Author Topic: The Defence Will State Their Case  (Read 2480 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nine.. Again

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #90 on: April 21, 2017, 09:21:50 AM »
If VT and Joanna had known each other very well, I am amazed that none of the newspapers sniffed this out. Somebody else must have known.

He pled guilty to manslaughter. If he knew Joanna, it is more likely that he had a motive to kill her than if he hadn't known her. So, why didn't he say so in court, instead of making up that ridiculous story? He was going down anyway, so why not tell the court that he knew her?

I'm inclined to think that he didn't know her-------but I could be wrong.

The plea is pointless..... It's only use is to guarantee a conviction... Why would you plead guilty to manslaughter???

You would only do that if you felt that was the end of it and you get say... a 10 year sentence serve half... back home..

It wasn't the end of it... The Defense MUST HAVE KNOWN that the Prosecution were determined to go for a Murder Conviction....
Again doesn't make sense him making the plea.... There was no advantage...

I believe it would have been thrown out if he hadn't made the plea!!   They had NO Evidence... they had NOTHING..

So why did CLEGG get his client to make a plea????? 


EDIT:.......

From a different Case...  Horrendous case... but it's about the point that I am making....

Quote
But the prosecution wouldn't accept a manslaughter plea, so we pleaded not guilty.

Yes thats what I would expect!!!! If they're NOT accepting a Manslaughter Plea... you go NOT GUILTY!!!!


Why would Dr Vincent Tabak plead Guilty to Manslaughter??????

It was going to trial anyway.... The Jury would then have had 3 Options:

(1): Guilty of Murder

(2): Not Guilty

(3): Guilty of Manslaughter

Me thinks, more fishy is happening....  (IMO)



https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jun/27/lawyers-defended-toughest-cases-charles-manson-jon-venables-ted-bundy-charles-ng
« Last Edit: April 21, 2017, 09:31:42 AM by Nine »

Offline Nine.. Again

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #91 on: April 21, 2017, 10:51:35 AM »
I feel shouty.....

If we remember the Prosecution did not Reveal the 1300 Page Document until the 7th October 2011 ...

So.... what did they supposedly have in May???????   A Big Fat Nothing!!!!!... How could they...

The Defence was not aware of the timelines...

The Defence was Not aware of the search History...

The Defence was Not aware of everyones movements...

The Defence was Not aware of The type of searches...

The Defence was not aware of all the emails sent to and fro

The Defence was NOT aware that the Dutch Language needed translating....

The Defence was Not aware of The Porn

The Defence Was Not aware of the Prostitues....


Because realistically this should have been the case.... Without the 1300 Page Document The Defence.... shouldn't have been aware of anything!!!


They didn't have anyone Independently scrutinizing The Laptops etc...  They would have NO idea what was on them!!!!

So when we go to The Old Bailey... How could The DEFENCE advise Dr Vincent Tabak to PLEAD GUILTY TO MANSLAUGHTER.... when they apparently were NOT..... Aware of all this information!!!!

And in this case SHOULD have advised there client to PLEAD NOT GUILTY!!!!

There would be NO search saying he Looked up LONGWOOD LANE....
There would be NO Search saying he looked up  "Sexual Conduct"... (definiton)
There would be NO search saying he looked up Body Decomposition

There would be NO search saying he looked up Extradition
There would be NO search saying he looked up "DOODSLAG"
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘Extradition of Dutchman’

There would be NO search saying he looked up  ‘Avon and Somerset police home page’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘Murder of Melanie Hall’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘Joanna Yeates’

There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘Salt supplies in the Netherlands’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘Maximum sentence Manslaughter’
There would be NO search saying he looked up 'Penalty for manslaughter’

There would be NO search saying he looked up 'Forensic science and trace evidence’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘What happens forensic?’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘CCTV Canynge Road’

There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘murder in English law’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘ how fast does body decompose’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘what takes place from hour to hour after death’

There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘what happens to human body after death’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘% of grey cars in UK’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘Renault Megan cars in UK’

There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘Suspension bridge police footage’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘maps to Longwood lane’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘domestic rubbish’

There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘household collections- Bristol City Council’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘forensic’
There would be NO search saying he looked up 'missing sock'

There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘Detention of a suspect’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘letter and label sent to a public house’
There would be NO search saying he looked up ‘CPS’ ...‘Sentencing’

OMG...... The Defence should not have known this (IMO).. Until 7th October 2011

So how on earth did he get Dr Vincent Tabak to make his Guilty to Manslaughter Plea at The Old Bailey!!!!

