Author Topic: The Defence Will State Their Case  (Read 358613 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2148
  • Total likes: 788
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #630 on: August 30, 2017, 08:24:59 AM »
So sorry to keep going over the scaffolding.... But...

To hire a company to erect scaffolding must take time to book....

So How did the Police manage to hire the scaffolding company on the 20th January 2011, the very same day as they arrested Dr Vincent Tabak??

He was only under arrest... no guarantee he would be charged!

It takes us mere mortals time to arrange for a scaffolding company to call. It may well be different for the police??

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #631 on: August 30, 2017, 08:55:27 AM »
I would suggest that there was no Forensic evidence at the Flat of Joanna Yeates, and even on the 20th January 2011... the Police believed that she had been moved in either a Large Suitcase or Large Holdall..

So on arrest of Dr Vincent Tabak... The Police had "NO" Forensic Evidence whatsoever linking him to Joanna Yeates..

The DNA profile was low copy and couldn't identify Dr Vincent Tabak... So what evidence did they have to arrest him???

The reporter says this evening... when the clip is obviously in the daytime... why didn't they go back in the evening to report??

http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/655515830


Edit... I will transcribe this video too.. as it goes with my next post and I don't want the information to disappear....

Quote
Search teams are still inside the neighbouring Flat this evening It's reported that Detectives believe that Ms Yeates body could of been transported in a Suitcase or Large Holdall


Now why would they say that !!!!!



[attachment deleted by admin]

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #632 on: August 30, 2017, 10:47:48 AM »
We have struggled to understand why Dr Vincent Tabak was originally charged on The 24th January 2011, that between the 16th December The 26th December 2010, he killed Joanna Yeates..

Obviously some bright spark asked the question.. why the range of date... and stating that "We" know ahe was alive on the 17th December 2010... Now I will transcribe the video in case it goes missing... It's a short clip again of 26 seconds and was made on the 24th January 2011 by a TV News outlet...

Quote
The charge was put before Mr Tabak that he murdered his neighbour between the 16th and the 26th of December.
But in fact we know Ms Yeates was last seen on the 17th and that her body was found on the 25th. The CPS told Channel 4 News that the dates had to be kept necessarily broad because Detectives still do not know exactly when the 25 year old was killed.


The CPS has to be Ann Reddrop, she isn't going to let just anyone give that information out....(IMO)

So Miss Reddrop.... You had No idea when Joanna Yeates was killed when you arrested Dr Vincent Tabak.

My question to you then is..... If at this point of charging Dr Vincent Tabak on the 24th January 2011, how did you know he had killed her..??

What Evidence did you have that proved Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates ????
You are admitting you had no idea about when she died... and your range of dates suggest that.... And the video from The News outlet states that!

So that brings in to question when was she put on Longwood Lane???  Because surely you the prosecution claim she had been there since Friday 17th December 2010...

I really need to know , with what evidence did you charge Dr Vincent Tabak....  You knew where he was all over the Christmas Period... DC Karen Thomas called him on the 24th December 2010 whilst he was staying in Cambridge.. (You make us believe you knew that...)

You also were aware that he then went over to Holland where the same DC Karen Thomas Interviewed him for 6 hours... where may I add she should have cautioned him... Because... As I have posted DCI Phil Jones states after the trial that Dr Vincent Tabak was a suspect within 10 days of Joanna Yeates being found.!!!

So I think you have contradicted yourself Ann....  You have NO IDEA... Yet you have arrested a man that you know was not around a great deal of the time !!!!  (Or did you NOT KNOW ANN!!!)

Is that why by the time you took Dr Vincent Tabak to trial, you changed the charge dates for between the 16th December 2010 and the 19th December 2010.... because Dr Vincent Tabak was still in Bristol!!!

Ann..Ann..Ann... I am not that gulible.... If you didn't know on the 24th January 2011... you didn't know in October 2011 when the trial took place either.... Did you!!!

