Author Topic: The Defence Will State Their Case  (Read 599680 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline APRIL

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3765 on: April 29, 2019, 07:53:31 PM »
Hes also done a DVD on the Ipswich murders.  In Noel's world our prisons are full of mostly wrongly convicted people by a conspiracy of lawyers, judges and the police.
 
 


That rings a bell. I think I may know someone else who has the same belief!
 

Offline mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2169
  • Total likes: 796
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3766 on: April 29, 2019, 11:09:44 PM »
Well, let's not belittle other people for their beliefs----we are all entitled to them. If our views were all the same, there would be nothing to discuss.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3767 on: April 30, 2019, 11:00:25 AM »
I thought you would have realised by now why that forum was shut down!  The member you mentioned, Noel O'Gara, was sued for libel by DCS Chris Gregg of WYP in relation to allegations of corruption regarding the Yorkshire Ripper case... and of course O'Gara lost!  Isn't it strange that O'Gara thinks (or at least did think in 2016) that Vincent Tabak was also stitched up?  No wonder his CD order page disappeared off the net! 

https://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/ripper-detective-wins-163-50-000-damages-1-1146263

7vu_--NZQszj4dpxgLeTgSvVcQqWjA&__tn__=EEHH-R]https://www.facebook.com/vincenttabak/photos/a.1266690200054996/1266690233388326/?type=3&eid=ARBiS9bN6rexNsH5AmCeXsyF-onZDXsP-HepSVFqo0DqyJLOAgc91au-Q9mhpkJw9up5gp64mUgod0Gy&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARCqmuWPibk-Ad5onWfuPn6LptgNtpoitErQOBwzHgC3OF5I66TNhY92fxBdlflNZmQLsTjd29xhGjkl9ICYxUkIrNv9N4w9t5kVvSyadiTC6sitJzSw3rYuvOJwvmeSZhFAHgk_xyFDDTed-i0LJn4nTXRgRdovgJ7_yBS_CIr3YQrdj4_VqRsnKEl8RCd_rWSVjC7zVxdIJtO3r2OZKDQCXKbwOI8EKArtrUBNyHpcJU2LONDasrbXMaVzTk4akyLrwReClinof6UFizoyf1i5891qM8zcfqhaGP7hh1dCG6xlvcvMbSNZGV[Name removed]7vu_--NZQszj4dpxgLeTgSvVcQqWjA&__tn__=EEHH-R

No sign either of his book on the Yorkshire Ripper... https://www.amazon.com/Real-Yorkshire-Ripper-Noel-OGara/dp/B002SEY45I

And now we have another inveterate name-changer on this forum who is just as deluded!

Noel O'Gara.... I do not know him, ... I am bemused by him sometimes.... 

The facebook account : Joanna Yeates 'The Sequel"....  Now it has a photo of Noel,O'Gara... Is it really his account... I do not know.... There is an account called Noel O'Gara...  and that may be the real him... Again i do not know....

He writes about the case, offers to sell CD's etc...... 

Quote
Noel O'Gara
31 December 2016 at 00:28

Here for the first time is the full story of how the Bristol murder was solved and the public were conned into believing that the police had actually found the killer of Joanna Yeates when in fact they had arrested an innocent man and blackmailed him with threats of jail for child porn and fabricated dna claims which were published by the tabloid press thereby convincing the public and all the legal teams involved in this classic stitch up of the modern age. The story is on CD and is available for 10.00 pounds to include postage. Order today http://noelogara.com/pay…/bristolmurder/

But, what alarmed me about that particular profile, was his boasts....

Quote
Joanna Yeates murder in Bristol and sequel

well this case should be of interest to you as a resident of Bristol and as a student of crime and policing. I suggest you read the webpage I made about it and just to let you know it was me who rumbled the cops when they arrested Jefferies. Had I not done that they would have easily gotten a conviction against him. He would have caved in after a week or two in Long Lartin and done a deal to get a manslaughter plea. Can you imagine what LL would have done to him?

