do not know of any legal documentation of R V Tabak.. There could be, it would be great if someone could point us to it please.... (Or is it sealed somewhere after his Old Bailey appearance?)

Is Dr Vincent Tabak free somewhere carrying on life as normal?? Well no one can locate him... I wonder if it was some special Police Operation that went awry.. I don't know... But there are 2 people in this case that we know little to nothing about, 2 people who history should have been part of a trial, 2 people who have been all over the media and 2 people no-one will talk about....

So who is Dr Vincent Tabak really??
Who is Joanna Yeates??

And what is it about this case that it gets quoted in many many publications, without anyone questioning anything that I have brought to the table.... Why was it so important for Joanna Yeates case to be mentioned at the Leveson??

I have wondered why The Yeates haven't said anything else since... I have wondered why the Tabak's haven't said anything else since... And it's odd...

Is Dr Vincent Tabak related to the Yeates ??

Have the Yeates been silenced by some court order??

Have the media been silenced??  I don't know.. But this case makes no sense to me and i want to know why everyone believes that Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty of MANSLAUGHTER and on what grounds.... I want to know why they all talk of a confession and when and where this confession took place and were they privvy to this confession...

I want to know if I have just been wasting my time....


http://iclr.co.uk/document/2011201901/%5B2011%5D%20EWHC%202074%20(Admin)/html?query=tabak&filter=content-available%3A%22Transcript%22&fullSearchFields=&page=1&sort=relevance&pageSize=10

 

Dr Sandra Lean 10th January 2017 re Simon Hall
 
".....The confession and the circumstances in which it was made, have never been made public. There were other suicide attempts, the last being in February 2014, when he was found dead in his cell. The confession, whether reliable or not, does not alter the fact that the case on which the conviction was founded was extremely weak, and fell far below the standards most of us would expect when a life sentence is the potential outcome of proceedings.

I do hope justsaying will be able to answer your questions Nine, seeing as they've now taken an interest in this case.

It's clear a lot of work has gone into gaining your quite apparent in depth knowledge on this case.

Your questions are valid from my viewpoint, especially considering the public comments made regarding Simon Halls confession and by whom they were made.

You see, to this day, we have only Stephanie’s word about the circumstances leading up to the confession, the circumstances of the confession itself, the state of Simon’s mental and emotional well-being (or otherwise), the content of the confession etc. We have no information about how the confession was given or accepted (it was reported at the inquest that he “told his wife” who then “told him to tell the prison.” I have no idea if that is true or not – it was reported in the media, after all.) I’m not inclined to simply take Stephanie’s word (or anyone else’s for that matter) at face value. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382961.html#msg382961

[[...]]

I do hope justsaying will be able to answer your questions Nine, seeing as they've now taken an interest in this case.

It's clear a lot of work has gone into gaining your quite apparent in depth knowledge on this case.

Your questions are valid from my stand point, especially considering the public comments made regarding Simon Halls confession and guilt and by whom they were made.

I wish someone would answer my questions Stephanie, and thanks for your response, nice to see someone else post...

 

[Nicholas]

.. its all gets tangled!

Tangled by whom?

[[...]]

Tangled by whom?

A question I keep asking... A complex case having Ann Reddrop persuing it till the bitter end, that was a simple strangulation.... Now that makes no sense !