The Defence Will State Their Case

[jixy]

Strange how this thread is even here really...

Tabak was many things to many different people. Not just the placid man you like to mention.  A man of many faces, now why would that be?

The boyfriend, the friend the colleague, the man who watched violent porn. Who knew him or what he was capable of?

Quick to jump in an ring the Police while away but once arrested has very little to say. Yet even while he was abroad  he was tracking the case of someone he didnt know? He was on holiday enjoying the festivities but his mind was never away from Jo

So keen on Jo it even distracted his work, whether searching for updates or how to get away with murder. Definitely dedicated to the topic wasnt he

 A clever man who just wasnt quite clever enough!

He didnt really want to be involved in any of the search, yet searched the net for details about Jo before she was even reported missing. His DNA was on her body, her blood in his boot and his reluctance to give his DNA sample

You ask over and over why he was charged.... it speaks for itself yet you still refuse to accept the findings

The only decision the Jury had to make was murder or manslaughter

2 years debating this is actually a total insult to Jo and her family!

[[...]]

Strange how this thread is even here really...

Tabak was many things to many different people. Not just the placid man you like to mention.  A man of many faces, now why would that be?

The boyfriend, the friend the colleague, the man who watched violent porn. Who knew him or what he was capable of?

Quick to jump in an ring the Police while away but once arrested has very little to say. Yet even while he was abroad  he was tracking the case of someone he didnt know? He was on holiday enjoying the festivities but his mind was never away from Jo

So keen on Jo it even distracted his work, whether searching for updates or how to get away with murder. Definitely dedicated to the topic wasnt he

 A clever man who just wasnt quite clever enough!

He didnt really want to be involved in any of the search, yet searched the net for details about Jo before she was even reported missing. His DNA was on her body, her blood in his boot and his reluctance to give his DNA sample

You ask over and over why he was charged.... it speaks for itself yet you still refuse to accept the findings

The only decision the Jury had to make was murder or manslaughter

2 years debating this is actually a total insult to Jo and her family!

Thanks again Jixy..........

[jixy]

I accept the thanks and think that should be the end of this thread

[[...]]

Ok Jixy... Here's one last post.....

Just something else that has me wondering what has been going on....

12:04, UK, Friday 04 February 2011

By Ruth Barnett, Sky News Online

Suspects arrested by police should have anonymity until they are charged, an MP said as she launched an attack on press reporting of the Joanna Yeates murder case.

Anna Soubry, Conservative MP for Broxtowe and a former journalist and barrister, said coverage of suspects in the case had been "unacceptable and plain wrong".


She wants the press to be banned from reporting the name and address of people under arrest until they are charged, or unless a judge grants permission.

Anyone who does publish a suspect's name could get six months in prison under her proposals, which are being discussed in the House of Commons.

Officers on the hunt for Miss Yeates' killer arrested her landlord, Chris Jeffries, on suspicion of murder. He has since been released on bail.

The architect's neighbour, Vincent Tabak, was subsequently charged with her killing and is being held on remand.

Mr Jeffries, who has always maintained his innocence, is considering suing police for wrongful arrest, Sky sources have said.

Friends say he fully expects to be eliminated from the inquiry.

Although Ms Soubry did not mention Mr Jeffries by name, she criticised the media "vilification" of the first man arrested.

"As we have seen recently in events down in Bristol, it has now got to the stage where many of us believe this is something that has got to stop," she told MPs.

"There is a great wrong being done and it's time it is righted."

She added: "This is not an attack on the media but it is effectively a serious criticism of the antics that have prevailed for too long amongst certain sections of the media."

But Philip Davies, the Tory MP for Shipley, said coverage of those arrested served as a "great control on potential abuse by the police" as without it officers could arrest many people without being held to account.

Why did an MP get involved in this case??  An MP whom was trying to have a Bill presented ??

Anonymity (Arrested Persons) Bill

© Parliamentary copyright House of Commons 2011
Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to the Information Policy Team,
Office of Public Sector Information, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
LONDON — THE STATIONERY OFFICE LIMITED
Printed in the United Kingdom by
The Stationery Office Limited
£x.xx
xxxbarxxx
A
BILL
To prohibit the publication of certain information regarding persons who have
been arrested until they have been charged with an offence; to set out the
circumstances where such information can be published without committing
an offence; and for connected purposes.
Presented by Anna Soubry.
Ordered, by The House of Commons,
to be Printed, 30 June 2010.

What was it about this case that has prompted Parliament to get involved, that The Leveson Inquiry has been part of this case also??

The Bill is going through it's stages and an MP jumps up and gets involved.... Odd... What was it about CJ that prompted Anna Soubry to get involved,?? According to the article, this voicing and her opinion is made before CJ is released from bail....

No-one at this stage knows whether or not he will be charged.... We have no idea why the Police still have him on Bail... Yet Anna is immediately concerned that CJ of all people in the media needs a mention in Parliament, without telling us his name...

But why??  We have had The Attorney General, and now Anna Soubry, getting involved in a case that is a simple Murder...  Why would they?? It makes no sense.....

DCI Phil Jones told us at The Leveson the reason they kept CJ on bail was because of a trainer that had been found, behind the backboards under a kitchen sink in that house... We don't know exactly where in that house this trainer with blood on it was found...

But because CJ is arrested and vilified in the press, we suddenly have interest from such quarters, quarters that should not have an interest in a man that no-one knows or is really bothered about...

Or is it a case that CJ, is better known than we think... Has he friends in high places?? I don't know... But The Case had everyone on the band wagon... And when it came to trial, nothing.... When it came to Dr Vincent Tabak being mentioned in the media when he was arrested.... Nothing... Why Not??

What is it about CJ..... that everyone jumped to his defence??  CJ having many many solicitors taking action on his behalf?? Where even the attorney General and Anna Soubry MP felt it important enough to get involved, where The Attorney General in July 2011 even names Dr Vincent Tabak as the man who killed Joanna yeates before a trial had taken place....

Finally... What is it about Joanna Yeates ??  Who was she really??

And Dr Vincent Tabak... why was everyone happy to have him behind bars, even before trial???

There are more serious question that really need asking... I am not the one able to do it... But there are many people who can... (imo)

The Bill was then withdrawn in 2012...

Latest news on the Anonymity (Arrested Persons) Bill 2010-12
This Bill has been withdrawn and will not progress any further.

The Bill had its first reading on 30 June 2010 through the Presentation Bill Procedure.

If you require any further information about the Bill then please contact the sponsoring Member, Anna Soubry.

Why withdraw it at that time??  Why would Anna want to withdraw it?

Then a reintroduction to this Bill in 2017

Latest news on the Anonymity (Arrested Persons) Bill [HL] 2017-19
First reading took place on 4 July. This stage is a formality that signals the start of the Bill's journey through the Lords.

Second reading - the general debate on all aspects of the Bill - is yet to be scheduled.

All very mysterious....

Edit.... CJ was only mention over 3 days from arrest... yet Anna Sourby is bring him to everyones attention... CJ is still on Bail... The media are saying nothing else about CJ... yet she allows us to remember that he has been vilified... she allows us to not forget what happened at that time....

Why on earth is she getting involved?? She was stopping the "Fade factor".... (imo)!

And as a Criminal Barrister she should have known better (imo)

The former business minister Anna Soubry (pictured top), who practiced as a criminal barrister in Nottingham for 15 years, has turned down the chance to be Miss Truss’s number two describing the job offer as an “insult”.

Tut Tut.........


https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/anonymityarrestedpersons.html

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmbills/009/11009.pdf

https://news.sky.com/story/yeates-coverage-prompts-call-for-anonymity-10489652

https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-12/anonymityarrestedpersons.html

https://www.legalcheek.com/2016/07/anna-soubry-experienced-criminal-barrister-refuses-to-serve-under-legal-novice-truss-at-ministry-of-justice/

[jixy]

He took the life of a young talented woman and admitted it and rightly sentenced. Maybe think of the victim as even Tabak managed to do that in the end.


Stop digging for stuff that simply doesnt exist and show some decency to JO instead of TABAK

[[...]]

He took the life of a young talented woman and admitted it and rightly sentenced. Maybe think of the victim as even Tabak managed to do that in the end.


Stop digging for stuff that simply doesnt exist and show some decency to JO instead of TABAK

Yes Jixy ..... But here's a question someone my be able to answer.....

Say for instance CJ did end up getting charged....

Then what would have been the implications of a MP getting involved in a case before a trial could take place?? Would it have been prejudicial??

Would and could it have affected a possible trial??

She had no idea CJ would be released from bail..... she shouldn't have any idea of that...

Edit.... Lets be perfectly clear here.... This is still a live investigation... and Mp's are not waiting until a trial has taken place or someone has been charged... They are actively getting involved during a live Investigation.....

Doesn't that strike you as odd!!

[jixy]

lets be very clear here...the only thing i find odd is why you chose to chase a convicted murderer around when he doesnt want or need you to.

Prejudicial to his case? How exactly. There was NEVER gonna be a not guilty.  Murder or Manslaughter. You know the subject he spent quite a lot of time researching himself!

The 'story' as we were told it was only from him. For all YOU know he could have forced her door open when she answered it and barged in. We have the nice flowery version of oh she waved and invited me over. Funny when he demonstrated that at court it was a wave not a come on over signal. Now that is very telling.

The questions you ask have NOTHING to do with Tabaks guilt just you trying to identify errors in the proceedings.

I have  been looking at a case where someone got a huge sentence and strangely he challenged it  the sentence stands but technicalities were mentioned. It changed NOTHING!

Stop banging on about CJ even he managed to show compassion to JO and Tabak despite his obvious trauma. He didnt want anyone else going through what he had. Then there is YOU.... unbelievable

[[...]]

lets be very clear here...the only thing i find odd is why you chose to chase a convicted murderer around when he doesnt want or need you to.

Prejudicial to his case? How exactly. There was NEVER gonna be a not guilty.  Murder or Manslaughter. You know the subject he spent quite a lot of time researching himself!

The 'story' as we were told it was only from him. For all YOU know he could have forced her door open when she answered it and barged in. We have the nice flowery version of oh she waved and invited me over. Funny when he demonstrated that at court it was a wave not a come on over signal. Now that is very telling.

The questions you ask have NOTHING to do with Tabaks guilt just you trying to identify errors in the proceedings.

I have  been looking at a case where someone got a huge sentence and strangely he challenged it  the sentence stands but technicalities were mentioned. It changed NOTHING!

Stop banging on about CJ even he managed to show compassion to JO and Tabak despite his obvious trauma. He didnt want anyone else going through what he had. Then there is YOU.... unbelievable

So why has no-one even looked at this case, if i have managed to show "so" many errors 'technicalities' that are wong with this case...

]
Dennis Eady, a case consultant for the Cardiff University Innocence Project, said so few cases were referred back to the appeal court because the CCRC’s remit was too narrow. The CCRC will only refer cases on a legal technicality or when when there is significant new evidence.

Isn't there several legal technicalities wrong in Dr Vincent Tabak's Case??  Or is our judiciary just happy to let that slide??

It would be a refreshing change if they put their hands up and stated that they were wrong...  Blatantly everything is set out for all to see.... yet The Justice System, ignore what is right in front of them...

Our Justice System is shameful... Really shameful.... a shiny example of what not to do and who not to trust....  Never will I trust the Police , the justice system in this country again.... why would I... when they have proven themselves to be not interested in Justice....  Just happy that anyone pays for a crime, so the figures add up... So the wheels of justice are seen to turn...

Well can someone let them know that one of the cogs are actually broken, and they seem to have deviated down the wrong path.....









https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/may/30/criminal-cases-review-commission-not-fit-for-purpose-lawyers-say

[jixy]

Shameful are the people who post about this murderer chasing their tails for no reason whatsoever

A point about Tabak that has never been challenged despite his many faces.....he is a very intelligent man

Some people have been wrongly convicted, fought will all they have in Prison, studied law and helped themselves

Tabak had the advantage of being very intelligent to start with. What has he done? NOTHING

You expected a full trial complete with every person who ever set eyes on Tabak. That didnt happen so YOU see fault in every aspect of the trial

Internet searches DNA Blood a confession his interest in the case, the phone call his reluctance to give his DNA yet he seems to quite enjoy that fact that he lived in the same building as JO until it was time to take any action in looking for her.  All that a set up? He pleads guilty to the porn, yet still YOU wont believe it belongs to HIM

In a court room where he has NO restrictions, he could have grabbed a life line and explained all those things you PRESUME happened to him.... did he ? NO and why not? because he is GUILTY

With all the above and a guilty plea to causing her death, who the hell do you expect to look at it?

I didnt say there was anything  wrong with his case, the point I was making is when things ARE wrong people challenge it

[jixy]

Even guilty people have chanced their arm and got their voice heard shouting about their innocence. Not so hard is it?

[Nicholas]

So why has no-one even looked at this case, if i have managed to show "so" many errors 'technicalities' that are wong with this case...

Did you ever look at other cases or did you solely focus on this case?

[Nicholas]

Shameful are the people who post about this murderer chasing their tails for no reason whatsoever

A point about Tabak that has never been challenged despite his many faces.....he is a very intelligent man

Some people have been wrongly convicted, fought will all they have in Prison, studied law and helped themselves

Tabak had the advantage of being very intelligent to start with. What has he done? NOTHING

You expected a full trial complete with every person who ever set eyes on Tabak. That didnt happen so YOU see fault in every aspect of the trial

Internet searches DNA Blood a confession his interest in the case, the phone call his reluctance to give his DNA yet he seems to quite enjoy that fact that he lived in the same building as JO until it was time to take any action in looking for her.  All that a set up? He pleads guilty to the porn, yet still YOU wont believe it belongs to HIM

In a court room where he has NO restrictions, he could have grabbed a life line and explained all those things you PRESUME happened to him.... did he ? NO and why not? because he is GUILTY

With all the above and a guilty plea to causing her death, who the hell do you expect to look at it?

I didnt say there was anything with his case, the point I was making is when things ARE wrong people challenge it

In all fairness to Nine she has demonstrated that it appears Tabak was wrongly convicted. She has set out a compelling case.

IMO Tabak is on the psychopathy spectrum and is quite clearly guilty. He most certainly is not a victim of a miscarriage of justice.

[Nicholas]

luckily for the family of Jo she doesnt. She goes on and on. Long posts dont equal good points. She never actually answers all the points of his guilt just rambles about things that she thinks should have happened which make him appear innocent to her. That is quite different

I don't think it's fair to judge Nine on the length of her posts, her style of writing and whether or not she chooses to answers questions posed.

There's not much difference between her arguments and those of Sandra Lean's in the Mitchell case IMO.

Sandra Lean has rambled on for over 15 years regarding things she thinks should have happened

In Nines view Tabak is innocent - In my view Luke Mitchell is guilty - In your view he's innocent?

[justsaying]

Yes Jixy ..... But here's a question someone my be able to answer.....

Say for instance CJ did end up getting charged....

Then what would have been the implications of a MP getting involved in a case before a trial could take place?? Would it have been prejudicial??

Would and could it have affected a possible trial??

She had no idea CJ would be released from bail..... she shouldn't have any idea of that...

Edit.... Lets be perfectly clear here.... This is still a live investigation... and Mp's are not waiting until a trial has taken place or someone has been charged... They are actively getting involved during a live Investigation.....

Doesn't that strike you as odd!!

Nine I think the MP's point was that it should never be trial by media BEFORE trial by jury, whether the person has been charged or not!

[Nicholas]

luckily for the family of Jo she doesnt. She goes on and on. Long posts dont equal good points. She never actually answers all the points of his guilt just rambles about things that she thinks should have happened which make him appear innocent to her. That is quite different

Vincent Tabak could crawl out of the woodwork at any time and claim he's innocent, just as has been does in countless other cases.

Gordon Park is also on the psychopathy spectrum imo but his case has been referred to the court of appeal?

As I've said elsewhere a wrongful conviction doesn't equal a miscarriage of justice. Being wrongfully convicted doesn't mean a person is factually innocent.