And

Quote
Joanna Yeates murder in Bristol and sequel

my work in exposing the Yorkshire Ripper cover up is well known in police circles and all the top cops resigned within a year or two of Sutcliffe's conviction because of my work in exposing the stitch up of copycat killer Sutcliffe as the Ripper. This work has provided me with an insight into policing and how the judicial establishment kicks in behind the police once an arrest is made. The presumption is always they got the killer and everybody wants to believe that and assist in getting him convicted. That urge often results in false convictions because everybody wants to do their bit to get that killer off the street. Unfortunately if the police suspicion is wrong and they charge an innocent person, he will find himself in a terrible trap. Then the media will only report the court records and some interviews that the police give. People like me on the sidelines telling them they got the wrong man are ignored and the real killers are laughing and know exactly how police work. I wrote to the Bristol police after Jefferies arrest because I recognised the pattern of media vilification and how they had hit a brick wall and needed a fall guy. Jefferies didnt fit any kind of a killer profile and indeed wouldnt have the strength to choke Joanna. That and lots more plus a threat to document and publish their stitch up resulted in him being freed later that day. He said later that he almost cracked up after two days of Hell. What would two months do to this fragile man?


It's these 2 particular statements...

I suggest you read the webpage I made about it and just to let you know it was me who rumbled the cops when they arrested Jefferies. Had I not done that they would have easily gotten a conviction against him.

I wrote to the Bristol police after Jefferies arrest because I recognised the pattern of media vilification and how they had hit a brick wall and needed a fall guy. Jefferies didnt fit any kind of a killer profile and indeed wouldnt have the strength to choke Joanna. That and lots more plus a threat to document and publish their stitch up resulted in him being freed later that day. He said later that he almost cracked up after two days of Hell. What would two months do to this fragile man?

If Mr O'Gara believes it was he whom assisted in getting CJ released, then why did he not manage to get Dr vincent Tabak released also?? If he has such abilities and has aided in CJ's release.. why not Dr Vincent Tabak's release, seeing as he believes Dr Vincent Tabak was stitched up..... It makes no sense to me, the claims that are made on FB...

As for the webpage he refers too... 'The Suffolk Strangler"... That webpage, was made before hand I believe... and that webpage has been taken down... It has been down for quite awhile now....

http://www.suffolkstrangler.com/vincenttabak.htm?fbclid=IwAR39bWGJUNrvROVfXF2dpDdVARxiKz6-LsMFiHWTD7vuaj1JSqe4MiajHv8

I am not associated with anyone.... I know no-one....

I have proven i don't agree with anyone... i have come to the conclusion, it is not real... But that is me...

I as you state may be deluded.... i know that this case has sent me around the twist....

I have never understood why anyone in law hasn't challenged this case... But as i do not know law I cannot say for sure...

A nagging doubt  brought me here, years after the event... I am not here to make money out of this...  I have never asked for payments... I have never written any book... As i prove by my writings here i am not compedient to do such a thing...
I did this because i am an idiot whom felt there had been a wrongful conviction... But as i cannot determine what is real or not anymore with this case... I do not know what do do about it anymore...

This is why all of my posts should go.... I have pointlessly chased an elusive man across the internet... I have made statements that I do not know whether in law are libilous, there being another reason.... Then I think if it's all made up who did I libel? So the simplest answer is for it to be taken down....

I have wasted my time... i now do not know what to believe, I am no-one.... My opinons count for zero...

I did this because I believed a Miscarriage of justice had taken place... I know that the likes of me shouldn't get involved.... I no nothing... I have learnt opinions count for nothing...  I have learnt, I have made a fool of myself.... I have learnt not to trust anyone....

The society we live in is hard to keep up with... laws changing all the time, politicians, confusing everyone more and more.... I used to think I was a strong person, who would always stand by my convictions.... But i now realise i can only do that if i keep it to myself...

I did not come here to offend people, I came here trying to understand this case better... I came because I thought, I might be able to make people aware....

I thought I was helping a man whom was unable to help himself....


Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3768 on: April 30, 2019, 11:43:14 AM »
This belongs and is part of my last post above... The only reason i did it seperately , was because of attachment limits....


I have found 2 of Noel O'Gara's youtube clips on the subject...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lyF7i99ioA
(Noel o'gara
Published on 25 Dec 2011)

There's a blue timer in the corner... No idea what it is....  Also (CI) which i assume is the TV channel is reflected on the window behind CJ?? How I have no idea....

And this one....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yprbt0SJEdY 
(Noel o'gara
Published on 28 Dec 2011)

I thought he was recording it from the TV, but I am unsure... He may be looking at it on a computer/laptop....

Is it the real Noel O'Gara on youtube.... Again I have no idea...

