UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Other High Profile Cases and Persons of Interest => The murder of landscape architect Joanna Yeates in Bristol in December 2010. => Topic started by: [...] on February 05, 2018, 10:14:13 AM
-
I have posted this but... I wanted to start a new topic as posts get lost in threads... And I seriously wanted to question whether Dr Vincent Tabak's trial had already taken place in July 2011...
Christopher Jefferies witness statement to the Leveson.. I have normally used Christopher Jefferies second witness statement, and went looking for his first.. Can what it says be true or have they made an error...
Christopher Jefferies first witness statement was made in November 2011
Mr Jay
We, of course, know about the horrific murder of Joanna Yeates which led to the conviction for murder of Vincent Tabak in July this year. Joanna Yeates disappeared, so we have our bearings, on 17 December of last year; is that right?
"July"?
Did they have a trial in July that we didn't know about??
Was the trial in October even more of a show trial than we know it was??
Was that the reason that the media could tweet so fast what had taken place??
CJ States in the Leveson"
I was startled to hear the editor of the Scotsman, one of the papers sued by me for libel and himself a member of the PCC, describe his paper's coverage of my arrest as a mistake.
So I went to the Scotsman to see if I could see there apology..
Yesterday The Scotsman and other newspapers apologised in court for having wrongly suggested that Mr Jefferies was involved in the killing of Joanna Yeates. We had also wrongly suggested that he had acted in an inappropriate, oversexualised manner with his pupils in the past and that he invaded he privacy of his tenants in his capacity as a landlord of two flats. We accepted in court that these allegations were untrue and that Mr Jefferies had no involvement in Ms Yeates' killing. In recognition of the distress caused, we have agreed to pay substantial damages to Mr Jefferies plus his legal costs.
The timing of CJ's suing of the media is important.. Mr Jay had stated that the trial was in "July" and Dr Vincent Tabak was convicted of "Murder"...
That statement must be true.... I will say, how on earth would CJ, be able to sue the papers if there hadn't already been a conviction in 'July" ?? Until there is a conviction there is no evidence to catergorically state that CJ is an Innocent man!! (No offence meant CJ..)
Mr Jay
We know there was a statement in open court on 29 July of this year.
Mr Christopher Jefferies
Mm-hm.
Mr Jay
The newspapers admitted liability, gave the standard apologies on these occasions --
Now I cannot find the pdf of CJ's first witness statement and luckily the statement is available through the link at the bottom... But is the reason that CJ's statement is sealed for 84 years, because they actually held Dr Vincent Tabak's trial in "July 2011"?
It would make sense that a trial had already taken place...
The Scotsman could not state on the 1st August 2011 that CJ was an entirely Innocent man... As the trial we were told was to take place in October 2011..
The Police had believed there to be an accomplice, and until someone else was convicted of this crime, CJ could always potentially have been implicated...
In August 2011, Dr Vincent Tabak still hadn't said anything.... He didn't sign his enhanced statement until September 2011, nothing as far as I am aware stated how he had entered Flat 1.... It is not until the apparent trial in October 2011, that Dr Vincent Tabak gives his version of events... And of course he apparently was invited in....
So... CJ still could have been seen as a suspect by the Police right up until October 2011 as he was the landlord with the keys to Joanna Yeates Flat and they had no idea how entry had occurred...!
The Police did not apologise until 2012 to CJ and cleared him at that time Officially...
I'm aware CJ could confidently feel he could take the papers to court, but he would need something concrete to establish that the hole fiasco in the newspapers was outrageous and he had proof that he was indeed an Innocent man...
After the apparent trial of Dr Vincent Tabak's it did not stop the media from totally vilifying him, with talk of Porn.. prostitutes and his interest in child porn...
So the media's attitude hadn't changed.
CJ wouldn't and couldn't take the media to court at the end of July 2011, without having Dr Vincent Tabak convicted..(imo) The papers would not bow down and just pay him any cost and then state that he was wholly Innocent... They would fight their corner and state that until a trial and conviction, he still could be a suspect..
Is this the reason that No-one wants to talk about Dr Vincent Tabak's trial and conviction?? Because they had already had a trial and convicted him??
Did the "Manslaughter Plea" stand?? Was Dr Vincent Tabak convicted of "Manslaughter" in July 2011 and The October 2011 trial was just for show??
CJ.. has to be confident that he can win his case hands down!! And The apologies to CJ start in court on the 29th July 2011...
Article dated 29th July 2011
"Christopher Jefferies is the latest victim of the regular witch hunts and character assassination conducted by the worst elements of the British tabloid media.
Many of the stories published in these newspapers are designed to 'monster' the individual, in flagrant disregard for his reputation, privacy and rights to a fair trial.
These newspapers have now apologised to him and paid substantial damages."
I missed a trick... Dr Vincent Tabak's conviction had to be settled before CJ took the papers to court, he wouldn't have won and no apology would have been made.. He has to have everything in the bag to be able to stand up in court and say, that there is proof I did not have anything to do with the Murder of Joanna Yeates...!!