The SEARCHES were the crux of the case...

The 1300 Page document had the searches... not only that... It had EVERY TIME LINE of the searches.. texts emails between the people at Flat 1 and Flat 2....

How could The DEFENCE COUNCIL know what the Prosecution HAD!!!
How could The DEFENCE COUNCIL Know He searched Clifton Bridge!!
How Could The DEFENCE Council Know he checked Longwood Lane..... If this information was only available in the 1300 Page Document that the reccieved on the 7th October 2011..

In May 2011... None of this evidence EXISTED!!!!!!!!

So why didn't he believe his client in MAY... that he hadn't comited this Crime...
Why didn't he believe his CLIENTS Version of events.....

Up until May.. Dr Vincent Tabak had Insisted that he was Innocent.... In May... Nothing had changed ,.... how could it.... if the DEFENCE were NOT AWARE OF THE 1300 PAGE DOCUMENT!!!!

No evidence existed apart from 1300 page Document and the "PLEA"......

Why didn't CLEGG defend his Client.... why this Circus!!!!

Two questions here..... he either didn't Know and set Dr Vincent Tabak's for a fall (IMO).. Or
He Knew.... which throughs up allsorts...

It wasn't a case of asking the Judge for time to read the 1300 page Document... (IMO) he already had!

The Defence should only have been aware of Dr Vincent Tabak's Timeline given by Dr Vincent Tabak to him!!!!!!!


Offline Nine.. Again

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #92 on: April 21, 2017, 11:03:33 AM »
This is extremeley worrying...

He had to Know what was in that Document (IMO)... To come up with the pathetic story that took place...(IMO)

If Dr Vincet Tabak had looked up:

Quote
At Line 340 of the prosecution chart
Tabak Googled on 26 Dec 2010
‘Yeates’
At 3.00 pm he search the Telegraph Newspaper online
At 3:43 pm he searched online global newspapers
At 3.45 pm he searched the words
‘Suspension bridge police footage’

He would only do this if HE went over Clifton Suspension Bridge!!! (IMO)

So why the change of route towards the The Airport???

Why would Dr Vincent Tabak change the ROUTE he was supposed to have taken????

He had nothing to lose by keeping to his route over Clifton Suspension Bridge....

Except we already KNOW that the Police had interviewed that Witness who went over The Bridge and it obviously wasn't Dr Vincent Tabak!!!!



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

Offline Nine.. Again

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #93 on: April 21, 2017, 11:23:44 AM »
Lets put it this way......

If the defence had scrutinized the laptops.... they would have been able to counter what The Prosecution had claimed...

They would have been able to say about the lack of "Dutch" in The Prosecutions findings...
So (IMO).. they didn't look at these laptops, they can't have...

And if they didn't look at the laptops... Didn't get The 1300 page Document till  7th October 2011
How could they possibily know what would be so called EVIDENCE against their client???

They had Dr Vincent Tabak in his own flat till 9:29 pm on Friday 17th December 2010

They had him at Adsa around 10:00pm

There was NO proof in what evidence The Defence had in May... that Dr Vincent Tabak was aimlessly driving around with Joanna Yeates in the boot of his car...

There was NOTHING to prove that Dr Vincent tabak went to Longwood Lane..
There was nothing to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak used a Bicycle bag/cover

There was Nothing to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak disposed of the Pizza....

Up until MAY.... there was No Evidence at all !!!!




Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #94 on: April 21, 2017, 01:20:12 PM »
When he was arrested, a duty solicitor was present while Vincent Tabak was questioned at Trinity Road police station, Bristol. We know from cross-examination of one of the detectives during the trial that she was female. We know from details of the legal aid claims made on his behalf, published as a result of an FoI request, that she was a member of the team of Crossmans Solicitors of Radstock:

http://www.crossmans-solicitors.com/the-team/4575854784

Which member of the team she was has never been made public, and it is possible that she is no longer with Crossman & Co. The current female members who do criminal defence are: Guen Browne, Marjorie Jackson and Susan Garnett.

After VT was charged, Crossmans would have instructed Albion Chambers, of which Paul Cook QC is a member.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2017, 01:22:19 PM by Leonora »

Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #95 on: April 21, 2017, 02:23:49 PM »
The plea is pointless..... It's only use is to guarantee a conviction... Why would you plead guilty to manslaughter???

You would only do that if you felt that was the end of it and you get say... a 10 year sentence serve half... back home..

It wasn't the end of it... The Defense MUST HAVE KNOWN that the Prosecution were determined to go for a Murder Conviction....
Again doesn't make sense him making the plea.... There was no advantage...

I believe it would have been thrown out if he hadn't made the plea!!   They had NO Evidence... they had NOTHING..

So why did CLEGG get his client to make a plea????? 

EDIT:.......

Why would Dr Vincent Tabak plead Guilty to Manslaughter??????

It was going to trial anyway.... The Jury would then have had 3 Options:

(1): Guilty of Murder

(2): Not Guilty

(3): Guilty of Manslaughter

Me thinks, more fishy is happening....  (IMO) ...
Why did Clegg get his client to make a plea?

He didn't.

We know that his client PUT OFF signing his enhanced statement a couple of days AFTER Clegg had promised to deliver it to the Prosecution. This was more than FOUR months after the plea hearing, yet he could hardly bring himself to go through with it.

You are very thorough, Nine, but despite all the holes you have exposed in this criminal case, you still won't confront what you regard as the unthinkable: That VT's manslaughter plea HAS to have been contrived in some way or another. It wasn't VT who made it.

Let me put it to you another way. The whole vast edifice of the criminal justice system is as it is because it is not just criminals who will steal, kill and lie, but also lawyers, police and prison officers, and witnesses, who will cheat if they expect to get away with it. Habeas corpus was devised to try to ensure that the accused could confront his accusers. This means, not just that there is someone standing in the dock, but that the someone has the identity of the accused. Anyone could say "I am Vincent Tabak", unless steps are taken to prove identity.

Astonishingly, no one who knew him seems to have been present at any of the hearings, including the trial. Not Tanja, not his boss, not his landlord, not his family. Oh yes, I know that the press photographed a couple they thought were his brother and sister outside the court at the time of the trial, but that isn't the same as someone who knew the defendant confirming his identity in the presence of the judge.

 
« Last Edit: May 01, 2017, 05:27:46 PM by John »

Offline Nine.. Again

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #96 on: April 21, 2017, 04:19:47 PM »
Why did Clegg get his client to make a plea?

He didn't.

We know that his client PUT OFF signing his enhanced statement a couple of days AFTER Clegg had promised to deliver it to the Prosecution. This was more than FOUR months after the plea hearing, yet he could hardly bring himself to go through with it.

You are very thorough, Nine, but despite all the holes you have exposed in this criminal case, you still won't confront what you regard as the unthinkable: That VT's manslaughter plea HAS to have been contrived in some way or another. It wasn't VT who made it.

Let me put it to you another way. The whole vast edifice of the criminal justice system is as it is because it is not just criminals who will steal, kill and lie, but also lawyers, police and prison officers, and witnesses, who will cheat if they expect to get away with it. Habeas corpus was devised to try to ensure that the accused could confront his accusers. This means, not just that there is someone standing in the dock, but that the someone has the identity of the accused. Anyone could say "I am Vincent Tabak", unless steps are taken to prove identity.

