The Defence Will State Their Case

[[...]]

Tabak: I was hoping she was alive but clearly she wasn’t.
Defence Counsel: Accepting that she was dead, what did you do?
Tabak: After a couple of minutes I lifted the body and carried it over to my flat.
Defence Counsel: Your hand being on what part of her body?
Tabak: One arm was underneath her knees.
Defence Counsel: Were you able to carry her to your flat?
Tabak: No she was too heavy. I tried again.
Defence Counsel: Where did you take her body?
Tabak: To my flat.
Defence Counsel: Did you leave Joanna’s door shut or open?
Tabak: Open.
Defence Counsel: What did you do next?
Tabak: I decided to put her body in my bicycle cover.
Defence Counsel: Was it your bicycle cover or Tanja’s?
Tabak: No- it was mine.
Defence Counsel: How easy was it to put the body in the bicycle cover?
Tabak: Very difficult but eventually I did it.
Defence Counsel: Why did you put her body in the bicycle cover?
Tabak: I didn’t want anyone to find out and I put the body in my car.
Defence Counsel: Was Joanna’s door still open?
Tabak: Yes.

Then...... So after struggling with the body and it being his first murder... he has the presence of mind to do this next :..

Defence Counsel: After you put the body in the boot of your car, what did you do next?
Tabak: I went back to Joanna’s flat and switched off the TV and the oven; I took away the
sock and the pizza.
Defence Counsel: Why did you take the pizza and sock?
Tabak: I was not thinking straight.
Defence Counsel: Where did you take the pizza and sock?
Tabak: In my car.
Defence Counsel: You decided to take the body away. How were you going to do that?
Tabak: In the car.
Defence Counsel: Where was the car?
Tabak: On the street.

From the trial.....

Is the Defence happy in accepting that their Client apparently... left the door on the latch with NO mind or WORRY that someone may turn up to the flat and wonder what was going on?????

He returns to the flat twice... Would he really!

He was supposed to be in his Flat for an hour with Joanna Yeates body... you think that

(A): He'd of cleaned up in that time

(B): He of made sure he had both socks!!

It's only the Defence that tells us that Joanna Yeates told Dr Vincent Tabak that Greg was away.... How did he know???

Someone.... anyone... friends/family could have turned up at Joanna Yeates Flat at anytime, seeing as it was the week leading up to Christmas....

Did none of the neighbours drop off Christmas Cards???  Did anyone drop of Christmas cards ... ??

Why would he return to the flat at all, when it was always feasible someone could have turned up???

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

[[...]]

I was wondering what happened to all of the possesions that were removed from Joanna Yeates Flat and Dr Vincent Tabak's flat....

Did the Bulk Destruction Policy come into play....?? What happened to the Car and household goods that were tested???

Bulk destruction policy

It is not possible to define bulk for the purpose of this policy. Prosecutors should consider the issue of bulk on an individual case basis, and in liaison with the NCA / HMRC / police colleagues.

Bulk goods (for example, drugs, excise goods, alcohol etc) and associated packaging can be destroyed post charge. Prosecutors should make a decision as to the destruction of bulk goods following agreement from the defence or upon receipt of the defence statement.

The prosecutor must be satisfied that the case officer has:

Provided evidence, by way of witness statement, as to the quantity and nature of the bulk goods;
Provided photographs of the bulk goods and / or a video of the bulk goods in situ;
Confirmed that there are no issues as to continuity;
Confirmed that the decision about the selection of a representative sample has been recorded in a policy book / day book;
Provided an assurance that a representative sample has been retained by the case officer; and
Confirmed that the bulk goods will not be destroyed until they receive written consent from the prosecutor.
It is important that the defence are notified, at the earliest opportunity, of the prosecution's intention to destroy the goods. The prosecutor should either (a) write to the defence; or (b) raise the issue at the PTPH / PCMH so that the issue can be made the subject of directions:

notifying them of the prosecutions intention to destroy the goods;
giving them 7 days to provide any written reasons to object; and
making it clear that in the event no response is received, the prosecution will move to destruction of the bulk goods.
Prosecutors should be alert to the possibility of the defendant changing his / her defence team after the prosecution has sent the letter about intention to destroy the goods. In such circumstances, the defendant may claim that the earlier defence team has not acted appropriately with regard to the letter. The claim may weaken the prosecution case, so prosecutors must be prepared to overcome this argument. A full and clear audit of decisions and correspondence will be essential in order to rebut any potential challenges.

Do photographs exist of these bulk goods... Have these bulk goods been retained??