I am not surprised that No-one will talk of this case, I am not surprised that the media do not say anything... They probably all got a gaging order in July 2011.. It has been staring us in the face all this time.. CJ.... CJ who has tried time and time again to show us that the case against Dr Vincent Tabak is false...
Not only does he sue the paper, he appears at the Leveson and then the documentary.. But we the public are not listening ...we the public are waiting on a selacious trial.. And we got one... With bells on it...
Now I understand why there were 20 written witness statement that were read out.. Why would you go to a trial if you have already been... That is why Tanja Morson was away on holiday... She didn't need to be there.... It wasn't real...(imo)... Every person whom you expected to take the stand didn't...
* No DCI Phil Jones...
* No CJ...
* No Tanja Morson
* No Peter Stanley
* No Good Character witness's
* No work Colleagues
* No tenant or resident of 44, Canyne Road
* No Firemen
Nobody who should have been at the October trial was not there!! And that I believe is because the trial took place in July... But the papers cannot tell us, this is what happened.. But CJ does in his 'First Witness Statement at The Leveson"... No wonder that trial made no sense at all....
Talked about behind closed doors... Well I am not surprised in the least!!!!!
"Oh what a tangled web we weave.." They got that right!
I would just like to add, and I am not being rude to CJ... But.... Why would the media apologies, pay him money and then a documentary is made about "The Lost Honour of CJ"???
At the end of the day.. CJ is simply a retired teacher, who owns a couple of properties, basically a nobody... Yet he manages to wield so much attention his way... Attention that he did not want apparently... I believe all the CJ reports from the Leveson and the documentary .. where to get us to sit up and take notice....
Well CJ... "I Have".... !!!
Read more at: https://www.scotsman.com/news/apology-christopher-jefferies-1-1777461
http://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-28-november-2011/mr-christopher-jefferies
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/jul/29/joanna-yeates-national-newspapers
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Now I understand why Sally Ramage could say exactly what she wanted in her paper about The trial of Dr Vincent Tabak in October 2011..
She could make as many errors/deliberate mistakes as she wanted, No-one would correct her... If Dr Vincent Trial didn't really happen in October 2011 and that was a complete 'Show Trial".. That in itself tells us Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent....
He must be... They are not going to go that far... What has been covered up/hushed up to try and fool the public that the trial took place in October 2011??
It as it has been said to me before Extremely Serious! Using the Judicial system to completely fool the public.. And it sure did....
As I have said... No media outlet could state that CJ was an Innocent man, before someone else had been convicted, and indeed they did say this before the "October" show trial...
So.. now that I have come to this conclusion... will the media speak up??? Can you speak up??
It's time there was an Inquiry into the conviction of Dr Vincent Tabak... Never mind the Leveson... Time the British public and the world knew what has gone on... Something seriously needs to be done !!!!!
-
Question:... Did Dr Vincent Tabak appear at The Old Bailey in "July 2011" with his unique trial Number of: U20110387
Was this the trial that took place we were not party too??
There had to be a reason that Dr Vincent Tabak went to The Old Bailey in 'May 2011' in the first place and was given his unique trial number U20110387
So I put it to everyone, that Dr Vincent Tabak was convicted in July 2011 and it was under the trial number of U20110387 and at The Old Bailey!!
Mr Clegg.... anything to say??
-
So where do we go from here??
I have written so much trying to pull the Defence apart.... Never mind The Prosecution.... And The conclusions I have made over this time period have been a revelation to me...
I never understood why The Defence would bury their Client... Why images show lack of protocol and Nothing is said or done.. Why NO, cross examination of witness's really took place... Why all of The Hearsay Evidence was apparently allowed.. Why the letter of the law was not followed in court...
Why Judge Field said it was Sexually Motivated, when there was NO Proof of this at trial... Why daily for over a year I have found new anomalies, with evidence and trial statements...
I am convinced, that they convicted Dr Vincent Tabak in July... And maybe not what we think....
Leonora has always talked about a deal... And I believe that to be true... But was the deal struck in May 2011 and the finalities done in July 2011??
This has been quite a journey and I have felt frustrated on many many occasions... And I too must have frustrated others..
But..... There still has to be someone who has been protected, something has been covered-up, and I believe the press had no option but not speak about what deal had been made...
But that didn't stop the show trial taking place...
Now why is that?????
-
By the 6th of July 2011... Is possibly the date at which Dr Vincent tabak conviction had been settled...
He was subsequently released without charge and was ‘entirely innocent,’ Mr Grieve told three judges, including Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge.
Miss Yeates’s next-door neighbour, Dutchman Vincent Tabak, a 33-year-old engineer, has admitted manslaughter but denied murder and is due to go on trial at Bristol Crown Court in October.
Making a statement like that in itself is prejudicial.. This is July 2011 we are talking... Dr Vincent Tabak could have withdrawn his guilty plea to Manslaughter and said it was made under duress.. He could have got evidence to prove that it wasn't him whom had killed Joanna Yeates.. The timeline suggest that is true....