Astonishingly, no one who knew him seems to have been present at any of the hearings, including the trial. Not Tanja, not his boss, not his landlord, not his family. Oh yes, I know that the press photographed a couple they thought were his brother and sister outside the court at the time of the trial, but that isn't the same as someone who knew the defendant confirming his identity in the presence of the judge.


If you look at it head on without Long Latin and the Old Bailey... The POINT is.....

Nobody on earth would make a Plea to anything unless, The Prosecution would accept it... There was NO way they would do that...so it easier to plead NOT GUILTY and put the Onus of Proof on the Prosecution...

Yes... so many things about this case don't add up... And I believe in Dr Vincent Tabak Innocence as you know.. I don't know the why's and wherefore's ....

I just believe it was Impossible for him to do what they said he did... And someone is walking around free who shouldn't be...

What ever the reason for this murder .. what ever scenario's are possible.. who ever you may be able to accuse.. it's virtually impossible without the evidence to back it up...

Timeline... CCTV's with timestamps on them... transcript from the trial...  video appearances of those involved on many levels...  These expose the lies.... (IMO)

You maybe have more proof than I'm aware of... but unless I see this I cannot make a judgement upon it....

« Last Edit: May 01, 2017, 05:29:34 PM by John »

Offline Nine.. Again

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #97 on: April 21, 2017, 04:39:40 PM »
Say the defence has the laptop contents... why are n't they preparing a case to counter????

When the Prosecution said that Dr Vincent Tabak had looked up Longwood lane on a Map..... It sounds good .. But how could he look u somewhere he didn't know about?

Quote
Defence Counsel: Did you know Longwood Lane at all?
Tabak: No.

Why didn't The Defence have within it's papers that "Longwood Lane" would come up in a street map when he was attending a party going nearby that direction???

This next question by the Defence I like :..
Quote
Defence Counsel: Was it a quiet area, did you think? What did you decide to do?
Tabak: I did something horrendous. I decided to leave her there.


Why When his Client had already said that he didn't KNOW LONGWOOD LANE.... Would he expect his client to Know whether it was a QUIET AREA or not!!!!!!

If he'd replied Yes.. Then he'd of lied straight after his answer of NO...

So why are the Defence subtly cross examining their own Client??? (IMO)

No only do they manage to cross examine their own client but they use questioning techniques that don't give too much room for maneuver..

Quote
Defence Counsel: What did you do then?
Tabak: I tried to hide the body. I tried to put the body over the fence.


Dr Tabak say fence!! But his Councel steers him straight back to the WALL....

Quote
Defence Counsel: Did the body come into contact with the wall?
Tabak: Yes. But she was too heavy

We need the wall mentioned because of the Blood upon it... ..

Dr Vincent Tabak doesn't even correct himself, saying when I said fence before I meant wall or visor versa .....

It just question... Small answer... Nothing to endear him in any way to the Jury...

Quote
Defence Counsel: Why were you researching about rubbish?
Tabak: I read that police were sifting through rubbish and I was afraid they would find the
pizza.

Out of 1300 pages of Timelines Clegg picks up on this one?

You would have thought that there were more pressing searches to bring up!!!!

Where's Clegg's Timeline of the Rubbish search???  Because he didn't have the document!!!

Didn't Tabak go on the Stand before the Prosecution made their case???

How would Clegg know about The Rubbish Search???


Afraid they would find the Pizza....

 What about the Bicycle Bag that her body was supposed to be Transported in... That would be far more incriminating...

Oh yes and the missing sock!!







« Last Edit: April 21, 2017, 04:44:09 PM by Nine »

Offline Nine.. Again

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #98 on: April 21, 2017, 06:40:17 PM »
I believe Dr Vincent Tabak must have been aquainted to the location of Bristol Airport... as a seasoned traveller for his business dealings..

I keep going back over the transcript....