You kept the 16th December which I find curious... why ???? Why the 16th December 2010... Is it because it wasn't that weekend??? Is that why the trial is made up of people proving they saw or heard from her on the 17th December 2010... Do these people actually say the 17th December 2010 when they are on the stand????

Did Rebecca Scott know more than she has told us??? (I am not accusing Rebecca Scott of anything... Just wondering if she was told not to say anything else other than about the phone call)....

Did Rebecca Scott ever say that she spoke to Joanna Yeates on Friday the 17th December 2010??  Or does she just say she was the last person to speak to her ?????

I put it to you Ann Reddrop... when DC Karen Thomas made that telephone call to Dr vincent Tabak on the 24th December 2010... she had NO IDEA That he was actually in Cambridge....  And when you realised that he had an alibi for the 24th December 2010, you changed the charge dates to between the 16th December 2010 and the 19th December 2010.... (IMO)....

Come on Ann... tell me... Am I correct????? 

Because I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak said 'NO COMMENT" to virtually every question when he was first arrested... Didn't he .... He virtually doesn't say a word until the 22nd September 2011... So how could you have know to change the charge date ?????

It's possible and most probable that you have actually spoken to Tanja Morson.. you find out that Dr Vincent Tabak was with her in Cambridge on the 24th December 2010... Is that how you learnt Dr Vincent Tabak had an alibi for this time frame ????

You must have a statement from Tanja Morson Miss Reddrop.... "surely"?? I would love to see it Ann... Please just pm me with the info......!!!

How can you change the charge date ????  Is that even legal?????

Again Ann I will ask you another question.... Was Joanna Yeates actually recovered on the 26th December 2010??

Because to me it would make sense to DCI Andrew Moss's statement in court that he had to try stop her body from thawing!!... Was she somewhere hard to reach?? These question may seem foolish... But Ann you have shown time and time again... That you wanted Dr Vincent Tabak away in prison at any cost....(IMO)...And you kept the 16th December 2010 in the charge against Dr Vincent Tabak...... so the 26th December 2010 also had to be of significance....(IMO)

Why did you still include the 16th December 2010 in the charge, if Joanna yeates was supposed to be alive then???
You see Ann... I originally thought that the two dates being 16th December 2010.. meaning she was alive and the 26th December 2010 meaning she was definitely dead... But that cannot be the case.. Seeing as you changed the charge date from between the 16th December 2010 and the 26th December 2010.... To the 16th December and the 19th December 2010...

Again my question has to be .. Why The 16th December 2010??? Is that the day she went into Bargain Booze and the Robin Payne was working there at the time and said that.... "Joanna Yeates came in on the night before the students went home for the holidays".... So Ann... had Joanna Yeates gone Missing from the 16th December 2010?? Because your charge from that date does not make sense and suggest to me that it is possible......

And remember Ann.. Your original range of dates was from the 16th December 2010 to the 26th December 2010...  So I will ask again and again.... Why still include the 16th December 2010 in Dr Vincent Tabak's charge... If the date of the 16th December 2010 isn't Significant??? Is that what the real killer would know ???

So tell me again what EVIDENCE  you had to arrest Dr Vncent Tabak in the first place.... we know that on the 20th January 2010, the Police believed that she had been taken away from the property in a suitcase or large holdall... So there cannot have been any evidence at Flat 1 of any kind of assault... which included Dr Vincent Tabak being involved!!! (IMO)..

Did the CCTV footage that DS Mark Saunders viewed from Canygne Road show someone with a Large Suit Case or Holdall on Canygne Road... The description sounds vague... like they have seen someone or something but just can't quite make it out.... Is this why we never see the private CCTV footage in court!!!!

Quote
Search teams are still inside the neighbouring Flat this evening It's reported that Detectives believe that Ms Yeates body could of been transported in a Suitcase or Large Holdall

Why would they even suggest such a thing???? Unless they saw it???

Did you or the police see someone leave the Canygne Road area with a Suitcase or large Holdall???? It seems a reasonable question to me.... What do you say ??