Mr Grieve said the articles published on December 31 and January 1 would have posed a ‘substantial risk of serious prejudice’ to any trial Mr Jefferies might have faced.
By that token the same should apply to Dr Vincent Tabak... Nothing should be published before The apparent trial in October that might prejudice a jury... Nothing stating he had pleaded guilty to Manslaughter for starters!! (imo)
So is Bernard finally out of the bag??
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011462/Sun-Daily-Mirror-contempt-court-Joanna-Yeates-murder-articles.html#ixzz56EqEkaT1
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Question:... Did Dr Vincent Tabak appear at The Old Bailey in "July 2011" with his unique trial Number of: U20110387
Was this the trial that took place we were not party too??
There had to be a reason that Dr Vincent Tabak went to The Old Bailey in 'May 2011' in the first place and was given his unique trial number U20110387
So I put it to everyone, that Dr Vincent Tabak was convicted in July 2011 and it was under the trial number of U20110387 and at The Old Bailey!!
Mr Clegg.... anything to say??
I think the May hearing is for him to plead. If he had pleaded guilty to murder he wouldn't have gone to a full trial just sentencing. But as his plea to the lesser charge was not accepted the date of the trial was set.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/may/05/joanna-yeates-neighbour-admits-killing
-
I think the May hearing is for him to plead. If he had pleaded guilty to murder he wouldn't have gone to a full trial just sentencing. But as his plea to the lesser charge was not accepted the date of the trial was set.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/may/05/joanna-yeates-neighbour-admits-killing
I'm like Arggggggggggg and that is not at you Baz that is at myself.. I get frustrated, I am not very eloquent and want to scream and shout....
I cannot be mistaken, even if I do not know law....
Dr Vincent Tabak plead guilty to "Manslaughter" apparently... Well he could have plead he was a martian for all the good it would do... His plea doesn't count... They did not accept that plea... When the apparent trial happened in October there was no 'Manslaughter " option...
They cannot then use the fact that he plead "guilty to it.... I am sure they can't.....
I just want to 8)><(.. this is way out there.... I have no knowledge of the law... I do not know how I can change or do anything anymore....
Everyone knows that it;s a sham.... And no-one ever says anything....
DCI Phil Jones managed to get to the Old Bailey hearing..... why??
There had to be something being arranged at that time... There is no way that The yeates family should have been present at the old bailey... i keep saying they could have easily been called as witness's like Greg...
Dr Vincent Tabak did NOT have to take the stand in October 2011... Clegg should have told him to sit down and zip it.... They had no evidence against Dr Vincent Tabak...
Did they make an arrangement with him in July 2011 and then go back on it????
I always have too many question??
For his fourth court appearance, bespectacled Tabak wore a dark suit, shirt and tie. He appeared by video link from Long Lartin prison in Worcestershire. He confirmed his identity and replied "morning" when the judge, Mr Justice Field, greeted him. When asked if he was content to proceed without an interpreter, he said: "I'm OK."
He pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder, this time between 16 and 19 December. When the manslaughter charge between the same dates was put to him, he paused briefly before saying guilty in a firm voice.
Among the police officers in court was Detective Chief Inspector Phil Jones, who led the murder hunt.
Greeted him... why is Judge field Greeting Dr Vincent Tabak??.... Did he wave also!!
Why is Dr Vincent Tabak even entering into a plea at The Old Bailey??
Ok... The Manslaughter charge is a different charge altogether... Why are they even putting it to him??
He has 2 different charges?? Why ??
The idea that he would be found guilty of Manslaughter should be decided at trial... By proving whether or not he had malice a for thought.. They have changed the dates of the charge also... So when did Joanna Yeates die?
Could he not prevent her death... And I do not mean he killed her... Did she work for him?? I'm trying to understand how he could be seen as guilty to Manslaughter....
Nigel Lickley QC, prosecuting, asked for the trial to be moved to Winchester crown court because of the publicity in Bristol that had surrounded the case. The judge said he felt the trial could take place in Bristol and it is set to begin on 4 October and last four weeks.
Why is The Prosecution asking for it to be moved to Winchester... surely that should be The Defences role??
Then we have Geoffrey Morson making comment?
Afterwards, Geoffrey Morson, a retired legal professional and the father of Tabak's girlfriend, Tanja Morson, described Yeates' death as tragic. Speaking from his home in Cambridge, Morson said he had no knowledge of whether his daughter and Tabak were still in a relationship.
He goes on to say:
He said: "This is a tragic case for everyone, especially the Yeates family and for us and the Tabak family and anyone who knew those involved. It is in the hands of the British judicial system now.
Yes I agree is is tragic.... What did they do.??? Why will no-one say anything... argggggg
So who are Those who were involved??
The charge of Murdering who?? It doesn't say that it was Joanna Yeates... Guilty of The Manslaughter of WHO??? It doesn't say that it was Joanna Yeates... We are assuming again because we believe he was charged with her Murder.... But where does it say that he killed Joanna Yeates??? It doesn't !!!!
Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing
10. If there is a not guilty plea then a trial date will be set and the issues for trial will be determined. The judge will set a timetable for necessary pre-trial preparation.
"Apparently he plead guilty!!!!!!
Did more than one person die?? Was the manslaughter plea about someone or something else entirely??
They set the trial date and the press were obviously notified.. But they cannot have had time to notify the witness's
12. When the trial date is fixed, you should inform the witnesses. You should also notify the Press Office.
13. The Crown Court will normally send a notice of fixture, which you should forward to your legal adviser immediately.
Also.....
1. You should always be in a position at the PTPH to provide the court with the witnesses’ dates to avoid. You must also be prepared to raise any difficulties you have in complying with the prosecution’s disclosure obligations under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and be ready to put forward a reasonable timetable for resolving those difficulties3.
Well they hadn't interviewed any witness's for Dr Vincent Tabak.. he hadn't said anything... How could they set a trial date and inform the press before any witness's??
I am going round in circles...
He could have pleaded guilty to Manslaughter for Instance if he had supplied Joanna Yeates with Drugs!!
He didn't have to be there to witness or be the person who strangled her....
I need to come back to the difference in manslaughter....
http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/crown-court.htm
-
Alternative Counts
In cases where the defendant faces a charge of murder, the prosecution should decide in advance of a trial whether or not an alternative count of manslaughter should be added to the indictment. Prosecutors should take the following approach:
The option of pleading "Guilty To Manslaughter" at the May 2011 Plea and management Case Hearing, discloses the defendants intent... And when asked if he was pleading guilty to Manslaughter at Crown Court... Dr Vincent Tabak said YES!!
CPD I G a ener l matters 3A: CASE MANAGEMENT
3A.1 CrimPR 1.1(2)(e) requires that cases be dealt with efficiently and
expodiciously. CrimPR 3.2 requires the court to further he
rr ing objective by actively managing the case, for example:
a) When dealing with an offence which is triable only on
indictment the court must ask the defendant whether he or
she intends to plead guilty at the Crown Court (CrimPR
9.7(5));
b) On a guilty plea, the court must pass sentence at the earliest
opportunity, in accordance with CrimPR 24.11(9)(a)
(magistrates’ courts) and 25.16(7)(a) (the Crown Court).
That is it....... What Dr Vincent Tabak was saying was that he "INTENDED" to Plead Guilty to "Manslaughter at "The Crown Court" And Not that he plead guilty to The Manslaughter of Joanna Yeates "..
But when we come to the trial in October 2011... The option of Pleading Guilty to "Manslaughter" isn't there!!! Stitched up like a kipper!!
When dealing with an offence which is triable only on
indictment the court must ask the defendant whether he or
she intends to plead guilty at the Crown Court
And Dr Vincent Tabak's response was 'Guilty of Manslaughter"!!!
He never pleaded 'Guilty to The Manslaughter of Joanna Yeates... That much is true... Someones been twisting the truth and the law!!
The media left out the important pieces of Information.... They just wrote he plead guilty to "Manslaughter"... When in actual fact (imo) he didn't!!
Can this get anymore shocking???
Human rights violations left right and centre....
Ann Reddrop insisted that it was Murder and always had been Murder... So when Dr Vincent Tabak says, he is going to plead 'Guilty to Manslaughter"... They take that option away....
The evidence that Joanna Yeates had been strangled and had various injuries on her body, the planning to dispose of the body was apparent as she couldn't have been on Longwood lane all that time....
Is that why Dr Vincent Tabak says sorry to the Yeates family... Because the Prosecution and The Judge and The Defence had taken out of Dr Vincent Tabak's hands the option to plead "guilty" to Manslaughter... Even though they all knew his Intent!! And The Yeates could see that This Intention had backfired...
Yes... they were all correct when they said that it was ALL ABOUT INTENT.... It was about Dr Vincent Tabak's Intent to plead "Guilty" to "Manslaughter" at his trial in October 2011... And they stopped that from happening!!!!
I think the Intelligent Dutchman tried to play them at their own game .... And lost!!!
I believe That The Option of Manslaughter would Never be there.... Dr Vincent Tabak just told them of his Intensions... !
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/better-case-management-information-pack-3.pdf
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-manslaughter
-
I think it's probably safe to say that neither of us have a strong enough understanding of how the legal system works to really understand all this stuff. I don't think that picking selective bits from any random legal document you can find and spinning an absurd new theory that is complete speculation is very helpful.
No matter how many times you try there is no evidence that there was a secret trial. The idea that the media all agreed to take part in some absurd cover up is pretty delusional.
Between somehow linking the crime to Sleeping Beauty and now you're diagnosing the victim with diabetes... it's all starting to sound a bit nuts.
I wonder what it would take to convince you of his guilt? As his confession and detailed testimony given in court of how he did were not enough... what would it take?