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/exhibits/

[Leonora]

I was wondering what happened to all of the possesions that were removed from Joanna Yeates Flat and Dr Vincent Tabak's flat....

Did the Bulk Destruction Policy come into play....?? What happened to the Car and household goods that were tested???

Do photographs exist of these bulk goods... Have these bulk goods been retained??

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/exhibits/

No "bulk goods" were reported to have been impounded in this case. "Bulk goods" would be goods such as a crates of duty-free wine, cases of cigarettes, ivory, coral, or of course illegal drugs in quantities considered more than for personal use. The nearest things we get to "bulk goods" in this case are the adult and child pornographic materials, which of course could be replicated indefinitely, if they really existed.

Just because Tanja Morson's car and Vincent Tabak's mountain bike were too bulky to get inside a large hold-all doesn't mean that they were covered by the regulation that you quote. I expect Vincent's family were allowed to collect his mountain bike eventually, just as Amanda Knox's family were allowed to collect her climbing boots after she had been convicted.

[[...]]

No "bulk goods" were reported to have been impounded in this case. "Bulk goods" would be goods such as a crates of duty-free wine, cases of cigarettes, ivory, coral, or of course illegal drugs in quantities considered more than for personal use. The nearest things we get to "bulk goods" in this case are the adult and child pornographic materials, which of course could be replicated indefinitely, if they really existed.

Just because Tanja Morson's car and Vincent Tabak's mountain bike were too bulky to get inside a large hold-all doesn't mean that they were covered by the regulation that you quote. I expect Vincent's family were allowed to collect his mountain bike eventually, just as Amanda Knox's family were allowed to collect her climbing boots after she had been convicted.

Well they spent £5,484 on Storage Crates according to the Expenditure..

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8060.msg401172#msg401172

[[...]]

Where were the Exhibits in this Case?? What was produced at trial??

(1): Joanna Yeates Coat

(2): Joanna Yeates House keys

(3): Joanna Yeates Phone

(4): Joanna Yeates Sock

(5): Joanna Yeates Rucksack

(6):Joanna Yeates Black Bag

(7): Joanna Yeates Purse

(8): Bargain Booze Reciept

(9): The Bottles of Cider

(10): Tanja Morson's Car

(11): Dr Vincent Tabak's Black coat

Where any of these items brought to the court or in the case of the car visited by the jury??

These would have added value and impact for the Prosecution... So did anyone see them??

If NOT why NOT??

[[...]]

Alibi

In the absence of forensic evidence or a description, some TIE subjects can be eliminated through alibi enquiries. Alibi enquiries establish that a subject was not available to commit the offence because the person was in another location during the time that it was committed.

The degree of reliance that can be placed on alibi elimination depends on the credibility of the person providing the alibi. The HOLMES2 elimination criteria distinguish between alibi witnesses who are independent of the nominal, those who are associated with them in some way and those who are in an intimate relationship with them. Clearly, the value of alibi enquiries depends, to a large extent, on knowing with some certainty the location of the crime and the times during which it occurred. If it is not possible to set reasonably tight locations and alibi times, it is likely that many TIE subjects will remain not eliminated.

How did the Police exclude any alibi Dr Vincent Tabak may have had in the intial arrest?? 

Clearly, the value of alibi enquiries depends, to a large extent, on knowing with some certainty the location of the crime and the times during which it occurred.

They had no clear idea of when where or how Joanna Yeates had died when they Arrested Dr Vincent Tabak and with the Time Stamp being Void on the Asda CCTV it makes it difficult to know at what time he visited ASDA??

We know he went into Asda Twice.... where these two seperate visits at very different times ??

Not eliminated

Someone who cannot be eliminated using codes 1–5 must be recorded as not eliminated. This does not mean that they are a suspect in the case. Where the elimination criteria are broad, it is likely that fewer TIE subjects will be eliminated than where the criteria are more narrowly defined.

Why didn't they just release Dr Vincent Tabak on bail when they had NO Hard Evidence to retain him...

Investigation
Working with suspects
The identification of suspects, the trace/interview/eliminate (TIE) strategy and the arrest strategy are explored in this module. In terms of the arrest strategy, considerations around timings, background checks, searches, planning, pre-arrest briefings and post-arrest issues are included.

Even if they had suspected Dr Vincent Tabak... they do not appear to have taken much notice the working with subject stratergy (IMO)...

