Yes they were definitely given a helping hand by his confession.
And, were definitely given a helping hand as to the law by the judge from his directions I would expect.
I still stay confused.....
OK... Who is Dr Vincent Tabak?? Everyone is convinced that he is guilty of Manslaughter, this was stated in the media about his appearance at The Old Bailey with a unique number U20110387.
Is he and was he known by another name??
We may see images of a man they call Dr Vincent Tabak, but is it?? We know little to zero about him.... I keep trying to understand why it doesn't make sense.... And why Joanna Yeates was killed....
The determining of his guilt was set in stone by the 29th July 2011,... And probably at The Old Bailey, but it is the 29th July 2011 that we are made aware by the Attorney General and the Case taking place at that time that Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty of Manslaughter at least...
The way the trial played out across the media in October 2011 had me questioning everything about this case... And it is from the trial and what i know that i determined that Dr Vincent Tabak was Innocent.... But... I maybe need to look at this differently...
The question keeps coming back to who is Dr Vincent Tabak?? Is he really an engineer? Was he an undercover Police Officer?? Was he trying to silence Joanna Yeates....
The trial is seperate from everything else I believe... And as everyone keeps pointing out to me it was about INTENT... And not whether or not he did it.... Which on the surface seems strange... I don't know law, but it appears all wrong... I cannot think of any case which is similar to this one...
I believe everyone knows that the tale told on the stand was a tall story and it realistically came from what was already known in this case... There were no surprises to be had, and there should have been.... The media went along with the tall tale told... They tweeted about it... (highly unusual).. No criminal case had ever had live tweets before... They reported it on line... The Defence sounded like the Prosecution at times and The Prosecution and even the Judge sounded like the Defence at times.. But why??
I don't get it i don't understand...
I have gone back to :Attorney General v MGN Ltd
29 Jul 2011 [2011] EWHC 2074 (Admin), DC
And there are a couple of paragraphs that make me question everything again.....
The proceedings arise from the killing of a young woman, Joanna Yeates, in Bristol on 17th December 2010. Her landlord, Christopher Jefferies, was arrested on 30th December on suspicion of her murder. He was released from custody on unconditional police bail during the evening of 1st January 2011. On 22nd January another man, Vincent Tabak was charged with the murder of Miss Yeates. On 4th March Mr Jefferies was informed that he was released from police bail. On 5th May Tabak admitted that he was responsible for killing Miss Yeates when, at the Central Criminal Court, he pleaded guilty to her manslaughter. He denied murder on the basis of diminished responsibility. The trial of that issue will take place in the autumn.
So from that quote, I understand that a trial has been agreed to contest INTENT?? But what was the trial really about... Was it putting INTENT on trial?? Was Dr Vincent Tabak ever really on trial in October 2011?? Or did we just have "INTENT" in the dock? I question this because...
There is therefore no doubt about the identity of the man who killed Miss Yeates or that Mr Jefferies is innocent of any involvement in it. By way of emphasis, he is not simply presumed in law to be innocent of the killing. As a matter of fact and reality he is innocent. He is not facing trial, and he will never face trial. However at the time when the articles complained of were published, he was under arrest. For the purposes of the Act proceedings against him were active. No one was to know that before very long he would be entirely exonerated. That feature makes this an unusual case. The articles complained of did not have and could not have had any impact whatever on a trial of Mr Jefferies, just because – as we now know - there will never be one. From the point of view of the defendants that was purely adventitious, and as we shall see, it is irrelevant to our decision. It is also irrelevant that the way in which some elements of the media may have treated Mr Jefferies may justify a substantial award of damages for defamation. This is a prosecution for contempt of court, not an analysis of any possible civil claim by him for compensation.
"There will never be one"... So there will never be a trial full stop if I understand that correctly... The matter must be settled, but it was played out in the media because???
That I do not know....
Something has been covered up, that is obvious, CJ couldn't confidently push forward so early on before a trial his claims for compensation.. You would have imagined he would have waited... I don't understand why the AG has got involved... That is usual... is it??
According to the second paragraph, Dr Vincent Tabak pled not guilty to Murder on the grounds of diminished responsibilities... But guilty to her Manslaughter....
But at trial, nothing to support diminished responsibilities was entered into evidence..... No medical reports, nothing about his character, in fact nothing about him whatsoever... Nobody there to take the stand in his defence at all...
Do we question what the trial was about, or do we question how Joanna Yeates was killed, and in what capacity? Or both??
It appears that they know for certain that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates, the question is why do they know for certain?? It appears that they had in fact decided and concluded this in May 2011, evidence must have appeared at the Old Bailey to support this... I have know idea what is spoken about behind closed doors... Or why Dr Vincent Tabak would have 2 different trial numbers.... But there has to be more to this than meets the eye if he was taken to the Old Bailey, and The Attorney general is happy to state that Dr Vincent Tabak IS guilty of the demise of Joanna Yeates and Christopher Jefferies is wholly Innocent....
I kept saying that Dr Vincent Tabak could retracted his plea at any time, (imo) which makes The Attorney Generals statement even more strange.... And I'm still stumped as to why he got involved...
Would I say that Dr Vincent Tabak is still Innocent..... Yes, because someone is Innocent until proven guilty and we do not know what actually took place, and why The Attorney General was satisfied that Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty back on the 29th July 2011 is beyond me....
Did a real trial take place in October 2011?? I don't know... But a lot off people wanted everyone to know about Dr Vincent Tabak for some reason, so in their eyes he must be guilty of something... But not what we have been told.. (imo) I say a real trial because i do not know of any legal documentation of R V Tabak.. There could be, it would be great if someone could point us to it please.... (Or is it sealed somewhere after his Old Bailey appearance?)
Is Dr Vincent Tabak free somewhere carrying on life as normal?? Well no one can locate him... I wonder if it was some special Police Operation that went awry.. I don't know... But there are 2 people in this case that we know little to nothing about, 2 people who history should have been part of a trial, 2 people who have been all over the media and 2 people no-one will talk about....
So who is Dr Vincent Tabak really??
Who is Joanna Yeates??
And what is it about this case that it gets quoted in many many publications, without anyone questioning anything that I have brought to the table.... Why was it so important for Joanna Yeates case to be mentioned at the Leveson??
I have wondered why The Yeates haven't said anything else since... I have wondered why the Tabak's haven't said anything else since... And it's odd...
Is Dr Vincent Tabak related to the Yeates ??
Have the Yeates been silenced by some court order??
Have the media been silenced?? I don't know.. But this case makes no sense to me and i want to know why everyone believes that Dr Vincent Tabak is guilty of MANSLAUGHTER and on what grounds.... I want to know why they all talk of a confession and when and where this confession took place and were they privvy to this confession...
I want to know if I have just been wasting my time....
http://iclr.co.uk/document/2011201901/%5B2011%5D%20EWHC%202074%20(Admin)/html?query=tabak&filter=content-available%3A%22Transcript%22&fullSearchFields=&page=1&sort=relevance&pageSize=10