-
I think it's probably safe to say that neither of us have a strong enough understanding of how the legal system works to really understand all this stuff. I don't think that picking selective bits from any random legal document you can find and spinning an absurd new theory that is complete speculation is very helpful.
No matter how many times you try there is no evidence that there was a secret trial. The idea that the media all agreed to take part in some absurd cover up is pretty delusional.
Between somehow linking the crime to Sleeping Beauty and now you're diagnosing the victim with diabetes... it's all starting to sound a bit nuts.
I wonder what it would take to convince you of his guilt? As his confession and detailed testimony given in court of how he did were not enough... what would it take?
Ok Baz..
I'm delusional, I'm Nuts, I'm what ever you think I am...
I know I'm tired... I know I'm horrified... I know that on my own I cannot do anything about this... I started looking at this because I felt and do feel Dr Vincent Tabak is Innocent...
And whether you agree or not doesn't matter.. Virtually everyone is happy he's in prison... That's fine...
I know I tried to do what I could... I have no law knowledge as you have pointed out ...But I had hoped that maybe on this site there may have been people who had law knowledge and could help... But that's not happening...
Maybe.. People have misunderstood , why i have gone in different directions... And maybe I should have stopped long ago...
End of the day.... This case is dodgy... And that there is no doubt... But everyone can keep smiling whilst they cover up for who ever they are covering up for...
Our Justice system has been shot to shit for years.... And if no-one is prepared to question it.. then it will only get worse,..
I'm obviously out of my depth... I cannot change anything... even though I believed I could...
System always wins...
-
Ok Baz..
I'm delusional, I'm Nuts, I'm what ever you think I am...
I said the idea was delusional because it would take a massive number of people who have no reason to agree to work together and tell the same lies. I didn't call you delusional.
And whether you agree or not doesn't matter.. Virtually everyone is happy he's in prison... That's fine...
I know I tried to do what I could... I have no law knowledge as you have pointed out ...But I had hoped that maybe on this site there may have been people who had law knowledge and could help... But that's not happening...
Perhaps you could try approaching someone who does have the legal expertise to answer your questions rather than hoping that they will happen upon your questions here? Maybe through social media or something?
End of the day.... This case is dodgy... And that there is no doubt... But everyone can keep smiling whilst they cover up for who ever they are covering up for...
There is absolutely doubt that this case is dodgy. For starters I have never seen any believable reason that the police and courts would work together in a conspiracy to convict Tabak. Or why he has never fought his own corner if he is innocent.
-
This quote is from The Law Pages website....
Country : England and Wales
Date : 28-10 -2011
Judge : Mr Justice Field
Case Number : T20117031
Defendant Name : Vincent Tabak
Defendant Age : 33 Years
Bail Position : In Custody
Offence : Murder
Sentence : Custodial immediate
Length : 20 Years Life
Public Protection : Minimum to serve 20 years
Sentence
Total Sentence : 20 Years
Parole Eligibility : 23/10/2031
Date (PED)
Distinguishing features/facts : He pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was found guilty pf murder (10:2 majority
verdict) after he strangled his 25 year old female victim in her flat in Clifton, on 17th
December 2010. His victims body was discovered by dog walkers on Christmas day.
He had strangled his victim holding her neck with one hand and smothering
her with his other hand. The Prosecution's Case was that he had an intention to kill or
cause serious bodily harm and that the attack had been planned, premeditated and
sexually motivated.His victim suffered 43 injuries and expert witnesses were called to
clarify what the medical evidence suggested. During the investigation he told
investigators that his Landlords (volvo) vehicle had moved during the night of
the murder and police arrested the man who was later released without charge.
Following the verdict the jury heard how he had viewed violent pornography on the
web. The judge agreed with the defence council that disclosure of his internet use
following his victims death was not proof that the crime was premeditated. Videos and
pictures found on his laptop and work computer depicted a man holding a woman's
neck during sex and images of women tied up in the boot of vehicles.
The judge said " I think there was a sexual element to this killing...In my view you are
very dangerous. In my opinion you are thoroughly deceitful, dishonest and
manipulative".
Sentenced : After Trial
Defence team
Solicitors Firm : Kelcey & Hall
Chambers : 2 Bedford Row
Barrister : William Clegg QC (http://www.thelawpages.com/legal-directory/uploadfiles/logo/51674.jpg)
Expert Witness : Dr Nathanial Roger Blair Cary
Prosecution Team
Solicitor : Ann Elisabeth Reddrop
Chambers : 3PB Barristers (3 Paper Buildings)
Barrister : Nigel James Domonic Lickley QC
Expert Witness : LGC Forensics
Prosecuting Authority : CPS South West (CPS Bristol)
I have areas initially that I have done in bold... And other areas to question.
(1): Smothering... Since when was smothering the cause of Joanna Yeates death? I thought the prosecution had
always insisted that Dr Vincent Tabak had strangled Joanna Yeates with 2 hands... And as DCI
Jones had said.. "he squeezed and squeezed.
(2):Medical Evidence
Suggests....... Suggesting isn't evidence, Evidence supports events, not the suggestion of what may or may not
have taken place.