Arrest strategy
An investigator must decide whether the suspect can or should be arrested. The decision to deprive an individual of their freedom should not be taken lightly, and advice should be sought from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) if needed. Once a suspect has been identified, a strategy development approach can be adopted to gather material that will either implicate them in the offence or eliminate them. Every individual who falls within the suspect category must be treated in the same way. If there are specific reasons for not following the same procedure, these should be recorded in the crime report or policy file.

So this is the point Anne Redrrop decided that the evidence they had presented to her warranted planning his arrest... The only problem was all they had was a partial DNA sample... So what did they actually arrest Dr Vincent Tabak with???



https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/working-with-suspects/#arrest-strategy

[[...]]

Just spotted a little something..... When The Defence is talking about the Prison Chaplain.... he is fully aware (IMO)... that he is NOT a prison Chaplain in the true sense of the word:..

Defence Counsel: You met Brotherton and told him what you did? Did you want to kill
Joanna?
Tabak: No definitely not.

He refers to the Chapalin as Brotherton and NOT Brother Brotherton... he doesn't give him a title... Not even Mr Brotherton...

Well Mr Defence person... what did you know about "Brotherton"...

[[...]]

Bad Character Evidence....... Part One...

We have sort of covered this, but I just keep looking at how they actually managed to introduce "Bad Character Evidence" under a cloak...

Bad character
Further information

Bad character of the defendant(s) and non-defendant(s)

Previously, evidence of bad character fell within the category of inadmissible evidence however, this has been changed by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA).

The Act provides for the admissibility of previous convictions in support of the propensity to commit like offences and/or to be untruthful. Common law rules in the main are abolished.

Bad character evidence is evidence of, or a disposition towards, misconduct rather than evidence relating to the facts in issue. Misconduct includes the commission of an offence or other ‘reprehensible behaviour’.

Initially I always believed that the exclusion of the Porn was the only "Bad Character Evidence" that they could use against Dr Vincent Tabak.... But I now believe they manipulated the "Evidence" in such a way, that they did allow the unsuspecting Jury to hear this "Bad Character Evidence" as it was drip feed throughtout the " Defences statements in court... I believe it is the DEFENCE themselves who Produce The "Bad Character Evidence" and as I have said many times before bury their client...

Why would a Defence team... push through on their own volition, Evidence deemed as "Bad Character Evidence"???
I have no experience in these matters ... But surely that is not a legal move!!


Examples of what was said by the Defence, which could be percieved by the Jury as "Bad Character" (IMO) The below quotes are from The Sally Ramage Papers

s.But his conduct
afterwards was frankly disgusting.

The Defence are Telling The Jury that their client is of "Bad Character".

He caused anguish to her family.
His defence will not be heard to excuse this behaviour.

Only a person without Morals would have no compassion for the family..

He was obviously concerned with the incident, trying to track everything.

Allowing the Jury to believe that Dr Vincent Tabak was conniving ,deceitful and manipulating

Again he told lie after lie and you will hear no excuse from me about that.

There was Nothing to prove that Dr Vincent Tabak told lie after lie..

It shows a very
calculating person trying to wriggle out of her death

Again... stating that his OWN client is a"Calculating person"...


I will do this in parts as it will be way too long....






 

[[...]]

" Bad Character Evidence" Part Two.......

The below quotes come from the papers at the time of the trial.....

  his conduct after Yeates died when he hid the body was “frankly disgusting” and had caused untold anguish and agony to her family.

Covered this one..

:  “I’m not going to ask you to like Vincent Tabak. There’s probably nothing to like.”

The Defence push the boundaries of decency here... They cast aspersions on Dr Vincent Tabak's over all Character, without any "Evidence" provided by the "DEFENCE" themselves to prove the contrary

And Miss Morson seems to agree, having failed to make a single  appearance at court.

By bringing into court that his longtime girlfriend had failed to appear at the trial, it suggest, that Dr Vincent tabak is such a dispicable person, they one and only person in this country who knew him well enough had, as it appeared "Failed him"...  But infact.. Tanja Morson was kept away from the trial and sent away on holiday by her family...

He had told “lie after lie to the police.

This that Defence are refering too, is the infamous CJ interview where he talks about CJ's car.....

did everything he could to cover his tracks”.

That again is an UNTRUE..... If Dr Vincent Tabak did everyting in his power to cover his tracks he would have disposed of his "Laptop" in a River in Holland"...

But the Jury are being influenced by the Defence as to The "Bad Character" of their OWN Client...

He added that he would not try to justify Tabak’s actions after her death, saying his client was “living a lie” by attending dinner parties and attempting to carry on his life as normal.