Once viewed , it can go in the bin with all of my other posts.... !

Offline Caroline

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3769 on: April 30, 2019, 12:46:54 PM »
Well, let's not belittle other people for their beliefs----we are all entitled to them. If our views were all the same, there would be nothing to discuss.

I think that very much depends on what they believe.

Offline Caroline

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3770 on: April 30, 2019, 12:50:13 PM »
Noel O'Gara.... I do not know him, ... I am bemused by him sometimes.... 

The facebook account : Joanna Yeates 'The Sequel"....  Now it has a photo of Noel,O'Gara... Is it really his account... I do not know.... There is an account called Noel O'Gara...  and that may be the real him... Again i do not know....

He writes about the case, offers to sell CD's etc...... 

But, what alarmed me about that particular profile, was his boasts....

And


It's these 2 particular statements...

I suggest you read the webpage I made about it and just to let you know it was me who rumbled the cops when they arrested Jefferies. Had I not done that they would have easily gotten a conviction against him.

I wrote to the Bristol police after Jefferies arrest because I recognised the pattern of media vilification and how they had hit a brick wall and needed a fall guy. Jefferies didnt fit any kind of a killer profile and indeed wouldnt have the strength to choke Joanna. That and lots more plus a threat to document and publish their stitch up resulted in him being freed later that day. He said later that he almost cracked up after two days of Hell. What would two months do to this fragile man?

If Mr O'Gara believes it was he whom assisted in getting CJ released, then why did he not manage to get Dr vincent Tabak released also?? If he has such abilities and has aided in CJ's release.. why not Dr Vincent Tabak's release, seeing as he believes Dr Vincent Tabak was stitched up..... It makes no sense to me, the claims that are made on FB...

As for the webpage he refers too... 'The Suffolk Strangler"... That webpage, was made before hand I believe... and that webpage has been taken down... It has been down for quite awhile now....

http://www.suffolkstrangler.com/vincenttabak.htm?fbclid=IwAR39bWGJUNrvROVfXF2dpDdVARxiKz6-LsMFiHWTD7vuaj1JSqe4MiajHv8

I am not associated with anyone.... I know no-one....

I have proven i don't agree with anyone... i have come to the conclusion, it is not real... But that is me...

I as you state may be deluded.... i know that this case has sent me around the twist....

I have never understood why anyone in law hasn't challenged this case... But as i do not know law I cannot say for sure...

A nagging doubt  brought me here, years after the event... I am not here to make money out of this...  I have never asked for payments... I have never written any book... As i prove by my writings here i am not compedient to do such a thing...
I did this because i am an idiot whom felt there had been a wrongful conviction... But as i cannot determine what is real or not anymore with this case... I do not know what do do about it anymore...

This is why all of my posts should go.... I have pointlessly chased an elusive man across the internet... I have made statements that I do not know whether in law are libilous, there being another reason.... Then I think if it's all made up who did I libel? So the simplest answer is for it to be taken down....

I have wasted my time... i now do not know what to believe, I am no-one.... My opinons count for zero...

I did this because I believed a Miscarriage of justice had taken place... I know that the likes of me shouldn't get involved.... I no nothing... I have learnt opinions count for nothing...  I have learnt, I have made a fool of myself.... I have learnt not to trust anyone....

The society we live in is hard to keep up with... laws changing all the time, politicians, confusing everyone more and more.... I used to think I was a strong person, who would always stand by my convictions.... But i now realise i can only do that if i keep it to myself...

I did not come here to offend people, I came here trying to understand this case better... I came because I thought, I might be able to make people aware....

I thought I was helping a man whom was unable to help himself....

You dont offend me but I think from your above reaction to the FB page you can see that cranks are everywhere.

Offline Caroline

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3771 on: April 30, 2019, 12:56:31 PM »
This belongs and is part of my last post above... The only reason i did it seperately , was because of attachment limits....


I have found 2 of Noel O'Gara's youtube clips on the subject...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lyF7i99ioA
(Noel o'gara
Published on 25 Dec 2011)

He has video's on other stuff - he a conspiracy theorist, nothing wrong with that but if you see them around every corner, I think that's called paranoia.

https://www.youtube.com/user/noelogaraa

There's a blue timer in the corner... No idea what it is....  Also (CI) which i assume is the TV channel is reflected on the window behind CJ?? How I have no idea....