(3):Landlord: .... Who actually was Dr Vincent Tabak's landlord?
(4): Volvo......... Who owned the Volvo that was parked on the drive?? There were 2 silver cars removed on the
same day on Canygne Road one was a Chrysler and one was a Volvo,which car did CJ own??
(5): Landlord/car.. Is the owner of the Volvo Dr Vincent Tabak's landlord? Is that a totally different person to CJ?
(6): Prosecution : Where is Dr Delaney, he is not mentioned in the Prosecution?? LGC Forensics didn't perform the
Experts autopsy.. They talked only of DNA etc... I have a question now... I believe that Dr Delaney has
his own business ( Dr RJ Delaney LTD)does he also do work for LGC Forensic?? Maybe there's
another reason he is not listed as Prosecution expert.. Seems odd to me... But I am not expert.
(7): Eligible Parole: 23/11/2031 why is it a week before the end of his sentencing date?
Date
(8): Law Pages : Who writes the information for The Law Pages? I have added the image that is on the law Pages
website of William Clegg QC's Chambers, his is the only logo on there.. Bit of free advertising
there.. Or did the information come from 2 Bedford Row? Did they do the write up??
(9): The Jury : Why were the jury told about the porn when it had not been introduced into evidence? There
was no proof that this porn or any images that were not used at trial were from Dr Vincent
Tabak's computer... So How could they tell the Jury??
(10): : An Intention to Kill or Cause Serious Bodily Harm, planned... Now he either intended to kill, Or
he intended to cause serious bodily harm, you can't have both, one voids the other. The
Prosecution are telling us two stories, They apparently always believed that Dr Vincent Tabak
had intended to kill Joanna Yeates.. If they are now bringing an alternative into the mix
themselves, they have created reasonable doubt and therefore it cannot have been a planned
"Murder".. And as far as I can tell "Murder" should have been the only reason The Prosecution
had! They can't have two alternatives... As there was no evidence to support the idea of planning
as the apparent evidence Dr Vincent Tabak gave on the stand.Claims it was on the spur of the
moment. Where was the proof of planning..
If Dr Vincent Tabak had intended to cause serious bodily harm, then the fact that Joanna Yeates
died as a result would intimate 'Manslaughter and NOT Murder.. So why didn't they give the jury
the option of 'Manslaughter?
One more thing I did notice, 23/10/2031... Dr Vincent Tabak should have had the time he had already spent in prison deducted off his sentence..
24/1/2011 Was when we are told he was charged.. We have the date of the 23rd?? If we knock the 10 months off that he had already spent in prison awaiting trial, then we come to a date of 23/01/2031...
Now Dr Vincent Tabak did go to court some years later, for apparent child porn images.. And was given a 10 month sentence to be be started from the day it was given, March 2015.
What is so important about 10 months, and why hasn't it been deducted from his sentence??
I know nothing about Law... But I sure no they cannot use material that wasn't evidence.. If he had been convicted before in relation to porn material.. maybe.. But not as a way of justifying Judge Field's sentence based on a sexually motivated murder when there had been No evidence to support this...
Why is everyone ignoring these flagrant breaches of law that have surrounded this case from the start!
http://www.checkcompany.co.uk/director/2882277/DR-RUSSELL-JAMES-DELANEY
http://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Vincent-Tabak-7570-1.law
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07223149
-
Notable Cases
As one of the leading firms of Solicitors in Bristol and the South West, over the years Kelcey & Hall has been involved in defending in some of the highest profile cases in the country.
These include:
Joanna Yeates murder
R v Vincent Tabak
This case attracted much publicity arising out of the death of Joanna Yeates in Clifton in Bristol over the Christmas period of 2010. Joanna Yeates had disappeared from her flat in Clifton on the 17th December 2010 and her body was subsequently found on Christmas Day of that year within the Failand area of Bristol. Mr Tabak was subsequently arrested and tried for her murder, he being an occupant of another flat within the same building. Mr Tabak admitted being responsible for the death of Joanna Yeates but denied murder on the grounds that he had not intended that she should die. Mr Tabak was represented by Mr William Clegg QC of 2 Bedford Row, London and Mr Dean Armstrong, also of 2 Bedford Row. Mr Tabak was found guilty of the murder of Joanna Yeates.
So Dr Vincent Tabak was an Occupant of another Flat within the same building.... Not next door then?? Not where apparently he had easy access to carry a body into his flat with no-one noticing???
(1): Was his Flat in the main building of the house??
(2): Was his Flat on the first floor??
(3): Was his Flat up a flight of stairs in the house ??
(4): Where exactly in 44, Canygne Road Mr Kelcey was Dr Vincent Tabaks Flat ??
Mr Kelcey can I ask why you didn't argue the point about the "hearsay" evidence?/ The 17 witness statements that were read out at trial, but no-one appearing to substantiate their claims..
You had successfully had a case thrown out prior to Dr Vincent Tabak's Case because of anonymous hearsay and were successful on that occasion..