Quote
Defence Counsel: As we can see you sent many messages You never make typing errors.
Why did you type the word “crisis”?
Tabak: That’s how I felt. I was in complete shock. Didn’t know what to do.
Defence Counsel: In our Timeline 108 to 111- a journey that would take you home. Is that
where you went? As the timeline suggests?
Tabak: Yes.
Defence Counsel: In our Timeline 113, when your car is seen at Clifton Down- after a
period of 20 minutes or so. How did you feel?
Tabak: In a state of despair; panic; unbelief at what had happened.

The Defence follow a pattern of putting each event in order... they do not sway from the order of which action occured..

Which is why the above quote is really confusing....

Quote
Defence Counsel: In our Timeline 108 to 111- a journey that would take you home. Is that
where you went? As the timeline suggests?

As it appears... Dr Vincent Tabak travels home after he has been to ASDA... as one of the very few Timelines the Defence appears to say confirms...

Dr Vincent Tabak replies "Yes".....

So... he's been to Asda in Bedminster apparently with a body in the boot of the car.... he then return home... next ..
Quote
In our Timeline 113, when your car is seen at Clifton Down- after a
period of 20 minutes or so. How did you feel?

Firstly ...what happened at Timeline 112 ?????  A phone call.... a text ??????

So he is in Clifton Downs for at least 20 mins... the Defence must have something to prove this... or they should...

He now needs to leave "Clifton Downs" to as they say aimlessly drive towards the Airport ... which (IMO) he know where it is... to end up in "Longwood Lane"...

Which road would he have taken???   

I have had BEDMINSTER and ASDA planted in my head.... Local Jurors would know you would take the A38 towards the airport..

Quote
Defence Counsel: When you left where did you drive then?
Tabak: I drove away from home; I drove in the direction of the airport; and ended up in
Longwood lane

But it from home and not Asda that he travels to wards the Airport.....  So why drive back towards home if he needs to dispose of a body??? Why not keep driving towards the Airport from ASDA?

Why not have his state of shock in ASDA Carpark????  what shows him sitting for 20 minutes in Clifton Downs?????

This is another thing that bugs me..... Is he stuck in traffic???  Hang on a minute... Is it him waiting to go over Clifton suspension Bridge to pay the Toll?????

How bad was the traffic that night... Christmas week leading up to everyones out and about partys etc.. late night shopping... Icy conditions....

Is the image they have of Dr Vincent Tabak queuing.... him waiting in line to use Clifton Suspension Bridge???  How else would they Know he sat for 20 minutes ..... And What date was this on????? the 18th December 2010 ?? any other day ????













Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #99 on: April 21, 2017, 07:07:21 PM »
If you look at it head on without Long Latin and the Old Bailey... The POINT is.....

Nobody on earth would make a Plea to anything unless, The Prosecution would accept it... There was NO way they would do that...so it easier to plead NOT GUILTY and put the Onus of Proof on the Prosecution...

Yes... so many things about this case don't add up... And I believe in Dr Vincent Tabak Innocence as you know.. I don't know the why's and wherefore's ....

I just believe it was Impossible for him to do what they said he did... And someone is walking around free who shouldn't be...

What ever the reason for this murder .. what ever scenario's are possible.. who ever you may be able to accuse.. it's virtually impossible without the evidence to back it up...

Timeline... CCTV's with timestamps on them... transcript from the trial...  video appearances of those involved on many levels...  These expose the lies.... (IMO)

You maybe have more proof than I'm aware of... but unless I see this I cannot make a judgement upon it....It's important for YOU to believe in one or other plausible explanation for why that plea was entered, because you yourself have spelt it out in letters a mile high - nobody on earth would have made that plea UNLESS...! You see so clearly the entire problem, which obviously bugs you, you lie tossing and turning at night for worrying about it, simply because you won't confront the most straightforward, obvious explanation - despite at least a dozen items of circumstantial evidence.

Yes, it's only a THEORY - but so is the General Theory of Relativity, the Quantum Theory and the Uncertainty Principle. The last seems especially appropriate to the time and place of Joanna's death, the clothes she was and was not wearing, the contents of her digestive system, and the identity and motive of her assailant.