And this one....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yprbt0SJEdY 
(Noel o'gara
Published on 28 Dec 2011)

I thought he was recording it from the TV, but I am unsure... He may be looking at it on a computer/laptop....

Is it the real Noel O'Gara on youtube.... Again I have no idea...

Once viewed , it can go in the bin with all of my other posts.... !

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3772 on: May 01, 2019, 09:29:36 AM »
From The Law pages Website...

These are the timelines for the case against Dr Vincent Tabak ,from the Lawpages website

Quote
25.01.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak

For Hearing - Case Started - 10:15
Crown Court Hearings

Quote
31.01.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 9)
Vincent Tabak

For Preliminary Hearing - Case Started - 10:02
Crown Court Hearings

Quote
07.09.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 2)
Vincent Tabak

For Mention - Case Started - 15:05
Crown Court Hearings

Quote
20.09.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 6)
Vincent Tabak

For Mention (All Parties to Attend) - Case Started - 12:01
Crown Court Hearings

Quote
04.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak

For Trial - Case adjourned until 10:30 - 16:01
Crown Court Hearings

Quote
06.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak

For Trial - Case adjourned until 10:15 - 15:31
Crown Court Hearings

Quote
07.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak

Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:30 - 15:09
Crown Court Hearings

Quote
10.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak

Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:30 - 16:29
Crown Court Hearings

Quote
11.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak

Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:30 - 16:09
Crown Court Hearings

Quote
12.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak

Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:30 - 15:48
Crown Court Hearings

Quote
13.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak

Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:00 - 16:10
Crown Court Hearings

Quote
14.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak

Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:30 - 15:51
Crown Court Hearings

Quote
17.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak

Trial (Part Heard) - Legal Submissions - 15:14
Crown Court Hearings

Quote
18.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak

Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:30 - 15:31
Crown Court Hearings

Quote
19.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak

Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:00 - 16:20
Crown Court Hearings

Quote
20.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak

Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:00 - 16:21
Crown Court Hearings

Quote
21.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak

Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:30 - 15:12
Crown Court Hearings

Quote
24.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak

Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:30 - 15:25
Crown Court Hearings

Quote
25.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak

Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:15 - 15:49
Crown Court Hearings

Quote
26.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak

Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:30 - 16:20
Crown Court Hearings

Quote
27.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak

Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:30 - 16:23
Crown Court Hearings

Quote
28.10.2011Court Case Result
Defendant: Vincent Tabak
Case No. T20117031
Court: Bristol Crown Court
View Result
Criminal Sentencing Record

Quote
28.10.2011Crown Court Hearing
Court: Bristol Crown Court (Court No. 1)
Vincent Tabak

Trial (Part Heard) - Hearing finished for VINCENT TABAK - 15:51
Crown Court Hearings

https://www.thelawpages.com/court-case-timeline/crime/7570/Vincent-Tabak-Bristol-Crown-Court

* Noticeably Missing, is the Court Date of 5th May 2011, ( The date where Dr Vincent Tabak apparently plead guilty
   to MANSLAUGHTER!)

* 20th September 2011, all parties to attend... ( What is all parties? and why)

* Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:30 - 16:23 (Or similar.. what does that mean?/ that the case didn't
   get heard between these times??)

All I see is it appears to be adjourned, rarely does it state case started, and not in October 2011, when this trial was supposed to have taken place..


On the days that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently took to the stand, The Case is started and adjourned between times??

Therefore does this mean, it never happened??

What is the purpose of this case, that makes no sense to me,....

Am I understanding it correctly, does between times mean that was when the adjournment was from? Therefore no trial actually happens..

Was it the media making it all up?

Where they not allowed to print what really took place?

If someone can explain this about between times it would be great.... 

