If Tabak had admitted murder to his barrister but still wanted to plead not guilty to murder, then the barrister would not have been able to represent him, it would be a conflict of interest. He was able to defend him against the murder charge because that is what Tabak was denying. It is the same for all lawyers/barristers.
Thank you....
The confusion with me still lies.... Firstly I do not know when Clegg was first given this case to be the defence for Dr Vincent Tabak, I do not know what questions Clegg posed to Dr Vincent Tabak, as far as I am aware Dr Vincent Tabak stated nothing, his Police interviews according to DCI Phil Jones were of a No Comment variety, apart from something surrounding a mobile phone...
I believe Dr Vincent Tabak said nothing else..
He has had many solicitors representing him before he got to trial, we are not aware of what if anything Dr Vincent Tabak told Paul Cook, we do not know if the supposed confession stemmed from there....
We do not know if Paul Cook transferred any information he held on Dr Vincent Tabak to Clegg and his team.. And we do not know if Clegg acted upon what was in that information...
There may be a confession in there, there maybe not, we just don't know... This is why we need to know when Clegg first acted for Dr Vincent Tabak... What was Clegg aware of if anything... Because I still cannot understand why bail was never applied for.... I cannot understand why no-one applied for bail for this man....
We have a man whom has had a duty solicitor, a man who has had Paul Cook and Micheal Fitton represent him, yet we do not know why he changed council to Clegg.... And more importantly when he changed council to Clegg...
The only concrete piece of information I have in terms of anything legal, is the court case against various media publications.. A case that was settled I believe on the 29th July 2011, A case i cannot comprehend, why Dr Vincent Tabak's name was even mentioned, and mentioned in such a way that it was to leave everyone in no doubt that Dr Vincent Tabak was indeed the man that had killed Joanna Yeates..
The statement about Dr Vincent Tabak was used to prove to everyone that CJ was wholly innocent... Now I am not arguing that fact, that this case brought forth exactly... I am trying to understand, why Dr Vincent Tabak's name was even mentioned!!!
Not only was his name mentioned but his plea was mentioned.... According to the document, Dr Vincent Tabak pleaded not guilty to Murder on the grounds of Diminished Responsibility... But guilty to manslaughter....
Now I am a bit of a stickler... I like to understand why....
I like to understand how that may transpire within a legal setting... Did everyone at this time know the details, of how and why Dr Vincent Tabak apparently killed Joanna Yeates??
Manslaughter and Murder are two completely different charges and carry considerably different sentences...
diminished responsibility
noun: ENGLISH LAW
an unbalanced mental state which is considered to make a person less answerable for murder, being recognized as grounds to reduce the charge to that of manslaughter.
"he has admitted manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility"
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.
Mental State..... Did Dr Vincent Tabak speak out of turn or did he speak on the advice of his council?? Was Clegg at the hearing at The Old bailey in May 2011??
The glaringly obvious part of the whole trial, was that "Diminshed Responsibilities" NEVER played a part in the trial of Dr Vincent Tabak, when clearly we see here that there was apparent grounds for him to do so.... There was NO medical expert called to the stand to tell us of Dr Vincent Tabak's state of mind... Ad what is more glaringly obvious is that the Defence, never once stated that Dr Vincent Tabak denied murder on The Grounds of Diminshed Responsibilities....
The who trial was based around intent... No mitigating factors reached the juries ears... Nothing to tell the Jury why a Placid Dutchman, had for NO apparent reason, decided to kill his next door neighbour he had never met...
So what were the Grounds for Diminished Responsibilities?? Why did Clegg NOT follow that through?? Did Clegg believe at that point that Dr Vincent Tabak was guilty of Murder?? I don't know.... But what I do know is that the Defence was lacking in Dr Vincent Tabak's trial.. I believe The Defence could have been more robust... I believe the Defence could have supported Dr Vincent Tabak better.....
I'm going to be a mind reader now and guess what people may say on this matter.... That there was no mental health issue that Dr Vincent Tabak had, therefore Clegg couldn't use tis as a Defence....
But I would come back to the fact that everyone appeared to already know that Dr Vincent Tabak was going to plead guilty... The Yeates had taken a special trip to be at The Old Bailey, when everyone else was left stumped and was still waiting to see Dr Vincent Tabak appear at Bristol Crown Court.... And found themselves waiting to see Dr Vincent Tabak and what may transpire... Yet they found out that there had been a sudden shift of venue...