For that matter, I need hardly remind you that it is also only a THEORY that no evidence of any kind places VT in Joanna's flat, nor her in his flat. The absence of this evidence was not even mentioned in the trial, yet it is one of the most important arguments we have for believing in his innocence. Our argument is based on our rational belief that a rational prosecution would not have held back any evidence that supported their case. You can't prove that either, but if you can accept that, then accepting that the plea was faked ought to be easy for you.

Incidentally, I believe that there is some kind of rule awarding a defendant a substantial and automatic reduction in sentence as a reward for pleading guilty straightaway. It would hardly justify a guilty plea in Vincent Tabak's case, however, as we know that the evidence against him was far too weak to secure a conviction, which the CPS must have known, thereby implicating themselves in an illegal conspiracy.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2017, 05:31:48 PM by John »

Offline Nine.. Again

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #100 on: April 21, 2017, 08:22:45 PM »
leonora... where did I read that Dr Vincent Tabak had injuries on him???

Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #101 on: April 21, 2017, 08:50:11 PM »
leonora... where did I read that Dr Vincent Tabak had injuries on him???
As soon as  Vincent Tabak arrived at the police station on 20th January 2011, Nurse Ruth Booth-Pearson asked him for his consent to make a medical examination. He appeared upset but did not cry. He “consented” to his medical examination. He told her that he was normally physically well but had been taking herbal sleeping pills. He told the nurse he was normally “happy” and had no previous mental health problems. The nurse found a 6 cm x 1 cm scar with a scab on his left arm and a bruised toe nail. She photographed these injuries.

I cannot find any account of this using Google any more.

In answer to your question about how it was "proved" to be a sex crime, this is what the judge said when passing sentence:

“The sentence for murder is the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment and that is the sentence I must pass on you. There are no mitigating features in this case, only aggravating factors. These are:
“There is a sexual element to the killing of Joanna Yeates. On your own evidence and after an acquaintanceship lasting just a few minutes you moved to kiss Joanna, and I’m quite sure you did not intend to stop there and wanted to go much further. It was because of her screams that your sexual purpose was frustrated.”
...

Offline Nine.. Again

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #102 on: April 21, 2017, 09:39:20 PM »
As soon as  Vincent Tabak arrived at the police station on 20th January 2011, Nurse Ruth Booth-Pearson asked him for his consent to make a medical examination. He appeared upset but did not cry. He “consented” to his medical examination. He told her that he was normally physically well but had been taking herbal sleeping pills. He told the nurse he was normally “happy” and had no previous mental health problems. The nurse found a 6 cm x 1 cm scar with a scab on his left arm and a bruised toe nail. She photographed these injuries.

I cannot find any account of this using Google any more.

In answer to your question about how it was "proved" to be a sex crime, this is what the judge said when passing sentence:

“The sentence for murder is the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment and that is the sentence I must pass on you. There are no mitigating features in this case, only aggravating factors. These are:
“There is a sexual element to the killing of Joanna Yeates. On your own evidence and after an acquaintanceship lasting just a few minutes you moved to kiss Joanna, and I’m quite sure you did not intend to stop there and wanted to go much further. It was because of her screams that your sexual purpose was frustrated.”

Well... why was not more made of this apparent injury??? That's quite large!!

I'll add this to the hundred questions ... but how could the Judge in his own words Know what a defendant intended to do???

When was it qualified that Joanna Yeates actually screamed..... Did the judge believe Dr Vincent Tabak's version of events???


How did the judge have foresight??

How could the judge read Dr Vincent Tabak's mind??

How is intention proof of anything?? Why accept that Dr Vincent Tabak said Joanna Yeates screamed .. when he called him a lying deceitful man???

I cannot see how the aggrevating factors came into play??

"Concealment ??? Left out in the open is not concealment!!