Did the Police show Ann Reddrop the footage from Canygne Road???  Did Flat 1 show signs of a fight or struggle, but because there was nothing forensically linking Dr Vincent Tabak to Flat 1, the evidence couldn't be brought to court??

We have descriptions of an untidy Flat... Greg tidying up as he went along... Something in that Flat made Joanna Yeates mother believe that she had been abducted... Yet no evidence is brought to court for the jury to understand why she may have thought that was possible....

What does the evidence in Flat 1 Canygne Road show Ann??? What did it tell everyone ???? 

We have NO Forced Entry, but signs of an abduction... We have NO signs of how Joanna Yeates left Flat 1.. Yet we are suggesting a Suitcase or Large Holdall... We have CCTV of Canygne Road, but we don't bring it to trial... We have a range of dates between the 16th December 2010 and the 26th December 2010.. But we suddenly decide it had to be the Dutchman on the 17th December 2010... We stick with the 16th December 2010, without any valid reason for this date...

Never mind questioning why Dr Vincent Tabak was charged changed twice that between 16th December 2010 and the 26th December 2010.. when he first appeared at Bristol court and when he is at trial between the 16th December 2010 and the 19th December 2010.. that he did kill Joanna Yeates...

We need to be questioning.... WHY The 16th December 2010 in the first place.....(IMO)..



http://www.gettyimages.ca/license/655512858

[attachment deleted by admin]

Offline mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2148
  • Total likes: 788
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #633 on: August 30, 2017, 11:01:45 AM »
Why would they say that?

I don't know, but I'll speculate as following: IF Joanna was killed in her flat,  whoever moved her body  would have had to do so  in a vehicle. There was no forensic evidence in the cars taken away and examined by the police/forensic team  apart from a tiny blood spot on a seal in the car used by VT. One would have expected there to be more: for a start, Joanna was bleeding quite a bit. So, there had to be an explanation for this, hence the bag/suitcase.

In court, VT said that he had used a cycle bag. I happen not to believe him, although most people would! I tend to think VT's story was concocted by his lawyers , and that he was too dispirited/devoid of hope by this time to challenge it. He might even have been suffering from "false memory syndrome"----who knows? Just my opinion.

Nobody considered the fact that Joanna might have been killed at Longwood Lane. As far as I can see, this is possible.  Nobody considered that she might have been killed in a car other than the cars that were examined.  Also possible, IMO.



Offline nina

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #634 on: August 30, 2017, 11:59:14 AM »
Why would they say that?

I don't know, but I'll speculate as following: IF Joanna was killed in her flat,  whoever moved her body  would have had to do so  in a vehicle. There was no forensic evidence in the cars taken away and examined by the police/forensic team  apart from a tiny blood spot on a seal in the car used by VT. One would have expected there to be more: for a start, Joanna was bleeding quite a bit. So, there had to be an explanation for this, hence the bag/suitcase.

In court, VT said that he had used a cycle bag. I happen not to believe him, although most people would! I tend to think VT's story was concocted by his lawyers , and that he was too dispirited/devoid of hope by this time to challenge it. He might even have been suffering from "false memory syndrome"----who knows? Just my opinion.

Nobody considered the fact that Joanna might have been killed at Longwood Lane. As far as I can see, this is possible.  Nobody considered that she might have been killed in a car other than the cars that were examined.  Also possible, IMO.


Nice one mrswah, like your last two sentences.

Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #635 on: August 30, 2017, 12:43:58 PM »
Why would they say that?

I don't know, but I'll speculate as following: IF Joanna was killed in her flat,  whoever moved her body  would have had to do so  in a vehicle. There was no forensic evidence in the cars taken away and examined by the police/forensic team  apart from a tiny blood spot on a seal in the car used by VT. One would have expected there to be more: for a start, Joanna was bleeding quite a bit. So, there had to be an explanation for this, hence the bag/suitcase.