I still have no answer to the 2 numbers that Dr Vincent Tabak had, these case numbers being mentioned in May 2011

* U20110387

* T20117031

But the Law Pages has NO Mention of this apparent appearance in court...


i did a post about this..... And the media tweeted about this

Quote
Rupert Evelyn

 
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
RT @ASPolice: Jo Yeates Update – Vincent Tabak appears at the Old Bailey (Bristol): Following murder of Jo Yeates ... http://bit.ly/miaFsR

4:22 am - 5 May 2011

https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/66100339224489984

Quote
Avon&Somerset Police

Verified account
 
@ASPolice
Follow Follow @ASPolice
More
Joanna Yeates Update – Vincent Tabak appears at the Old Bailey (Bristol): Following the murder of Joanna Yeates ... http://bit.ly/miaFsR

4:18 am - 5 May 2011

https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/66099493048827904

Quote
Rupert Evelyn

 
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
It's suggested that Jo Yeates accused, Vincent Tabak, will appear at the Old Bailey via videolink. Seeking clarification now.... #yeates

1:41 am - 5 May 2011

https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/66060039718309888

Quote
Rupert Evelyn

 
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
Off to Old Bailey for Jo #yeates case. Accused Vincent Tabak on list to enter plea. Court sitting in London as case is following the judge.

12:34 am - 5 May 2011

https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/66042946578952193

Quote
Mark Williams-Thomas

Verified account
 
@mwilliamsthomas
Follow Follow @mwilliamsthomas
More
RT @rupertevelyn: Old Bailey list 4 tomorrow Ct 2 plea hearing for Vincent Tabak accused of killing Jo #yeates - http://tinyurl.com/3fb6fv9

1:22 pm - 4 May 2011

https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/65873924977737729

Quote
Clio said:
05-04-2011 11:17 AM
Courtserve listing for the Old Bailey for tomorrow (5th May) states

Court 2 - sitting at 10:00 am


THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE FIELD

For Mention (Defendant to Attend)
U20110387 Vincent TABAK

Via PVL - Bristol Crown Court Case - T20117031
Wonder why it says "For Mention" rather than "Plea and Case Management"...

http://www.courtserve2.net/courtlist...T110505.01.htm

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg444165#msg444165


MWT's link to the court serve site no longer works, but he and Clio i am assuming must have seen the page when it was live... 

Why do the media and A&SPolice tell us about the hearing in May 2011 at the Old Bailey, yet on the Law Pages site, this apparent appearance in court didn't happen... And the rest of the trial appears to have been adjourned also....

But I am sure someone can correct me on the law pages...

Edit... There are now 3 trial numbers for Dr Vincent Tabak, since I found the cause list today..

* U20110387  (5th May 2011)

* T20117031 ( October 2011 trial )

* T20140077 ( Appearance march 2015)


jixy

  • Guest
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3773 on: May 01, 2019, 10:05:54 AM »
How you can say what is the purpose of this case and get away with it  astounds me. others are corrected for questioning you but still you continue

A young girl had her life taken away...that is the purpose of THIS case

Just for info purposes only. My friend went through the court process  starting last year. The only listing for his case show as plea and trial preparation. There is NOTHING else listed despite him being back in court a few weeks ago

Another more serious case that I am aware of - arson was listed briefly but not in full detail. It is now no longer showing. No conspiracy fake crime or in someones head. She got sentenced! Her crime is real and her victims are still suffering the trauma of it!
« Last Edit: May 01, 2019, 01:35:55 PM by jixy »

Offline Nicholas

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3774 on: May 01, 2019, 10:49:30 AM »
From The Law pages Website...

These are the timelines for the case against Dr Vincent Tabak ,from the Lawpages website

https://www.thelawpages.com/court-case-timeline/crime/7570/Vincent-Tabak-Bristol-Crown-Court

* Noticeably Missing, is the Court Date of 5th May 2011, ( The date where Dr Vincent Tabak apparently plead guilty
   to MANSLAUGHTER!)

* 20th September 2011, all parties to attend... ( What is all parties? and why)

* Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:30 - 16:23 (Or similar.. what does that mean?/ that the case didn't
   get heard between these times??)

All I see is it appears to be adjourned, rarely does it state case started, and not in October 2011, when this trial was supposed to have taken place..


On the days that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently took to the stand, The Case is started and adjourned between times??

Therefore does this mean, it never happened??

What is the purpose of this case, that makes no sense to me,....

Am I understanding it correctly, does between times mean that was when the adjournment was from? Therefore no trial actually happens..

Was it the media making it all up?

Where they not allowed to print what really took place?

If someone can explain this about between times it would be great.... 

I still have no answer to the 2 numbers that Dr Vincent Tabak had, these case numbers being mentioned in May 2011

* U20110387

* T20117031

But the Law Pages has NO Mention of this apparent appearance in court...


i did a post about this..... And the media tweeted about this

https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/66100339224489984

https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/66099493048827904

https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/66060039718309888

https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/66042946578952193

https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/65873924977737729

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg444165#msg444165


MWT's link to the court serve site no longer works, but he and Clio i am assuming must have seen the page when it was live... 