Another example from the Defence as to Dr Vincent Tabak's carefree nature and uncaring approach...

“I’m not going to ask you to have any sympathy for him. He deserves none.

WOW... This one is EXTREMELY harsh.... The Defence had completely dropped there client in the fire.... "Nothing to like".... That statement in itself should be enough for the Jury to think that this man is Guilty of everything... Everything from this trial to anything your imagination can come up with...

He makes this HUGE "Statement "... Yet "No"... "Good Character Evidence".. was brought to court in Defence of Dr Vincent Tabak... and The "Good Character Evidence should be brought to trial by The Defence...

If it is the Defence who are actually bringing The Bad Character Evidence to trial about their own Client.... Is that not an abuse of power.... Is that "Not an abuse of the Principles of Law??...

“I’m not going to ask you to excuse his conduct. There can be no excuse.

“If I was to set out to win a popularity contest I would lose.

He told the court: “Of course, afterwards his behaviour is utterly disgraceful. It’s not going to be justified by me

but it does not help in thinking of what happened at the flat….

This Particular quote is quite worring.. not saying the others aren't , But this quote allows The Jury to conjour in their minds what they may think occured to Joanna Yeates , and what perverse things he may have done after being alone with her dead body...

There is absolutley NO Evidence as to What happened to Joanna Yeates apart from what Dr Vincent Tabak said on the witness stand...

Ever time the Defence utter words of distain for their client, it was another underhanded attempt to cast doubt on Dr Vincent Tabak "Good Character"...  There was nothing in Dr Vincent Tabak's history to suggest that he was a man of "Bad Character"... The CPS could find nothing to support a claim of any Offence that Dr Vincent Tabak had previously...

[[...]]

"Bad Character Evidence Part Three...

In light of the Evidence that it was indeed it was "The Defence" who Introduced "The Bad Character Evidence" against their own client and in turn Dr Vincent Tabak had No chance to have "Good Character Evidence" Brought to trial... Isn't this
Evidence Evidence in itself that an "UNFAIR Trial had taken place.....

* When a Defendant such as Dr Vincent Tabak is being "Prosecuted" by both the "Prosecution and "The Defence" at
   Dr Vincent Tabak's trial for the "Murder of "Joanna Yeates".. how in "Law" can this be permitted??

* How in "Law" is the boundaries of fairness being played out"

* How in "Law" did this "Dutchman" stand a chance to recieve a "Fair trial" ?

* Why has there "Not " been a retrial???

If it was a possibility for me to make this my online "Application" to "Request" a retrial for Dr Vincent Tabak on the "Evidence I have shown how the trial was in "law" "Unfair"... Then please accept my writtings as such... because someone out there must be reading this who Knows "Law"... and can see that........Dr Vincent Tabak.. The Placid Dutchman Did not recieve "A Fair trial " in this country of ours and as such I believe that "All the "Evidence".. should be brought to the Forefront and be scrutinised .... This "Evidence I believe.. Will not only show that Dr Vincent Tabak didn't recieve a fair trial in this country.... But it is my belief, it will also show that "Dr Vincent Tabak is actually Innocent of the Crime of which he has been found "Guilty of....

I would like "Ever Point that has been made brought to someones attention from:

* All The Time Stamps On All CCTV Footage that Avon and Somerset Police had in their Possesion

* The Illegal use of "Dutch Law" to interview Dr Vincent Tabak for 6 hours

* That fact that DC Karen Thomas did not caution Dr Vincent Tabak as a "Suspect" when it appears a Twin Track
   Investigation was taking place and that was her intention to gather "Evidence" against Dr Vincent Tabak as she
   suspected him of being involved with Joanna Yeates disappearance..

* The "Evidence that they supposidly had to Arrest Dr Vincent Tabak in the first place

* The Crying Girl Phone Call

* The Phone Call made from Holland

* The Taped Police Interviews of Dr Vincent Tabak

* The Phone records of Dr Vincent Tabak

* The 1300 page Document

* Good Character Evidence of Dr Vincent tabak

* The Role of The Fire Service nad the testomony of these personal

* DCI Phil Jones on the witness stand

* CJ's Second witness statement

* CJ on the witness stand

* Tanja Morson on the witness stand

* Timings of events that happened

* The Evidence that Anne Reddrop had to Plan Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest

* An explanation as to what was under the Two Forensic tents if Joanna Yeates wasn't

* The Asda CCTV Footage of Dr Vincent Tabak in the car park and the times of his Two visits

* The playing of the original "Crime Watch" program.. that was scheduled to air days after Dr vincent Tabak's arrest

* Mr Brotherton explaining his Job and Role in Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction

* Tanja Nickson's qualifications and explanation as to the "Computer Evidence"

* Scott Fulton, Head of E-services for Avon and Somerset Police , who was running an advisory role as a second job
   and wasn't part of the Police force... What other Input did he have in this trial ?? Did he help Tanja Nickson with
   her presentation???