So.. If everyone was aware that Dr Vincent Tabak was going to enter a plea of guilt, that in itself tells us that The Defence should know what the plea is going to be and on what grounds.... It stands to reason...(imo)
In saying that I am of the understanding whether correct or not that Dr Vincent Tabak's council was aware of Dr Vincent Tabak's plea and that Dr Vincent Tabak's plea was that he did not Murder Joanna Yeates on the grounds of diminished responsibilities..
Whether or not we believe that Dr Vincent Tabak had grounds for a case of diminished responsibilities, we need to know whether or not council advised their client to plead on said grounds... Was council shocked, that their client stated this... I don't know...
I have wondered what the story then would have been stated on the stand, if "Diminished Responsibilities" was entered into the argument... Would it have changed??
You see, this opens up a whole can of worms,... Clegg states he will only say what happened and not defend a man who admits to Murder... He may advise his client and mitigating circumstance should come into play, I believe...
But we have a story....
A story that after passing a window on his way to Asda, he was invited in, chatted for 10 minutes, took his coat off and hung it on a stand, was offered a drink, declined said drink, chatted and he misinterpreted Joanna Yeates sunny disposition for flirting, he moved in for a kiss, she screamed, he tried to silence her, she screamed again and within 20 seconds she was dead.......We have to believe that when Dr Vincent Tabak made his plea at the Old bailey, The Defence where fully aware of what had taken place at this point... We have to believe that The Defence knew the story that Dr Vincent Tabak was to tell us on the stand...
Did Dr Vincent Tabak just ignore his council and blurt out that he denied Murder on the grounds of diminished responsibilities and council could not control their client.. Or did council advise Dr Vincent Tabak on said plea??
Begging the question what mental health problems did Dr Vincent Tabak suffer from, to go from a Placid Computer geek, to a killer within 10 minutes... Attacking and killing his next door neighbour for NO apparent reason...
We have been made aware that Dr Vincent Tabak did not know Joanna Yeates in any shape or form.... Well .. nothing was stated at trial for us to believe any different... One question that could have been put, was did Dr Vincent Tabak ever communicate with the person we know as Joanna Yeates.. Did he ever have a time when he maybe talked via the internet to a person with a username, that may well have been Joanna Yeates??
It may seem an odd question, but I do not understand why a man would kill his next door neighbour, why his next door neighbour would welcome into her home a complete stranger, when she was alone and not very comfortable with the idea... "NO FORCED ENTRY"... that has been established long ago... It was all over the news.... So why would Joanna Yeates invite Dr Vincent Tabak into her home at night, having never meet or set eyes on him before...
A lady with street smarts I would say... A lady who cannot have been that lonely that she would invite a stranger into her home and offer them a drink.... A lady if we remember was enjoying pre christmas drinks with work colleagues, whom see could have stayed with if she was that lonely and in need of company....
But lets not detract too much... I want to under stand , how the story that was told on the stand could come under the guise of "Diminished Responsibilities"? How anything in that story no matter how small or insignificant, would have a jury believing that Dr Vincent Tabak may have had a mental episode.... For him to plead diminished responsibilities in May 2011, either was a case of Dr Vincent Tabak having at that time a 'Mental Episode" and unbeknown to his council decided to throw this plea out there... Or council knew why Dr Vincent Tabak plead guilty to Murder on the grounds of diminished responsibilities.....
Either way Dr Vincent Tabak should have had a psychiatric evaluation... (imo) To either establish why a man of apparent sound mind, whom apparently hadn't said anything up until this point, would suddenly exclaim he was not guilty of Murder on said grounds....
Or that council advised him to plead this way.... And if council advised him to plead this way, on what grounds of diminished responsibility were council going to introduce at trial, and why didn't council introduce grounds for diminished responsibility at trial??
Did Council have the story in May 2011 of how Joanna Yeates came to her demise?? If not why not....
Why allow there client to make such a statement at the Old bailey if that were the case....
And if council had these events in there possession and knew what Dr Vincent Tabak had done...what was so extraordinary about Dr Vincent Tabaks mental state, that he entered a plea of not guilty to Murder on the Grounds of Diminished Responsibility.... When the story told on the stand wouldn't support that , as there were NO witness's called for Dr Vincent Tabak to state otherwise....
So maybe you can understand why I get confused, why i do not see this case as fair in any shape or form... And why I always have questions i feel need answering...
http://iclr.co.uk/document/2011201901/%5B2011%5D%20EWHC%202074%20(Admin)/html