In court, VT said that he had used a cycle bag. I happen not to believe him, although most people would! I tend to think VT's story was concocted by his lawyers , and that he was too dispirited/devoid of hope by this time to challenge it. He might even have been suffering from "false memory syndrome"----who knows? Just my opinion.

Nobody considered the fact that Joanna might have been killed at Longwood Lane. As far as I can see, this is possible.  Nobody considered that she might have been killed in a car other than the cars that were examined.  Also possible, IMO.
Joanna's death certificate actually gives the place of death as "Longwood Lane" and the date of death as "25th December 2010". This would be sensational if it were intended to be taken literally. But even I don't believe that it is so intended.

Since we know that the arrest of Vincent Tabak was planned long beforehand, by Ann Reddrop, the erection of scaffolding and the hanging of tarpaulin by Bob the Builder could also have been ordered well in advance. The most likely function of the tarpaulin was to prevent Christopher Jefferies from being seen by the press and anyone else about whom his lawyer could have objected.

Vincent Tabak was neither dispirited nor devoid of hope. If he had been, his family would have sacked Mr Kelcey and Mr Clegg, and got him lawyers who would have advised him to deny the charges and challenged all of the evidence brought by the prosecution. Vincent Tabak did not cry out, "I can't go back to prison!" when he heard the sentence. Instead, he was impassive. He was putting on an act, and it is impossible for us to be sure what his role really was, or whether he had ever even met Joanna. What we can be sure of is that there was collusion between all the parties.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #636 on: August 30, 2017, 12:57:21 PM »
Joanna's death certificate actually gives the place of death as "Longwood Lane" and the date of death as "25th December 2010". This would be sensational if it were intended to be taken literally. But even I don't believe that it is so intended.

How do you know that for a fact leonora???   Why would they list the Place of death as Longwood Lane ???...

Is it normal in a Murder Inquiry to list the place that they are found as there place of Death??? If they do not know where the murder took place ???? (On a Death Certificate?)

Personally I would have thought the Location of the place a person was found... should be listed as The Place that the person was "FOUND"... And not the location of their DEATH!!!!!.... (IMO)..


Edit... I will repeat.... Is it normal practice to list the location of Death when someone has been Murdered on a Death Certificate... When the location may not be the place of the Murder ????.....
 

Double Edit..... Sometimes literal is the best place to start  8(0(*


Offline nina

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #637 on: August 30, 2017, 01:50:11 PM »
How do you know that for a fact leonora???   Why would they list the Place of death as Longwood Lane ???...

Is it normal in a Murder Inquiry to list the place that they are found as there place of Death??? If they do not know where the murder took place ???? (On a Death Certificate?)

Personally I would have thought the Location of the place a person was found... should be listed as The Place that the person was "FOUND"... And not the location of their DEATH!!!!!.... (IMO)..


Edit... I will repeat.... Is it normal practice to list the location of Death when someone has been Murdered on a Death Certificate... When the location may not be the place of the Murder ????.....
 

You've got me thinking Nine. My family all died in hospitals & they were listed as the place plus town of death.

Had they died at home, that would be the address given.

Offline nina

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #638 on: August 30, 2017, 01:51:44 PM »
Sorry Nine, didn't read you're post properly. None of my family was murdered!

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #639 on: August 30, 2017, 01:56:22 PM »
You've got me thinking Nine. My family all died in hospitals & they were listed as the place plus town of death.

Had they died at home, that would be the address given.

Is there a different Death Certificate for Murder Victim's???

Does it have a section to write "Where The Body was Found"???

If you have a copy of Joanna Yeates Death Certificate leonora... how do you know that it is an exact copy of what The Coronor or Dr Delaney wrote as The Location of her Death.... (Or do they have Location of deposition??)

Just like the pdf from the Fire Brigade... did this too have "Missing" Information on it???

Were you given what you expected a death Certificate to look like....  Because I believe that it's possible a Murder victim might have more than One Type of Certificate... But I could be wrong!!


Offline nina

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #640 on: August 30, 2017, 02:43:58 PM »
Is there a different Death Certificate for Murder Victim's???