Why do the media and A&SPolice tell us about the hearing in May 2011 at the Old Bailey, yet on the Law Pages site, this apparent appearance in court didn't happen... And the rest of the trial appears to have been adjourned also....

But I am sure someone can correct me on the law pages...

Re: Rupert Evelyn, if it’s the same Rupert Evelyn, appears perturbed with Wiltshire police https://mobile.twitter.com/rupertevelyn?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Re: Mark Williams Thomas - these may be of interest to you

https://annaraccoon.com/2013/05/09/the-family-liaison-officer/

https://annaraccoon.com/2016/02/03/surrey-police-and-lynne-owens/

Clio - no idea, are they a real person?


Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3775 on: May 01, 2019, 11:04:47 AM »
Re: Rupert Evelyn, if it’s the same Rupert Evelyn, appears perturbed with Wiltshire police https://mobile.twitter.com/rupertevelyn?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Re: Mark Williams Thomas - these may be of interest to you

https://annaraccoon.com/2013/05/09/the-family-liaison-officer/

https://annaraccoon.com/2016/02/03/surrey-police-and-lynne-owens/

Clio - no idea, are they a real person?

No idea if Clio is a real person, but it was at the time the only reference I had in regards to the case numbers....

I have just found something else that is odd....

Offline Nicholas

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3776 on: May 01, 2019, 11:11:41 AM »
Re: Rupert Evelyn, if it’s the same Rupert Evelyn, appears perturbed with Wiltshire police https://mobile.twitter.com/rupertevelyn?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Re: Mark Williams Thomas - these may be of interest to you

https://annaraccoon.com/2013/05/09/the-family-liaison-officer/

https://annaraccoon.com/2016/02/03/surrey-police-and-lynne-owens/

Clio - no idea, are they a real person?

In response to Rupert Evelyn, Wiltshire police made a series of tweets:

Wiltshire police:
“This is a complex inquiry requiring detailed, specialist data investigations which takes time. We issued our statement yesterday due to sustained, inaccurate media reporting which had the potential to jeopardise the judicial process & caused further distress to Emiliano’s family.

“Hi Rupert-our investigations, which were highly sensitive, were ongoing until the file was handed to the CPS recently. Once asked by the media over the weekend, a full statement was issued to update media & public. It is not appropriate to proactively publicise all arrests made.

Rupert Evelyn:
The job of deciding what is or isn’t a news story is decided by editors and journalists who in turn try to gauge what is in the public interest and what the public would be interested in. Editorial decisions taken by detectives are questionable at the very least....

https://mobile.twitter.com/rupertevelyn?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
« Last Edit: May 01, 2019, 11:15:31 AM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3777 on: May 01, 2019, 11:16:54 AM »
Sorry Jixy, I'm trying to understand what "Vincent Tabak" means at court... that may sound odd, but I do not understand...

Take the charges he faced in March 2015 trial number is T20140077

Quote
Court   Case(s)   Defendant(s)   Status(es)
Court 10   
T20140077
VINCENT TABAK
For Preliminary Hearing - Case Started 06/02/2014 10:01
Plea and Case Management - Case Started 23/04/2014 11:06
Plea and Case Management - Hearing finished for GLEN MEREDITH 23/04/2014 11:41
Plea and Case Management - Resume 23/04/2014 11:42
Plea and Case Management - Hearing finished for VINCENT TABAK 23/04/2014 12:01
For Mention (All Parties to Attend) - Case Started 26/08/2014 10:09
For Mention (All Parties to Attend) - Hearing finished for VINCENT TABAK 26/08/2014 10:21
For Application to Break Fixture - Case Started 04/09/2014 11:05
Court 2   
T20140077
VINCENT TABAK
For Mention (All Parties to Attend) - Case Started 16/02/2015 14:08
For Mention (All Parties to Attend) - Hearing finished for VINCENT TABAK 16/02/2015 14:18
Court 6   
T20140077
VINCENT TABAK
For Pre - Trial Review 23/02/2015 10:18
Court 2   
T20140077
VINCENT TABAK
For Trial - Case Started 02/03/2015 11:18
For Trial - Resume 02/03/2015 11:29
For Trial - Case adjourned until 14:30 02/03/2015 12:30


http://causelist.org/bristol/T20140077/

I am at a loss... Who is Glen Meredith?? Why is Glen Meredith mentioned in the same breath as Dr Vincent Tabak?

