The Defence Will State Their Case

[jixy]

All I have managed to understand , is no-one really wants the real truth when it comes to convictions, a conviction is a conviction.... Another one in the net.... Scores on the doors....

If material that could be vital to any case, and it questions, the very basics of said case, shouldn't it be disclosed...

There are many people on trial in this country where full disclosure, would have stopped a trial in its tracks... Many people in prison for the exact same reason....

I am just looking at why I am not happy about this case... No other case... this one.... And finding information I believe would have and could have changed the complexion of the case.....

That is all... And why anyone else is really bothered trying to get me to stick with the narrative... I have no idea...!!

That whole post highlights once again why 2 years on you post as and what you do...

could have changed the complexion of the case... HOW?  a miracle taking place to change his guilty plea and his apology towards the family into a plea of innocence.

Do you ever read your posts back? Do you see how strange some of them are?

[jixy]

I take it this is another one of those off the top of your head posts?

This is a rather ludicrous statement to make from my viewpoint.

These kind of posts always appear when another person make a good point that cant really be argued. A vague statement appears to  'make do' as a reasonable reply

[Nicholas]

..
If material that could be vital to any case, and it questions, the very basics of said case, shouldn't it be disclosed...

There are many people on trial in this country where full disclosure, would have stopped a trial in its tracks... Many people in prison for the exact same reason....

I am just looking at why I am not happy about this case... No other case... this one..... And finding information I believe would have and could have changed the complexion of the case.....

You state:

I am just looking at why I am not happy about this case... No other case... this one

But then contradict this statement in the same post?

What cases are you referring to?

[[...]]

Killers: 39:09 Ann Reddrop

He says, she, her, didn't like what he was doing, she screamed, in order to stop her, he put his hand over her mouth, when he took his hand away, she screamed again, and it's then when he replaced his hand and he strangled her

Then from Clegg's opening statement..

Vincent Tabak misread her friendliness toward him and made a move towards her as if he
was about to kiss him on her lips.
He put one hand in the middle of her back as if he was about to kiss her, and she screamed
fiercely.
 He put his hand over her mouth and said sorry and when he moved his hand away she
screamed again.
 He put his hand to her mouth and throat and she went limp. She was dead.

Why is Ann so vague, why doesn't she know that Dr Vincent Tabak had tried to kiss her, this program is supposed to have been made after the trial... Yet Ann apparently has no idea , what Joanna Yeates didn't like....

Ann's answer is  He says, she, her, didn't like what he was doing, she screamed

Well Ann what was he supposed to be doing.... You are The head of The Complex case Unit, surely you after trial, should have known exactly what it was Dr Vincent Tabak was doing and what "He said he was doing"!! (imo).....

The vagueness of these programs only makes me question them more.....

it's then when he replaced his hand and he strangled her

That statement suggest that this was sexual... that Dr Vincent Tabak had already put his hand around Joanna yeates throat and she had stated , she didn't like it.... Therefore he must have known her.....

She says he replaces his hand around her throat.... Well it was across her mouth actually!

You can only replace something that was there in the first place......


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

[jixy]

Killers: 39:09 Ann Reddrop
Then from Clegg's opening statement..


Why is Ann so vague, why doesn't she know that Dr Vincent Tabak had tried to kiss her, this program is supposed to have been made after the trial... Yet Ann apparently has no idea , what Joanna Yeates didn't like....

Ann's answer is  He says, she, her, didn't like what he was doing, she screamed

Well Ann what was he supposed to be doing.... You are The head of The Complex case Unit, surely you after trial, should have known exactly what it was Dr Vincent Tabak was doing and what "He said he was doing"!! (imo).....

The vagueness of these programs only makes me question them more.....




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

you attack and pick holes in everything connected to this case based on what you think should happen what people should do and say...

From posters on here to strangers in the street BUT never towards Tabak

To look at any case you have to see all sides you dont and never have done that!

[jixy]

Just because they wrote it differently is no indication that she didnt know what had taken place. Only if you are looking for another way out for Tabak

[[...]]

you attack and pick holes in everything connected to this case based on what you think should happen what people should do and say...

From posters on here to strangers in the street BUT never towards Tabak

To look at any case you have to see all sides you dont and never have done that!

I look at this case on my concerns I had on what I believe was the lack of investigation it appeared that The Defence failed to do....

I have said all along that I believe Dr vincent tabak is Innocent... I am not trying to be unbiased...

[jixy]

Lack of investigation? what exactly did expect them to do working with a client who admitted the offence . this has been pointed out to you over and over again, You fail to see it

He was never gonna leave the court a free man yet you seem to think failings by others stopped this from happening

[[...]]

Lack of investigation? what exactly did expect them to do working with a client who admitted the offence . this has been pointed out to you over and over again, You fail to see it

He was never gonna leave the court a free man yet you seem to think failings by others stopped this from happening

So what happened between, being arrested charged and held.... he didn't confess immediately... So there had to be time for an Investigation....  Confession can only be attributed to the May 2011 hearing. when the guilty plea was entered.... .. So between January and May 2011.. what did the Defence actually do... ???

[Nicholas]

I look at this case on my concerns I had on what I believe was the lack of investigation it appeared that The Defence failed to do....

I have said all along that I believe Dr vincent tabak is Innocent... I am not trying to be unbiased...

Then what are you trying to be?

[jixy]

Another thing im not sure about is why YOU think you deserve an answer to every part of this case.

The court case was based on evidence and his confession. Get over it and accept that is how it works

[Nicholas]

I look at this case on my concerns I had on what I believe was the lack of investigation it appeared that The Defence failed to do....

I have said all along that I believe Dr vincent tabak is Innocent... I am not trying to be unbiased...

If, as you've stated too many times to count, you don't understand law, how and why do you make this claim?

And do you recognise yet another of your contradictions?

[[...]]

If, as you've stated too many times to count, you don't understand law, how and why do you make this claim?

And do you recognise yet another of your contradictions?

Last time I looked I believe if was referred to as opinion....

[[...]]

If, as you've stated too many times to count, you don't understand law, how and why do you make this claim?

And do you recognise yet another of your contradictions?

No but maybe I am starting to recognise I have been played...

[jixy]

No but maybe I am starting to recognise I have been played...

Played by who? you have given up hours and hours for a man who doesnt know you exist and doesnt want or need help from you or anyone else it seems