Bristol Nightclub shooting
R v MR and others
A celebrated case that subsequently went to the full Court of Appeal with five Lord Justices of Appeal presided over by the Lord Chief Justice. The prosecution sought to rely upon anonymous hearsay to support an allegation that MR along with others had been responsible for shooting to death a man called Dean Myiles in a busy Bristol nightclub in 2006. The Court found that the anonymous hearsay was not admissible evidence. This finding was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal and all defendants were acquitted of the murder of Mr Myiles in 2008.
Mr Kelcey.. what was so different about Dr Vincent Tabak, that he was not defended to the best of everyones ability?? And The Hearsay was allowed... not only that, but you allowed your client to commit suicide by having him on the stand...
No comment from Dr Vincent Tabak... No trial!! No evidence!!
One last thing Mr Kelcey... The highly publicised case that was "The Trial Of Dr Vincent Tabak" must be one of your most memorable and proudest moments..
Would you like to comment??
http://www.kelceyandhall.co.uk/notable-cases.html
-
What was the final Bill for this very Public trial... What did it cost the tax payer for Dr Vincent Tabak's Defence??
He also had a defence team of between four and six led by a highly paid partner in the Somerset law firm Kelcey and Hall Solicitors, whose legal bill is yet to be settled.
Legal aid authorities confirmed yesterday that they had received a bill from Kelcey and Hall for work for Tabak’s trial.
Although the bill had not been settled, one legal source said: ‘You are looking at an enormous bill. It will be a considerable sum of money.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2100235/Jo-Yeates-murder-Her-parents-hit-killer-Vincent-Tabaks-legal-aid-cost-taxpayers-hundreds-thousands.html#ixzz56WEyovJN
-
Looks like I have found something... Don't know if it is correct..
Taxpayers fork out £250,000 in Vincent Tabak case
THE killer of Joanna Yeates received more than £252,000 in taxpayers’ cash for his bid to escape justice.
The total bill came to £252,426.77.
But it was all in vain as Tabak was found guilty of murdering Joanna, 25, in her Bristol flat in December 2010 before disposing of her body on a roadside.
He was jailed for life and afterwards it emerged he was obsessed with violent porn, including sexual strangulation.
After we revealed Tabak’s bid for taxpayers’ cash in February, Joanna’s dad David Yeates, 64, said he was “outraged”, adding: “He prolonged the case by lying to the police and lying during his trial.”
Last night, on being told the amount of money paid out, Mr Yeates, of Ampfield, Hants, said he was pleased Tabak cannot now argue he was not given a fair trial.
Now the amount of money spent does not mean he had a fair trial.... I wouldn't mind a complete break down of said money..!
Mr Yeates said: “I find it obscene that wealthy people who are worth billions of pounds are allowed to claim legal aid, although I don’t think he had that much money.
Why did Mr Yeates believe that Dr Vincent Tabak was rich?? Did Dr Vincent Tabak invent something? Did he have a patent??
It reveals Tabak, who strangled Joanna for sex kicks before hiding her body, first used Somerset-based Crossmans Solicitors.
They received just over £6,345 for helping him when he was arrested and for initial court work.
Didn't they do much work ??
What did The Defence do for this £252,000 of taxpayers money ??
There was no investigation by them as far as I can tell... They didn't even spot that the kitchen window sill had been painted after Joanna Yeates death...
So what is worth £252,000 of taxpayers money??
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/263358/Taxpayers-fork-out-250-000-in-Vincent-Tabak-case
-
This quote is from The Law Pages website....
I have areas initially that I have done in bold... And other areas to question.
(1): Smothering... Since when was smothering the cause of Joanna Yeates death? I thought the prosecution had
always insisted that Dr Vincent Tabak had strangled Joanna Yeates with 2 hands... And as DCI
Jones had said.. "he squeezed and squeezed.
Wasn't his evidence that he put a hand over her mouth to stop her screaming. That's the smoothering they are referring to probably.
(2):Medical Evidence
Suggests....... Suggesting isn't evidence, Evidence supports events, not the suggestion of what may or may not
have taken place.
I think suggests is a perfectly valid word to be used in this context. Evidence suggests a certain picture of events that the experts interpret.
(3):Landlord: .... Who actually was Dr Vincent Tabak's landlord?
Christopher Jefferies
(4): Volvo......... Who owned the Volvo that was parked on the drive?? There were 2 silver cars removed on the
same day on Canygne Road one was a Chrysler and one was a Volvo,which car did CJ own??
I'm pretty sure that Christopher Jefferies' car was the volvo. I'm not sure that was ever in dispute.
(5): Landlord/car.. Is the owner of the Volvo Dr Vincent Tabak's landlord? Is that a totally different person to CJ?
No it's Christopher Jefferies' car, Tabak's landlord.
(9): The Jury : Why were the jury told about the porn when it had not been introduced into evidence? There
was no proof that this porn or any images that were not used at trial were from Dr Vincent
Tabak's computer... So How could they tell the Jury??
