The Defence Will State Their Case

[Caroline]

Nope Nine, no connection you cannot link Tabak to Bannatyne’s daughter, this was a crank who just made threats and never carried it through, you could argue the other way that the threat never materialised once Tabak was locked up?   The Jury was shown pictures of Joanna’s body found in snow, we don’t know when Tabak really put the body there, it was a lane that few people walked along anyway, snow Buisness a firm working on the Harry Potter movies was used to create the snowy conditions the day of her disappearance, you could ask them, the whole of Bristol would have said there wasn’t any snow.

Lyndsey Farmery said that on the day after Yeates went missing — December 17 — Tabak was doing research on subjects including the five-day weather forecast.

Next day he looked at online maps and images of Longwood Lane, the road three miles from her Bristol flat where her body was discovered.

In subsequent days Tabak looked at news articles on Shrien Dewani, the Bristol man accused of hiring hitmen to kill his wife in South Africa, and the case of Melanie Hall, who was murdered after leaving a nightclub in Bath in 1996.

Later, the jury was told, he researched subjects including: "How does forensic identification work?" and the location of CCTV cameras in Canynge Road, Clifton, where Tabak and Yeates lived.

He researched "body decomposition time" and an article about a man who strangled his wife and pleaded diminished responsibility.

When police revealed they were sifting tonnes of rubbish he looked up details of household waste collection in Bristol.

Tabak, who denies murder but admits manslaughter, also spent time finding out about prison life in the UK. In addition he searched online for phrases including the "definition of sexual assault", "definition sexual conduct" and "sexual offence explained".


In court he told his extraordinary story during two days in the witness box. How, after Yeates's death, he had bundled her body into his car boot before going shopping to Asda for beer and crisps and texting his girlfriend that he was "bored". He accepted that, following the killing, he had researched subjects such as the difference between murder and manslaughter and the definition of sexual assault.

Rarely is there a case where is obvious that the perp is 100% guilty as charged - this is one of them!

[Caroline]

I never said that Joanna Yeates and Dr Vincent Tabak were twins, you may twist what I say whatever way you choose...

That's a bit rich Nine! However, you mentioned 'twins' are you suggesting that Tabak's twin killed JY? Perhaps you should make things clearer instead of randomly posting the word 'twins' or going off on a tangent as with the above post where the above quote was taken.

[Real justice]

Rarely is there a case where is obvious that the perp is 100% guilty as charged - this is one of them!

Agreed Caroline, the Judge really kept the trial straight leaving no chance for appeal, he ruled out evidence that would have gone against Tabak, Tabak kept images of children being sexually abused on his laptop computer, police have discovered, it was revealed after the trial that the Dutch engineer was obsessed with images of women being strangled during sex and had perversions for violent pornography and prostitutes. Jurors in Tabak's trial were not told that videos found on his computers had chilling parallels with the way Miss Yeates died.

At the time I personally think and thought like the prosecution did, that  the jury should have been made aware of this evidence, but the trial judge ruled against it.  Looking back it was a clever move by the Judge, he left Tabak no grounds for appeal and we don’t have to go through all this CCRC appealing with him every year like we do with Bamber.

[[...]]

Agreed Caroline, the Judge really kept the trial straight leaving no chance for appeal, he ruled out evidence that would have gone against Tabak, Tabak kept images of children being sexually abused on his laptop computer, police have discovered, it was revealed after the trial that the Dutch engineer was obsessed with images of women being strangled during sex and had perversions for violent pornography and prostitutes. Jurors in Tabak's trial were not told that videos found on his computers had chilling parallels with the way Miss Yeates died.

At the time I personally think and thought like the prosecution did, that  the jury should have been made aware of this evidence, but the trial judge ruled against it.  Looking back it was a clever move by the Judge, he left Tabak no grounds for appeal and we don’t have to go through all this CCRC appealing with him every year like we do with Bamber.

Odd that... How much other evidence wasn't admitted?? And why would they want to make sure that he could never appeal?? Is that allowed??


Just a point about the Ballantyne post... I'm making a point... Based on what was or was not Investigated at the time... Or what could be a possibility... ( And his noting of the weather conditions...)

We have no idea, what they bothered to look at or not...

Another thing I have just thought about, why should it sound like it's beyond the realms of possibility?


If William Clegg can connect Napper to Rachel Nickell whilst he is representing Colin Stagg for her Murder, feeling it was more likely that Napper was a suspect than Stagg...
Then what is so different in me suggesting other possibilities, that may have been relevant to the time??

