The Defence Will State Their Case

[[...]]

thanks for reducing the size myster..

[Myster]

thanks for reducing the size myster..

That's OK.  If you want to reduce future photos, once uploaded click on each until a surrounding box appears. Move your cursor to any of the four corners, click and hold down left mouse button on chosen corner, then drag towards the centre to reach the size you desire. Then release, job done.

[[...]]

That's OK.  If you want to reduce future photos, once uploaded click on each until a surrounding box appears. Move your cursor to any of the four corners, click and hold down left mouse button on chosen corner, then drag towards the centre to reach the size you desire. Then release, job done.

That was from an image already on the site... I linked it.... Thats why its so big... it was large when I first added it... Smaller makes it difficult to see some of the detail... But thanks for tidying it up.. 

[[...]]

Just been looking at the fuller sized image again... and lightening it up a little..

There is a figure of a man on the path, Just stood there about half way up to the left, nearly missed him as there's something blurred in front of him... ... The lady looks heavy set and has what appears to be shoulder length dark hair..

It gave me a thought... Are these supposed to be the people who were seem at The Gate?? 

Looking again... They are both inside the gate... maybe the woman is just closing it.....

Still can't put attachments up....   

Did CJ see a man and a woman that evening??

[[...]]

Centre for Criminal Appeals – Written evidence (FRS0068)

 

1. The Centre for Criminal Appeals is a legal action charity that fights miscarriages of justice and demands reform.

 

2. We are writing to provide the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee with a brief perspective on the following topic, based on our experience investigating and litigating potential wrongful conviction cases in England and Wales:

 

“How the Criminal Justice System can be equipped with robust, accurate and transparent forensic science”.

 

3. It has long been known that misleading, unscientific or otherwise flawed forensic evidence can contribute towards the wrongful conviction of innocent people.

4. However, forensic science also has the potential help to put miscarriages of justice right. New testing techniques may exonerate an individual, while improved scientific understanding may reveal that expert evidence presented to the jury was flawed.

 

5. Unfortunately, there is currently too little transparency surrounding forensic science in our criminal justice system. Too often it is impossible to test the robustness and accuracy of forensic evidence presented to juries, or conduct new forensic work which may exonerate a person. In our view, miscarriages of justice are going unidentified and uncorrected as a result.

 

6. First, transcripts of expert evidence in criminal cases are too often inaccessible. This is partly due to the premature destruction of transcripts and audio recordings of trial proceedings. However, it is also a consequence of the high prices charged by transcription companies. It is rare to be granted legal aid to cover the costs of purchasing transcripts of witnesses’ evidence. What this means in practice is that it is often very difficult for appeal practitioners to establish what exactly an expert witness has told a jury. This makes it nearly impossible to prove if an expert has misrepresented the significance of their findings or gone beyond their area of expertise.

 

7. Second, the legal framework governing post-conviction disclosure makes it nearly impossible for appeal practitioners to access documentary material and physical evidence for scientific testing which could lead to a convicted defendant’s exoneration.

 

8. Post-conviction disclosure is governed by:

Section 72 of the Attorney General’s Guidelines on Disclosure (2013), which states: “Where, after the conclusion of the proceedings, material comes to light, that might cast doubt on the safety of the conviction, the prosecutor must consider disclosure of such material.”
The case of R (Nunn) v Chief Constable of Suffolk Constabulary and another [2014] UKSC 37, which endorsed this guideline “with the addition that if there exists a real prospect that further enquiry may reveal something affecting the safety of the conviction, that enquiry ought to be made”.
 

9. This legal framework is inherently flawed for three reasons:

It places those seeking disclosure in a Catch-22. To make a successful request, they will need to know of the likely existence of specific exculpatory material held by police and prosecutors in advance. Yet the only possible way of discovering the existence of such material will almost always be through having access to the files and physical evidence and reviewing or testing these;
It leaves decision-making regarding access to material to police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service, who naturally have little incentive to open their past actions to scrutiny, let alone the resources to do so;
It relies on the Criminal Cases Review Commission as a “safety net” (Nunn, paragraph 39) that can be trusted to obtain and review sufficient post-conviction disclosure from the police and CPS. This disregards that facts that (a) in cases where a first appeal has not been possible (perhaps due to the need for post-conviction disclosure) defendants are ineligible for a case review by the CCRC, and (b) in practice the CCRC uses its investigatory powers very conservatively, as evidenced by its low referral rates (1.24% in 2017/18, 0.77% in 2016/17) and the tragic case of Victor Nealon, who spent an extra decade wrongly imprisoned because the CCRC refused to conduct the DNA testing that would eventually exonerate him.
 

10. What this lack of transparency means in practice is that is appeal practitioners are often prevented from being able to:

identify non-disclosure of exculpatory forensic material;
instruct new experts to identify serious flaws in the trial forensic evidence;
arrange fresh testing of physical evidence which may point to a convicted person’s innocence;
check whether unidentified DNA profiles or fingerprints which may belong to an alternative suspect can be matched with those contained on national databases.
 

11. Thirdly, documentary material and physical evidence is too often lost or prematurely destroyed by police forces. This of course makes it impossible for forensic evidence to be reviewed or retested.

 

12. In conclusion, we believe the following changes are needed to ensure that our criminal justice system can be equipped with robust, accurate and transparent forensic science:

Defendants without the means to pay should have a right to access transcripts of expert evidence given at their trial free of charge;
Via their appeal representatives, convicted defendants must be granted a right to controlled access to documentation held by police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service, such as correspondence with experts, forensic examiners’ bench notes and unused material and crime scene documentation, unless police or the CPS can demonstrate a specific and overwhelmingly compelling reason why such access should not be granted;
Suitably qualified experts instructed by appeal practitioners on behalf of convicted individuals must be granted controlled access to physical evidence so that they can be re-examined or re-tested, unless a police can demonstrate a specific and overwhelmingly compelling reason why such access should not be granted;
Police forces must take greater care to ensure documents and exhibits are not lost or prematurely destroyed, with appropriate penalties introduced for such failings. Physical evidence and documents in a case, including unused material and sensitive unused material should be retained for as long as the defendant remains under the supervision of the criminal justice system or remains on a risk register.
 

14 September 2018

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/science-and-technology-committee-lords/forensic-science/written/89851.html

[Myster]

Definitely no 2...

[Baz]

No matter how long I look at it, it's just a blur.

[[...]]

I find statements interesting, so I just want to query what Mrs Yeates states on video....

From The Telegraph:

In their statement, Mr Yeates, 63, and Mrs Yeates, 58, of Ampfield, Hampshire, said: "It is now three weeks since Jo disappeared and our lives were changed for ever.

At 1:45 of the video ' Judge Rinders Program on Joanna Yeates..

  It was a very close relationship, because erm.. they worked abroad a lot... So for the lot of the time it was just Jo and I that lived at home and I would like to think, it was as close at it could be, she loved playing out doors, and she has always liked the outdoors adventurous little girl, as she got a bit older she liked horse riding, and er.... very keen on horses. She also had a flare for designing,and painting and doing craft work,.. Not necessarily very tidily, but that discipline came later in life,

I was wondering who Mrs Yeates is referring too when she said that "It was a very close relationship, because erm.. they worked abroad a lot... So for the lot of the time it was just Jo and I that lived at home"

I have to believe it must be her brother Chris Yeates...  As "THEY" worked abroad.... 

She has to be referring to Chris Yeates, going from the information,

Mr and Mrs Yeates were joined by Miss Yeates's brother Chris, 28, and boyfriend Greg Reardon, 27.

She doesn't say Chris was at School, there is only 2 Years between them according to this article... Is that correct??

Is Chris a lot older than Joanna  Yeates?? Is Teresa Yeates his mother?? why would there only be Jo and her at  home a lot of the time??

I was trying to think when they were born.. Chris should have been born 1983
                                                                Joanna ............................  1985

So Chris should have been at home with Jo at the same time.....

But Mrs Yeates clearly tells us she was home alone most of the time with Joanna


 I just don't understand her statement.....  Just Jo and I.... Not Chris...  It is hard to tell from images of Chris Yeates his age... Some people look forever young....

So who is Mrs Yeates referring too? and if it's not Chris Yeates were was he at that time??


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/parents-of-jo-yeates-make-appeal-to-public-2187209.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8248191/Joanna-Yeates-murder-our-daughter-was-dumped-like-garbage.html

[[...]]

Right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty

Article 6 says that anyone charged with a criminal offence must be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Requiring a defendant to prove elements of his or her defence might breach this right – particularly if a legal burden of proof is placed on the defendant, requiring them to prove the case against them is not true.

So how can Dr Vincent Tabak face a jury as a GUILTY Man??  He Plead guilty to Manslaughter in May 2011 (apparently) and we all were told about it...  The jury knew before and during trial....

Did Dr Vincent Tabak prove the case against himself was not true....

He lied and lied and lied again.... His testimony is the case.... His testimony is the only account of events.... His testimony is a lie....


He was not presumed Innocent at the start of trial...

Has Article 6 of the human rights been breached??

Edit... For starters....I have shown he lied about CJ... he did not try to implicate him...


https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-6-right-fair-trial

[justsaying]

So how can Dr Vincent Tabak face a jury as a GUILTY Man??  He Plead guilty to Manslaughter in May 2011 (apparently) and we all were told about it...  The jury knew before and during trial....

Did Dr Vincent Tabak prove the case against himself was not true....

He lied and lied and lied again.... His testimony is the case.... His testimony is the only account of events.... His testimony is a lie....


He was not presumed Innocent at the start of trial...

Has Article 6 of the human rights been breached??

Edit... For starters....I have shown he lied about CJ... he did not try to implicate him...


https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-6-right-fair-trial

Nine this has been explained to you numerous times, but for some reason it is not sinking in.

Tabak was accused of murder - hence the trial by jury, which is the same for anyone who is accused of murder but denies it. However his defence was manslaughter, that he killed her but did not mean to - the jury rejected his defence of manslaughter and found him guilty of murder,  after the Crown proved its case against him.

Article 6 has not been breached.

Neither have you shown that Tabak did not lie about CJ - you believe he did not lie but that isn't proof.

[Myster]

No matter how long I look at it, it's just a blur.

[[...]]

Now that simply wasn't there Myster... You have drawn it on.....

[[...]]

Or are you trying to tell me that the Flats are the other way around??  Number 2 side entrance... Number 1 at the back??

[Myster]

Now that simply wasn't there Myster... You have drawn it on.....

LOL!!!   Of course I've drawn it on, to show the shape of the embossed or engraved figure 2 on the metallic plate to the left.

[Myster]

If you don't think it says no. 2, whereabouts is your no. 1?  On the plate or somewhere else?