Does it have a section to write "Where The Body was Found"???

If you have a copy of Joanna Yeates Death Certificate leonora... how do you know that it is an exact copy of what The Coronor or Dr Delaney wrote as The Location of her Death.... (Or do they have Location of deposition??)

Just like the pdf from the Fire Brigade... did this too have "Missing" Information on it???

Were you given what you expected a death Certificate to look like....  Because I believe that it's possible a Murder victim might have more than One Type of Certificate... But I could be wrong!!



Obviously I'm not Leonora & sorry for butting in on your conversation.

Wouldn't the certificate either state L/wood Lane or 44 Canynge Rd?

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #641 on: August 30, 2017, 02:59:34 PM »
Obviously I'm not Leonora & sorry for butting in on your conversation.

Wouldn't the certificate either state L/wood Lane or 44 Canynge Rd?


Thats Ok Nina.... Anyone can step in at anytime.... It is A forum after all....

Back to your question...... Longwood Lane Or Canygne Road.... ?????

How about "UNKNOWN"..... as they had No Idea as to what had happened to Joanna Yeates...!!

I would also like to Know ...What was The Date of The Death Certificate Issue.... Was it Immediately after Dr Delaney completed the autopsy???

Did it state the location as 'Deposition Site"????

Or was the Certificate dated just before Joanna Yeates was released for her funeral and the Coronor signed off the Certificate????

Was The date of Issue... December 2010.. Or January/February 2011???

Who's name as "DOCTOR" is listed on The Death Certificate of Joanna Yeates...????

Leonora... do you have the answer to that ?????

Because I would have imagined that it was either Dr Delaney or Mr Forrest ??? (Who was sacked, then reinstated)....

Or did it happen to be The person who signed off "The Inquest Into Joanna Yeates Murder" ?????

(Which (IMO), leonora should have YOU questioning this Certificate if that is the case !!).....

Offline mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2148
  • Total likes: 788
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #642 on: August 30, 2017, 04:26:24 PM »
Joanna's death certificate actually gives the place of death as "Longwood Lane" and the date of death as "25th December 2010". This would be sensational if it were intended to be taken literally. But even I don't believe that it is so intended.

Since we know that the arrest of Vincent Tabak was planned long beforehand, by Ann Reddrop, the erection of scaffolding and the hanging of tarpaulin by Bob the Builder could also have been ordered well in advance. The most likely function of the tarpaulin was to prevent Christopher Jefferies from being seen by the press and anyone else about whom his lawyer could have objected.

Vincent Tabak was neither dispirited nor devoid of hope. If he had been, his family would have sacked Mr Kelcey and Mr Clegg, and got him lawyers who would have advised him to deny the charges and challenged all of the evidence brought by the prosecution. Vincent Tabak did not cry out, "I can't go back to prison!" when he heard the sentence. Instead, he was impassive. He was putting on an act, and it is impossible for us to be sure what his role really was, or whether he had ever even met Joanna. What we can be sure of is that there was collusion between all the parties.

Not sure I agree with you on this one, Leonora. My gut feeling tells me that VT was not part of any collusion, rather that he was the victim of one. If he had no previous form, as we have been led to believe, and had spent several months in high security prisons, as seems to be the case, I feel that he would have been absolutely stunned at what was happening to him, and he could well have begun to go slightly mad in prison! We don't know how "sane" he was when he signed his final statement, or whether he had begun to believe he had killed Joanna even if he hadn't. Such scenarios do happen. There IS such a thing as false memory syndrome.

I (obviously) cannot say this definitely happened to him, but I see it as a distinct possibility. On the other hand, it is possible that he did know Joanna, and that we were never told, and he did kill her as a result of something that had gone on between them. If he did not know Jo, as he said, and as the court accepted, it makes no sense to me that he could have killed her. People with clean records and successful, happy  lives  do not normally return from work after a  busy day, and a cycle ride through Bristol in bad weather,  and decide to kill the girl next door. Alcohol and drugs could possibly play a part, but if he was under the influence of either, I doubt whether he would have been driving his car in bad weather and late at night.