"Planning or premeditation..... It was a spur of the moment thing... a chance encounter.. (apparently) (IMO)

"Mental or physical suffering Inflicted on the victim before death.... How do you quantify that??  You would need to know so much more about how Joanna Yeates dealt with situations to know the amount of "Mental" and Physical suffering...  The evidences apparently says 20 seconds... That is a short time by anyones book...

(Please don't take offence anyone by my approach.. I'm  being direct for a purpose...)

Abuse of position of trust... "didn't apply... didn't know her ... wasn't in such a position...

Use of duress.. or threats against another person to facilitate the commission of this crime... Didn't apply...

The Fact that the victim was performing a public service or duty... again doesn't apply..

The fact that the victim was of vulnerable age or disability... again doesn't apply...

So tell me what the aggravating factors are... because they are NOT there!!

She wasn't held captive for any length of time... this was apparently.. a spur of the moment attack that according to the evidence happened in a short space of time... so how can any of the aggravating factors apply????


« Last Edit: May 01, 2017, 05:32:28 PM by John »

Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #103 on: April 22, 2017, 09:56:52 AM »
...
I'll add this to the hundred questions ... but how could the Judge in his own words Know what a defendant intended to do???
...
The judge was not claiming to know what the defendant intended to do. He based it on the prosecutor's aggressive cross-examination of VT on this point. This doesn't excuse the judge, but it does explain his words:

Mr. Lickley: “How do you make a pass at someone which is not sexual? Were you trying to kiss Joanna on the lips?”

Vincent Tabak: “Yes, but it was not sexual. It was just a kiss. I wanted to kiss her”.

Mr. Lickley: “– Because you would find it enjoyable?”

Vincent Tabak: “Yes”.

Mr. Lickley: “What sort of kiss did you have in mind?”

Vincent Tabak: “A kiss on the lips”.

Mr. Lickley: “You wanted to kiss her on the mouth – a woman you have known for a few minutes – you didn't even know her name! You think of kissing her on the mouth? That’s sexual, isn’t it?”

Vincent Tabak: “I don’t think that it was sexual”.

Mr. Lickley: “Were you sexually aroused when you held Joanna’s throat?”

Vincent Tabak: “Definitely not.”

Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #104 on: April 22, 2017, 10:20:12 AM »
If VT and Joanna had known each other very well, I am amazed that none of the newspapers sniffed this out. Somebody else must have known...
One newspaper DID report that they knew each other, as I have pointed out. In this case, the newspapers have sniffed out a lot of facts that turned out to be false, or, like this one, were never heard of again - yet their record on sniffing out really important facts, such as the reason why so many fire & rescue vehicles & officers were needed to recover the body, but not revealed to the jury, has been so bad that I am convinced that even Judge Rinder and Netflix are part of a very large conspiracy.

I am always loathe to provide ammunition for those who believe Vincent Tabak guilty as charged, especially as they seem to be so devoid of commonsense and imagination. Be that as it may, I have read of cases in which criminals forced their victims to sex by the threat of violence. One such victim was strangled, and the pathologist believed at first that she had not been raped, leading police to suspect someone close to her. Only after unidentified semen was found on her jumper did they close the case until the same DNA turned up in another case.

This means that Joanna could have been raped by a stranger, who took her sock as a trophy. I don't believe it myself. However, those who believe VT guilty ought to confront the possibility that he did go on to rape her, and that it suited the lawyers not to let the jury know this. This would have been the logical thing for him to do if he had been a sociopath who could not take rejection and liked to combine strangulation with intercourse, as Mr Lickley seems to believe.

The pathologist omitted to testify to a number of obvious facts, such as blood alcohol content. He told the court nothing about whether he even looked for evidence of consensual sex.

If VT and Jo did know each other, as that solitary newspaper allegation claimed, then that opens up the possiblity that they had been lovers, and that they may also have had sex, either consensual or not, that evening while their partners were both absent. This scenario could account for the curious about-turn of Paul Cook QC regarding the bail application, though it doesn't in any way account for the subsequent behaviour of William Clegg QC.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2017, 10:28:00 AM by Leonora »