I'll continue on next post...

[[...]]

"Bad Character Evidence " Part  Four....

* Colin Port and his role an Knowledge of Information that was with held from the Defence... With his admission at
   the Leveson enquiry that there was CCTV footage at "Caffe Nero" of a woman and child behind Joanna Yeates and
   this was the clearest know Footage by the pubic, as we have just  found out.... Of Joanna Yeates last Known
   movements.

* Witness's who could prove that Dr Vincent Tabak was of "Good character"


* The other Tenants of 44 Canygne Road explaining the disruption that they were under during the Police
   Investigation and did any of them leave the building and stay else where...

* The DNA Evidence put under the microscope...

* Did they put Joanna Yeates DNA into "The National Data Base and have a return of No Matches??

* The CCTV in "Colour" showing what Joanna Yeates was wearing on the night of the 17th December 2010

* A comparison Given to the clothes that Joanna yeates was found in... In particular "The Flower patterned Top"
   described by Dr Delaney and what appears by the court artist to be "Blue Jeans on Joanna Yeates, instead of The
   Black ones she was wearing on the night of the 17 Th December 2010...

* A demonstration showing how difficult it is to move a dead body on ones own

* The full Toxicology results of Joanna Yeates

* The discrepencies in other witness accounts cross examined

* The Hundred Questions I originally had that have now swelled to over "750" Questions...

* The Dutch Translation of any of Dr Vincent Tabak's writings...

I could go on.... I believe whole heartedly that this case not only has been completely "Unfair" and contravened many of our laws... (IMO) But also an "Inquiry" on the level of "The Leveson Inquiry"... should be undertaken and all those responsible for Dr Vincent Tabak's current situation should be brought to BOOK!!!! (IMO)

[Leonora]

... I believe it is the DEFENCE themselves who Produce The "Bad Character Evidence" and as I have said many times before bury their client...

Mr. Clegg asked the pathologist Nat Cary whether asphyxiation could form part of a sexually motivated attack.

Dr. Cary replied, “There are some people, probably a pretty small number in the population, who become sexually aroused by asphyxiating someone,” he told the jury. “It is fair to say there are some people who become sexually aroused by being asphyxiated.”

[[...]]

Mr. Clegg asked the pathologist Nat Cary whether asphyxiation could form part of a sexually motivated attack.

Dr. Cary replied, “There are some people, probably a pretty small number in the population, who become sexually aroused by asphyxiating someone,” he told the jury. “It is fair to say there are some people who become sexually aroused by being asphyxiated.”

Another reason to add to my list Leonora.... of "The Defences Bad Character" of their own client... To keep suggesting that Dr Vincent Tabak was the sort of person NO Evidence had proved he was !!!!

[[...]]

Looking at more of the tweets .... It was The Lawyers... who decided how much detail was in Dr Vincent Tabak's statements...

Attached Tweets ....

Dr Cary Says Joanna Yeates face was virtually uninjured .....

Dr Cary States The redness on her nose was caused when her body froze and her skin was damaged...

Now we have got the PROBLEM... Of where "The Blood Came From"... because I always thought her nose was damaged in the struggle!!! Which makes it difficult for it to be in Dr Vincent Tabk's Car Boot!!!

How did Dr Cary find a fracture of Joanna Yeates Voice box.. which was not found in the First Post Mortem examination??


Dr Cary says its difficult to redress a dead body.... Is this question posed because Joanna Yeates had different clothes on....


http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Tabak_Cross-Examination?Page=2

[[...]]

Please may I have a copy of the 200 page Transcript, of recorded Police Interviews following Dr Vincent Tabak's arrest .. That DC Richard Barnston, described at the trial...


Dc Paul Derrick.. denied there was tension between him and the duty solicitor.... (He's a new name for me to add....)

OMG... as I'm reading these tweets it's all screaming out at me..... Very cleverly worded .. is all I will say... Think I'll go back to Lyndsey Lennen and the "Forensics Topic after this post....

Now The defences Cross examination of Tanja Nickson is extremely brief according to the tweet...

http://live-news.sky.com/Event/Live_Updates_Vincent_Tabak_Trial3?Page=1