Part 4 ..... What did the "Read Out in Court Witness Statements".. say These witness statements were many.... many statements making many claims.... On either Joanna Yeates or Dr Vincent Tabak... The helped form the basis of The Prosecution Case.... Without these statements "The Jury" would not know quite a lot of information.... Take Daniel Birch for instance... He and his wife Rebecca.. apparently found Joanna Yeates Body... I'll say apparently for 2 reasons... I believe Dr Delaney has already explained it was the Officers who put Joanna Yeates on the Verge (Roadside)... And Daniel Birch wasn't in court to verify his claim ...... And this is where I am taking you...
Definition of StatementA 'statement' is defined as "any representation of fact or opinion made by a person by whatever means"; and it includes a representation made in a sketch, photo fit or other pictorial form.
Matter stated: implied insertions
A 'matter stated' is one where the purpose or one of the purposes of the person making the statement appears to have been to cause another person to believe the matter or to cause another person to act or a machine to operate on the basis that the matter is as stated (section 115).
Definition of Hearsay Hearsay" in criminal proceedings is "a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings that is evidence of any matter stated" (section 114 (1) Criminal Justice Act 2003).
Matter stated: implied insertionsThe effect of this definition of statement is to enable evidence to be admitted of 'implied assertions'. This reverses the decision made in R v Kearley (1992) 2 AC 228 in which police answered telephone calls and personal calls to the defendant's home from people asking about drugs that the defendant had for sale. The prosecution wished to adduce the evidence to prove that the intended recipient of the calls was a dealer in drugs, without evidence from the callers themselves. The House of Lords decided that, as evidence of the fact that the defendant dealt in drugs, the caller's words were hearsay and thus inadmissible.
I'm trying to understand how all those people in "Part 3... of my post on this matter.... evidence was allowed in court.... because realistically I believe it could be hearsay.... And some of the statements had other people brought into these statements.. (eg: Daniel Birch mentions his wife)..
So are the read out statements classed as
"Matter Stated" Or are they classed as
Hearsay ???
Admissibility of hearsay evidence(1)In criminal proceedings a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings is admissible as evidence of any matter stated if, but only if—
(a)any provision of this Chapter or any other statutory provision makes it admissible,
(b)any rule of law preserved by section 118 makes it admissible,
(c)all parties to the proceedings agree to it being admissible, or
(d)the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for it to be admissible.
(2)In deciding whether a statement not made in oral evidence should be admitted under subsection (1)(d), the court must have regard to the following factors (and to any others it considers relevant)—
(a)how much probative value the statement has (assuming it to be true) in relation to a matter in issue in the proceedings, or how valuable it is for the understanding of other evidence in the case;
(b) what other evidence has been, or can be, given on the matter or evidence mentioned in paragraph (a);
(c) how important the matter or evidence mentioned in paragraph (a) is in the context of the case as a whole;
(d) the circumstances in which the statement was made;
(e) how reliable the maker of the statement appears to be;
(f) how reliable the evidence of the making of the statement appears to be;
(g) whether oral evidence of the matter stated can be given and, if not, why it cannot;
(h) the amount of difficulty involved in challenging the statement;
(i) the extent to which that difficulty would be likely to prejudice the party facing it.
(3) Nothing in this Chapter affects the exclusion of evidence of a statement on grounds other than the fact that it is a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings.
So are all the statement in Part 3.. classed as hearsay... not having anything to establish
(A): Their Truth
(B): Their Validaty
(C): Their Accuracy
(D): The extent to which that difficulty would be likely to prejudice the party facing it.
Realistically I do not believe that The Witness's who's statements where read out in court should have been admissible (IMO)... as they prejudiced the Jury as to Dr Vincent Tabak's .. Mental State... Conversation's he may or may no have had .... Conversations people say they had with Joanna Yeates that cannot be verified ... Parties attended as to screams heard ... Injuries Dr Vincent Tabak was supposed to have had on arrest... Irrelevant..(IMO)..
How can so many witness's give statements that basically are hearsay as far as I can tell....
With so many statements telling us how Joanna Yeates mood was in The Ram Pub differing... How can that be accepted as true and accurate in these written statements ??
PC Martin Faithful (I believe he didn't appear) is described as a Forensic's Officer... his statement make claims To Joanna Yeates thawing... Yet PC Martin Faithful is a Beat Bobby.... How can what he say be accepted??
People who attended parties with Dr Vincent Tabak making assertions as to his mood and what he was supposed to have said ... Hearsay... They are NOT in COURT to makes such statement that could be challenged ...
You have 16 written statements read out in court without these peoples attendance... And 3 statements read out without challenge..
So 19 statements that make all kinds of claims that are unsubstantiated by anyone ..... Martin Faithful supports that Joanna Yeates jeans pocket was visible.... as Daniel Birch had claimed....
Both are statements that are read out How is that evidence ???
You basically have the evidence of a Beat bobby who is not there as far as I am aware backing the statement of a witness that wasn't at court also!!! That can't be right !!!!
Is it normal to have So many witness statements read out at a "Murder Trial" ??????
As far as I am concerned... their statement mean nothing... How trustworthy are these people ?? we know nothing about these people whatsoever.... Yet they all star in The Trial Of The Year..... And everything they have seen or heard has been accepted as Gospel... without anything to prove what they have stated as being
TrueIs this what our justice system has come to... Filling the court time with unsupported witness statements, to imply whatever they like, just by simply making such a statement and the prosecution using these statements to convict somebody..
So if we get rid of 19 pointless witness's ..... who have not really added to anything proving that Dr Vincent Tabak killed Joanna Yeates... We can then look at what the Live witness's actually gave to this trial (IMO)....
Edit... I nearly forgot... Geoffrey Hardyman... The Defences only apparent witness for Dr Vincent Tabak ..(excluding Dr Carey)..... Who says absolutley NOTHING.... Apart from not being able to hear anything and Joanna Yeates had a Cat .... Well that written witness statement really put paid to the Prosecutions case... NOT!!!!
Pointless.... Pointless statement not saying anything..... (IMO)....
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/section/114