Just my opinion of course, but it makes no sense to me that he would have killed anyone, or that he was colluding with his lawyers. He could well have been too lethargic and dispirited to sack them.

Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #643 on: August 30, 2017, 07:49:32 PM »
Everyone eventually dies, either at home, if they have one, or away from home. A death certificate therefore contains a box (No. 1) for the date and place of death, and another box (No. 6) for the occupation and the usual address of the deceased. The details in box 6 are exactly as you would expect, as are those in boxes 2, 3, 4 and 5, so I won't repeat them.

Box 7 contains the details of the informant, and may well merit your attention. The text reads: "Certificate on inquest adjourned received from M E Voisin H M Assistant Deputy Coroner for District of Avon, Inquest held 28th March 2011".

Box 8 is for the signature of the informant. It is empty.

Box 9 (a large one) is for the cause of death. The text reads: "I (a) Compression of the neck".

Box 10 is for the date of registration. The text reads: "Thirtieth March 2011".

Box 11 is for the signature of the registrar. There is no signature, but the name "S L Thomas" is given.

Until the Defence lawyers handed over Vincent Tabak's "Enhanced statement" towards the end of September, the Crown had no information that we know of that placed Joanna's death at 44 Canynge Road, nor anywhere else except where the body was found.

Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #644 on: August 30, 2017, 08:14:24 PM »
Not sure I agree with you on this one, Leonora. My gut feeling tells me that VT was not part of any collusion, rather that he was the victim of one. If he had no previous form, as we have been led to believe, and had spent several months in high security prisons, as seems to be the case, I feel that he would have been absolutely stunned at what was happening to him, and he could well have begun to go slightly mad in prison! We don't know how "sane" he was when he signed his final statement, or whether he had begun to believe he had killed Joanna even if he hadn't. Such scenarios do happen. There IS such a thing as false memory syndrome.

I (obviously) cannot say this definitely happened to him, but I see it as a distinct possibility. On the other hand, it is possible that he did know Joanna, and that we were never told, and he did kill her as a result of something that had gone on between them. If he did not know Jo, as he said, and as the court accepted, it makes no sense to me that he could have killed her. People with clean records and successful, happy  lives  do not normally return from work after a  busy day, and a cycle ride through Bristol in bad weather,  and decide to kill the girl next door. Alcohol and drugs could possibly play a part, but if he was under the influence of either, I doubt whether he would have been driving his car in bad weather and late at night.

Just my opinion of course, but it makes no sense to me that he would have killed anyone, or that he was colluding with his lawyers. He could well have been too lethargic and dispirited to sack them.
You don't have to be in prison for more than a couple of days before your hair loses its sheen and starts to fall out. After a few weeks, it starts to go grey, and other physiological changes make themselves apparent. Vincent Tabak certainly spent some time in prison, but I doubt if it was as long as nine months.

You seem to discount Clegg's behaviour. Clegg had not been in prison, nor become distressed and despairing. The only way to account for this barrister's behaviour is to ascribe a false flag to it. The only way to account for VT's failure to sack his defence team is to conclude that he endorsed this false flag.

If his behaviour during the trial was not an act, then he would certainly have reacted in court to Mr Clegg's astonishing behaviour from time to time, especially during the cross-examination of Peter Brotherton. He could have passed a lttle note to the barrister, or behaved demonstratively. If he was not putting on an act, then he would have sacked his defence team before the trial was over. The clincher is that he retained the same firm of solicitors and the same barristers' chambers for the second trial for possession of illegal images of child abuse - which was also undoubtedly a phoney trial.

The only sign of his discontent with Kelcey and Clegg was his failure to sign the "Enhanced Statement" in time for the deadline they had promised the judge. I interpret this as further evidence that the plea had been entered by an imposter. If he had already agreed with his lawyers to take part in the "show" prior to the date of the plea, then it is difficult to account for the hiccup in September.