The Defence Will State Their Case

[jixy]

why would Sandra or anyone else with a clear view and thought process on trials miscarriage of justice and guilty people want to touch this with a barge pole?

[justsaying]

“In my opinion you are thoroughly deceitful, dishonest and manipulative”
- Mr. Justice Field, sentencing Vincent Tabak, 28th October 2011

This damning and utterly false description of the defendant’s character can be shown to have applied far more accurately to the public prosecutor and her QC, the police, his own lawyers and the other bullies into whose clutches he had fallen since the time of his arrest. A barrister enjoys the privilege of immunity from prosecution for everything he says in court. Unlike the witnesses, he does not take the oath, so he has the freedom to “lead” evidence to deceive and manipulate the jury unless the judge intervenes to prevent it. It is also the judge’s job to ensure that the jury does not interpret as evidence anything they hear or see in court whose integrity is not confirmed by a witness under oath. The following account of this case’s main examples of documented deceit and manipulation is aimed at all those who dispute that the police and judiciary would ever knowingly convict an innocent man with the argument that THEY WOULDN’T DO THAT, WOULD THEY? - YES THEY WOULD http://vincent-tabak-is-innocent.blogspot.com/2012/01/deceitful-and-manipulative.html

Disclaimer
This unofficial web site has been rigorously researched on the basis of published information, much of which can be readily verified by reference to online sources. However, many of the detailed reports have recently been removed from the news media's own websites. Where this account of the case contains inferences, these are usually obvious from the contexts. Some inferences are formulated as questions. A small number of key facts have been obtained by means of Freedom of Information applications, and a few others by private communication.


Could be Sandra Lean?

Complete BS!

[Nicholas]

Complete BS!

I'm no longer persuaded by the way she writes but some people are!

[[...]]

“In my opinion you are thoroughly deceitful, dishonest and manipulative”
- Mr. Justice Field, sentencing Vincent Tabak, 28th October 2011

This damning and utterly false description of the defendant’s character can be shown to have applied far more accurately to the public prosecutor and her QC, the police, his own lawyers and the other bullies into whose clutches he had fallen since the time of his arrest. A barrister enjoys the privilege of immunity from prosecution for everything he says in court. Unlike the witnesses, he does not take the oath, so he has the freedom to “lead” evidence to deceive and manipulate the jury unless the judge intervenes to prevent it. It is also the judge’s job to ensure that the jury does not interpret as evidence anything they hear or see in court whose integrity is not confirmed by a witness under oath. The following account of this case’s main examples of documented deceit and manipulation is aimed at all those who dispute that the police and judiciary would ever knowingly convict an innocent man with the argument that THEY WOULDN’T DO THAT, WOULD THEY? - YES THEY WOULD http://vincent-tabak-is-innocent.blogspot.com/2012/01/deceitful-and-manipulative.html

Disclaimer
This unofficial web site has been rigorously researched on the basis of published information, much of which can be readily verified by reference to online sources. However, many of the detailed reports have recently been removed from the news media's own websites. Where this account of the case contains inferences, these are usually obvious from the contexts. Some inferences are formulated as questions. A small number of key facts have been obtained by means of Freedom of Information applications, and a few others by private communication.

 

[Caroline]

why would Sandra or anyone else with a clear view and thought process on trials miscarriage of justice and guilty people want to touch this with a barge pole?

The biggest stumbling block in respect to fighting a MOJ for Tabak, is Tabak himself given that he has never claimed to be one. You're kinda on a losing streak when you first have to convince the appellant.

[jixy]

So true. The whole thread in a nutshell... Not gonna happen and neither should it

[Nicholas]

"During his opening speech at the Old Bailey, defence lawyer Mr Bennathan said: "Only one person is on trial here sitting in the dock - Russell Bishop.
"But the law allows a defendant like him to point out facts, ask questions, to the jury that might suggest the possibility that another person exists who may have carried out these awful attacks
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-46032500

[[...]]

"During his opening speech at the Old Bailey, defence lawyer Mr Bennathan said: "Only one person is on trial here sitting in the dock - Russell Bishop.
"But the law allows a defendant like him to point out facts, ask questions, to the jury that might suggest the possibility that another person exists who may have carried out these awful attacks
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-46032500

But if Dr Vincent Tabak asked questions of the jury or pointed out fact , we wouldn't know...  It was never reported.

[jixy]

Nine.... he could have done a lot of things but he stood by his admission of guilt.  He would never be able to question the Jury ever...

[Caroline]

But if Dr Vincent Tabak asked questions of the jury or pointed out fact , we wouldn't know...  It was never reported.

Think about all of the things you could make claim to with the excuse that it simply was never reported?

[mrswah]

I ask again:

Could posters please keep to the topic, and refrain from goading other posters  and arguing.

Thank you!

[jixy]

But if Dr Vincent Tabak asked questions of the jury or pointed out fact , we wouldn't know...  It was never reported.

A comma may be a little thing but it totally changes a sentence, just like the evidence in this case...

[[...]]

A comma may be a little thing but it totally changes a sentence, just like the evidence in this case...

Sorry if my punctuation, isn't up to scratch, I have explained, my position...

[jixy]

Nine I wasnt actually on about your punctuation, it was in the article. You then commented about asking the Jury questions

[[...]]

Nine I wasnt actually on about your punctuation, it was in the article. You then commented about asking the Jury questions

   Oopsie.....