No-one says Clegg went of on a tangent....  Do they!

[Caroline]

Odd that... How much other evidence wasn't admitted?? And why would they want to make sure that he could never appeal?? Is that allowed??


Just a point about the Ballantyne post... I'm making a point... Based on what was or was not Investigated at the time... Or what could be a possibility...

We have no idea, what they bothered to look at or not...

Another thing I have just thought about, why should it sound like it's beyond the realms of possibility?

If William Clegg can connect Napper to Rachel Nickell whilst he is representing Colin Stagg for her Murder, feeling it was more likely that Napper was a suspect than Stagg...
Then what is so different in me suggesting other possibilities, that may have been relevant to the time??

No-one says Clegg went of on a tangent....  Do they!

Tabak can appeal, however, with revelations that happened after the trial (noted by Justice), there would be no point.

There is no comparison between you and William Clegg, given that he represented both Stagg and Napper - his knowledge of Napper was enough to give him insight and there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Stagg was involved. However, the MO in the RN and Samantha Bissett case were strikingly similar. The man was experienced enough to make such a comparison - more to the point, HE was right!

[Real justice]

Odd that... How much other evidence wasn't admitted?? And why would they want to make sure that he could never appeal?? Is that allowed??


Just a point about the Ballantyne post... I'm making a point... Based on what was or was not Investigated at the time... Or what could be a possibility... ( And his noting of the weather conditions...)

We have no idea, what they bothered to look at or not...

Another thing I have just thought about, why should it sound like it's beyond the realms of possibility?


If William Clegg can connect Napper to Rachel Nickell whilst he is representing Colin Stagg for her Murder, feeling it was more likely that Napper was a suspect than Stagg...
Then what is so different in me suggesting other possibilities, that may have been relevant to the time??

No-one says Clegg went of on a tangent....  Do they!

Well, once he admits guilt in a court of law it’s very very hard to appeal conviction anyway, all he can appeal against is length of sentence, but I would think if the judge allowed evidence that might prejudice the jury he might have been allowed to appeal the murder charge and got it retried again and gone for manslaughter, would all depend on how the appeal judges saw it.  The judge was very fair in what evidence he allowed and on his instructions to the jury, leaving Tabak no grounds for appeal, this is what every judge tries to adhere to whenever they try a case.

You don’t have to do much research to see what the conditions in Bristol was at the time, just because someone doesn’t mention it was snowing means absolutely zilch. 

[Real justice]

Tabak can appeal, however, with revelations that happened after the trial (noted by Justice), there would be no point.

There is no comparison between you and William Clegg, given that he represented both Stagg and Napper - his knowledge of Napper was enough to give him insight and there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Stagg was involved. However, the MO in the RN and Samantha Bissett case were strikingly similar. The man was experienced enough to make such a comparison - more to the point, HE was right!

Thanks Caroline I’d seen you answered the Clegg issue.

[Real justice]

Well, once he admits guilt in a court of law it’s very very hard to appeal conviction anyway, all he can appeal against is length of sentence, but I would think if the judge allowed evidence that might prejudice the jury he might have been allowed to appeal the murder charge and got it retried again and gone for manslaughter, would all depend on how the appeal judges saw it.  The judge was very fair in what evidence he allowed and on his instructions to the jury, leaving Tabak no grounds for appeal, this is what every judge tries to adhere to whenever they try a case.

You don’t have to do much research to see what the conditions in Bristol was at the time, just because someone doesn’t mention it was snowing means absolutely zilch.

On another note, I do think the trial judge would have allowed other evidence in if Tabak had not admitted guilt, I think Tabak used this tactic to try and get manslaughter, thus preventing the jury from knowing about his sexual pervertions.

[Caroline]

On another note, I do think the trial judge would have allowed other evidence in if Tabak had not admitted guilt, I think Tabak used this tactic to try and get manslaughter, thus preventing the jury from knowing about his sexual pervertions.

I was previously willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on the manslaughter issue but I think you may have a point Justice.

[APRIL]

I was previously willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on the manslaughter issue but I think you may have a point Justice.

He seems to have done quite a bit of information fishing -something about the difference between manslaughter and murder?- it may not have been difficult to find out what could be revealed.

[Angelo222]

I don't believe he set out to commit murder but events overtook him and he lost control. I really don't have any sympathy for him. He will eventually get out and return home but Joanna didn't have even that chance.

[[...]]

Tabak can appeal, however, with revelations that happened after the trial (noted by Justice), there would be no point.

There is no comparison between you and William Clegg, given that he represented both Stagg and Napper - his knowledge of Napper was enough to give him insight and there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Stagg was involved. However, the MO in the RN and Samantha Bissett case were strikingly similar. The man was experienced enough to make such a comparison - more to the point, HE was right!

At 29:33  of the video Fiona Bruce says:

QC Bill Clegg was about to lead Colin Stagg's Defence.. when he first heard about the Murders of Samantha and Jasmine.

Bill Clegg

I remember Reading it in The Papers in Chambers and within about 2 or 3 hours I came out of the room and said to my clark..Um.. I reckon that's the man that killed Rachell Nickell. It seemed to me to be perfectly obvious...
Statistically it's extremely rare for a mother to be murdered in the presence of a young child.

This was whilst he was defending Stagg,  if I remember correctly....

William Clegg doesn't say he knows what record Napper may or may not have Or whether or not a man named Napper killed Rachell Nickell..... 

It just happens that he believed the person who killed Samantha Bisset and her child, must have been responsible for the Murder of Rachell Nickell...  That person turned out to be Robert Napper.... That was based on the one identifying feature of a woman being murdered in front of her child...

Samantha Bisset's child was killed after she had been killed... But Rachell Nickell's son was not murdered and stood with his mothers body on Wimbledon Common....

Therefore the only connect was that a child was present.... and Jasmine Bisset was killed in her own home... And Rachell Nickell out in the open....

What made Clegg jump to that conclusion on reading a few papers is beyond me... But we know Staggs case was thrown out by Judge Ognall and Napper became Cleggs client for the Murder of Jasmine Bisset, I believe......

William Clegg QC, one of the most experienced criminal barristers in the country who holds the unique position of having defended both the acquitted Colin Stagg (in his trial for the murder of Rachel Nickell) and Robert Napper, who was eventually convicted of Rachel’s murder, in his trial for the murders of Samantha and Jasmine Bisset.

I keep saying I cannot understand how Clegg can defend both these men... It seems a conflict of interests.... (imo) seeing as he had already believed who ever killed Samantha Bisset had to be responsible for Rachell Nickell's murder....  (then later admitted to the manslaughter of Rachell Nickell... many many years after he was convicted of Samantha Bissets murder!)

Edit....

10th October 1995

A SERIAL sex attacker was sent to Broadmoor high security hospital for

an indefinite period yesterday after he admitted slashing to death and

mutilating Dundee-born Samantha Bisset and suffocating her young

daughter.

Scotland Yard disclosed that detectives were keeping an open mind on

whether there were links between the case and the murder of Rachel

Nickell on Wimbledon Common.

In court yesterday, Robert Napper, 29, pled not guilty to the murders

of Samantha Bisset, 28, and her four-year-old daughter, Jazmine, in


November 1993, but guilty to their manslaughter on grounds of diminished

responsibility.

So was it Scotland yard who thought Robert Napper was responsible/links or William Clegg??  Clegg states it was himself in his interview with Fiona Bruce...  And I believe that whilst he was representing Stagg... 

QC Bill Clegg was about to lead Colin Stagg's Defence.. when he first heard about the Murders of Samantha and Jasmine.

I remember Reading it in The Papers in Chambers and within about 2 or 3 hours I came out of the room and said to my clark..Um.. I reckon that's the man that killed Rachell Nickell. It seemed to me to be perfectly obvious...
Statistically it's extremely rare for a mother to be murdered in the presence of a young child.



https://www.itv.com/presscentre/ep1week10/rachel-nickell-untold-story

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/dec/18/rachel-nickell-robert-napper-murder-guilty

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12069046.double-killer-sent-to-broadmoor-mother-was-mutilated-beside-dead-daughter/

[Real justice]

I don't believe he set out to commit murder but events overtook him and he lost control. I really don't have any sympathy for him. He will eventually get out and return home but Joanna didn't have even that chance.

I agree, but, you also have to remember Tabak had an unhealthy liking for snuff video’s which were found on his computer.

[[...]]

I agree, but, you also have to remember Tabak had an unhealthy liking for snuff video’s which were found on his computer.

How do we know that is true, if it wasn't in evidence??

[Real justice]

How do we know that is true, if it wasn't in evidence??

Sorry Nine I thought you knew, he admitted in court he had them on his computer and in in 2015 he receivied  10 months jail and 10 years on the sex offenders register.  Or do you think it was a false confession again like his confession to killing Joanna?