Was it not supposed to be mentioned?? I don't understand..

Is the name "Vincent Tabak a pseudonym?? Are both names "Vincent Tabak and Glen Meredith" pseudonyms??

So you may understand my confusion... I have no idea... 

If you are all shouting that "Vincent Tabak" is guilty because its a pseudonym for someone else, maybe i can understand why you all keep saying he is guilty... (You may know a lot more about this than I do)

But why not say who he is... Why am I chasing a name that could be connected to anyone if it is used as a pseudonym..

I have asked if Dr Vincent Tabak is a real person, and this only gives more questions...

http://causelist.org/bristol/02-03-2015/

Edit.. It is strange that Glen Meredith is mentioned in the same breath as Dr Vincent Tabak and all under the same case number T20140077

Offline Nicholas

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3778 on: May 01, 2019, 11:23:17 AM »
Sorry Jixy, I'm trying to understand what "Vincent Tabak" means at court... that may sound odd, but I do not understand...

Take the charges he faced in March 2015 trial number is T20140077



http://causelist.org/bristol/T20140077/

I am at a loss... Who is Glen Meredith?? Why is Glen Meredith mentioned in the same breath as Dr Vincent Tabak?

Was it not supposed to be mentioned?? I don't understand..

Is the name "Vincent Tabak a pseudonym?? Are both names "Vincent Tabak and Glen Meredith" pseudonyms??

So you may understand my confusion... I have no idea... 

If you are all shouting that "Vincent Tabak" is guilty because its a pseudonym for someone else, maybe i can understand why you all keep saying he is guilty... (You may know a lot more about this than I do)

But why not say who he is... Why am I chasing a name that could be connected to anyone if it is used as a pseudonym..

I have asked if Dr Vincent Tabak is a real person, and this only gives more questions...

http://causelist.org/bristol/02-03-2015/

Have you contacted the courts to find out re: Glen Meridith?
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #3779 on: May 01, 2019, 11:25:08 AM »
From The Law pages Website...

These are the timelines for the case against Dr Vincent Tabak ,from the Lawpages website

https://www.thelawpages.com/court-case-timeline/crime/7570/Vincent-Tabak-Bristol-Crown-Court

* Noticeably Missing, is the Court Date of 5th May 2011, ( The date where Dr Vincent Tabak apparently plead guilty
   to MANSLAUGHTER!)

* 20th September 2011, all parties to attend... ( What is all parties? and why)

* Trial (Part Heard) - Case adjourned until 10:30 - 16:23 (Or similar.. what does that mean?/ that the case didn't
   get heard between these times??)

All I see is it appears to be adjourned, rarely does it state case started, and not in October 2011, when this trial was supposed to have taken place..


On the days that Dr Vincent Tabak apparently took to the stand, The Case is started and adjourned between times??

Therefore does this mean, it never happened??

What is the purpose of this case, that makes no sense to me,....

Am I understanding it correctly, does between times mean that was when the adjournment was from? Therefore no trial actually happens..

Was it the media making it all up?

Where they not allowed to print what really took place?

If someone can explain this about between times it would be great.... 

I still have no answer to the 2 numbers that Dr Vincent Tabak had, these case numbers being mentioned in May 2011

* U20110387

* T20117031

But the Law Pages has NO Mention of this apparent appearance in court...


i did a post about this..... And the media tweeted about this

https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/66100339224489984

https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/66099493048827904

https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/66060039718309888

https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/66042946578952193

https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/65873924977737729

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg444165#msg444165


MWT's link to the court serve site no longer works, but he and Clio i am assuming must have seen the page when it was live... 

Why do the media and A&SPolice tell us about the hearing in May 2011 at the Old Bailey, yet on the Law Pages site, this apparent appearance in court didn't happen... And the rest of the trial appears to have been adjourned also....

But I am sure someone can correct me on the law pages...

What about approaching William Clegg?

Or Rupert Evelyn?

MWT https://trollexposure.wordpress.com/2019/04/16/investigator-mastermind-or-masterfool/
« Last Edit: May 01, 2019, 11:39:05 AM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation