The Defence Will State Their Case

[jixy]

She can write posts a million miles long i really couldnt care less. What I judge her on is that fact she insists he is innocent when he clearly isnt. Nothing she has ever posted points to a miscarriage of justice. NOTHING

Her posts never answer what is being asked, just a deflection to go on and on about things that really dont matter when looking at Tabak and his guilt

CJ had an horrific time at the hands of the media and Jo lost her life. Those things are important to me not explaining to someone over and over again who refuses to listen to see how a trial goes when someone pleads guilty to causing a death compares to them fighting any conviction by pleading not guilty

Luke is saying he is innocent (this isnt the place btw) and Tabak took time to say he was guilty even telling us a version of how that came to be. Yes it has big holes but only because he didnt want us to know the full truth

Nine is disgusted at the perceived wrong doing in this case and I am equally right and entitled to be disgusted at people protesting and fighting a case where the man himself says GUILTY!

[Nicholas]

She can write posts a million miles long i really couldnt care less. What I judge her on is that fact she insists he is innocent when he clearly isnt. Nothing she has ever posted points to a miscarriage of justice. NOTHING

I feel the same about the Luke Mitchell case!

He may have been wrongly convicted but he doesn't appear factually innocent to me!

[justsaying]

IMO you are doing to [Name removed] and [Name removed]'s family what Nine is doing to Jo and her family

The same could be said for ALL people who question cases - the difference in this case is that the evidence was overwhelming. The only "compelling" thing in this case is Tabak's obvious guilt.

[jixy]

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.

Maybe Tabak could but the evidence wont go away will it? so how far would he get? not that it is likely to happen?

I havent commented about Gordon Park and I dont intend to especially on the TABAK  thread

[justsaying]

I feel the same about the Luke Mitchell case!

He may have been wrongly convicted but he doesn't appear factually innocent to me!

What is your definition of "wrongly convicted"? - it could mean the wrong person has been convicted...

I asked you yesterday but you still did not answer - define factual innocence - how can a person show this if the court itself refuses to accept it?

[jixy]

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.

A compelling case  but he is quite clearly guilty? how does that work then

[justsaying]

As I stated previously, there's no reasoning with unreasonable people!

It is not being unreasonable - How can a person fight their conviction without offending the victims family? It is impossible!

[Caroline]

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

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...

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

Then a reintroduction to this Bill in 2017

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)

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/

I can't believe you are seriously asking this question? Soubry was trying to get a bill passed that stopped the naming of suspects before being charged. CJ had been released from custody after being vilified in the press and Tabak subsequently charged and remanded. It was relevant to the bill she was trying to pass and a good example of the damage that naming suspects before being charged can have on their lives. She didn't mention him by name but she didn't really have to did she? She had a vested interest - nothing mysterious.

The guy isn't even claiming innocence - bottom line!

[jixy]

I can't believe you are seriously asking this question? Soubry was trying to get a bill passed that stopped the naming of suspects before being charged. CJ had been released from custody after being vilified in the press and Tabak subsequently charged and remanded. It was relevant to the bill she was trying to pass and a good example of the damage that naming suspects before being charged can have on their lives. She didn't mention him by name but she didn't really have to did she? She had a vested interest - nothing mysterious.

The guy isn't even claiming innocence - bottom line!

I havent seen you post much on this thread Caroline but when you do...the voice of reason. Thank you

[justsaying]

I can't believe you are seriously asking this question? Soubry was trying to get a bill passed that stopped the naming of suspects before being charged. CJ had been released from custody after being vilified in the press and Tabak subsequently charged and remanded. It was relevant to the bill she was trying to pass and a good example of the damage that naming suspects before being charged can have on their lives. She didn't mention him by name but she didn't really have to did she? She had a vested interest - nothing mysterious.

The guy isn't even claiming innocence - bottom line!

  Common sense!

[Nicholas]

"This criminal case is of enormous significance for any skilled, educated person studying or working abroad. The police, judiciary, news media, and business and academic communities have ruthlessly compromised themselves. This case has demonstrated how gullible the general public is. It has shown how easily intelligent people can be manipulated into embracing a witch-hunt mentality. http://vincent-tabak-is-innocent.blogspot.com

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9318.msg454813#msg454813

[justsaying]

"This criminal case is of enormous significance for any skilled, educated person studying or working abroad. The police, judiciary, news media, and business and academic communities have ruthlessly compromised themselves. This case has demonstrated how gullible the general public is. It has shown how easily intelligent people can be manipulated into embracing a witch-hunt mentality. http://vincent-tabak-is-innocent.blogspot.com

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9318.msg454813#msg454813

Just as barbaric as what is stated on this thread - more conspiracy theory by whomever wrote that blog!

[Nicholas]

“In my opinion you are thoroughly deceitful, dishonest and manipulative”
- Mr. Justice Field, sentencing Vincent Tabak, 28th October 2011

This damning and utterly false description of the defendant’s character can be shown to have applied far more accurately to the public prosecutor and her QC, the police, his own lawyers and the other bullies into whose clutches he had fallen since the time of his arrest. A barrister enjoys the privilege of immunity from prosecution for everything he says in court. Unlike the witnesses, he does not take the oath, so he has the freedom to “lead” evidence to deceive and manipulate the jury unless the judge intervenes to prevent it. It is also the judge’s job to ensure that the jury does not interpret as evidence anything they hear or see in court whose integrity is not confirmed by a witness under oath. The following account of this case’s main examples of documented deceit and manipulation is aimed at all those who dispute that the police and judiciary would ever knowingly convict an innocent man with the argument that THEY WOULDN’T DO THAT, WOULD THEY? - YES THEY WOULD http://vincent-tabak-is-innocent.blogspot.com/2012/01/deceitful-and-manipulative.html

Disclaimer
This unofficial web site has been rigorously researched on the basis of published information, much of which can be readily verified by reference to online sources. However, many of the detailed reports have recently been removed from the news media's own websites. Where this account of the case contains inferences, these are usually obvious from the contexts. Some inferences are formulated as questions. A small number of key facts have been obtained by means of Freedom of Information applications, and a few others by private communication.


Could be Sandra Lean?

[[...]]

Guys... you all know who I am.... An uneducated woman, Who just likes fair!!

[justsaying]

Nine you like the post saying the blog could be written by Sandra? really ?

Didn't Nine say on a previous post that she had asked Sandra to help and Sandra declined? Which is not surprising.