The judge decided that the Jury didn't need to hear about the porn in terms of premeditation. I'm pretty sure he only brought it up during his sentencing, so once the Jury had already reached their verdict. Neither of us are versed enough in the law to know what a judge can and can not use during his sentencing. Perhaps he, like most like minded people, thought that the fact he got off on videos of women being hurt was significant to his character.
(10): : An Intention to Kill or Cause Serious Bodily Harm, planned... Now he either intended to kill, Or
he intended to cause serious bodily harm, you can't have both, one voids the other. The
Prosecution are telling us two stories, They apparently always believed that Dr Vincent Tabak
had intended to kill Joanna Yeates.. If they are now bringing an alternative into the mix
themselves, they have created reasonable doubt and therefore it cannot have been a planned
"Murder".. And as far as I can tell "Murder" should have been the only reason The Prosecution
had! They can't have two alternatives... As there was no evidence to support the idea of planning
as the apparent evidence Dr Vincent Tabak gave on the stand.Claims it was on the spur of the
moment. Where was the proof of planning..
If having two options does create reasonable doubt surely the doubt is only over whether he just wanted to seriously hurt her or wanted to kill her. It doesn't provide reasonable doubt of whether it was him or not.
I know nothing about Law... But I sure no they cannot use material that wasn't evidence.. If he had been convicted before in relation to porn material.. maybe.. But not as a way of justifying Judge Field's sentence based on a sexually motivated murder when there had been No evidence to support this...
Why is everyone ignoring these flagrant breaches of law that have surrounded this case from the start!
You contradict yourself. You say you know nothing about law and they claim to know something for sure. If we apply some logic we can assume that the judge looked at the porn evidence and decided that whilst it didn't prove premeditation it still said something about Tabak's character. Also doesn't it make more sense that no one brought up this "flagrant breach of the law" because it wasn't one and we just don't understand the law.
-
So Dr Vincent Tabak was an Occupant of another Flat within the same building.... Not next door then?? Not where apparently he had easy access to carry a body into his flat with no-one noticing???
I do not know the layout of the building they all lived in but I think if they both had flats on the same floor in the same building then it is reasonable to refer to each other's flats as next door.
One last thing Mr Kelcey... The highly publicised case that was "The Trial Of Dr Vincent Tabak" must be one of your most memorable and proudest moments..
Would you like to comment??
I think it unlikely that he visits this forum so if you do generally hope to get any answers to all your questions you would be better of contacting him directly rather than leaving a question on a forum in the hope he'll read it and respond.
-
There was no investigation by them as far as I can tell... They didn't even spot that the kitchen window sill had been painted after Joanna Yeates death...
I don't believe it was painted but then we've been through that before.
-
Was trying to find why Sally Ramage paper said [unreported].... Came across this...
Attorney General v MGN Ltd
29 Jul 2011 [2011] EWHC 2074 (Admin); [2012] 1 WLR 2408; [2012] 1 Cr App R 1, DC
CONTEMPT OF COURT — Pending proceedings — Impending course of justice
[2012] 1 WLR 2408 from custody on unconditional police bail during the evening of 1 January 2011. On 22 January another man, Vincent Tabak was charged with the murder of Miss Yeates. On 4 March Mr Jefferies was informed that he was released... from police bail. On 5 May Tabak admitted that he was responsible for killing Miss Yeates when, at the Central Criminal Court, he pleaded guilty to …
[2011] EWHC 2074 (Admin) January another man, Vincent Tabak was charged with the murder of Miss Yeates. On 4 May Tabak admitted that he was responsible for killing Miss Yeates when, at the Central Criminal Court, he pleaded guilty to …
Expand
CONTEMPT OF COURT — Pending proceedings — Impending course of justice — Newspapers publishing derogatory articles about man arrested on suspicion of murder — Suspect later released without charge — Whether articles creating substantial risk of serious impediment or prejudice to course of justice — Whether publishers liable for contempt of court under strict liability rule — Contempt of Court Act 1981, ss 1, 2(2)
2 Case(s) considered
1 Statute considered
Why does it have Dr Vincent Tabak May court appearance as the 4th May 2011??
Had he appeared the day before?? Had he struck a deal the day before?? And then went again via video link on the 5th May 2011??
each paragraph gives us a different day.... 4th or 5th ??
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
I'll continue....
http://iclr.co.uk/search?query=tabak
-
Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWHC 2074 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 29/07/2011
Before : THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES
LORD JUSTICE THOMAS and MR JUSTICE OWEN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
Her Majesty’s Attorney-General
Claimant
- and -
(1) MGN Limited
(2) News Group Newspapers Limited
Defendants
(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street, London, EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr Dominic Grieve QC, Her Majesty’s Attorney-General and Miss Melanie Cumberland (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Claimant
Mr Jonathan Caplan QC (Instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP) for the First Defendant
Miss Adrienne Page QC and Mr Anthony Hudson (Instructed by Farrer & Co) for the Second Defendant
Hearing date: 5th July 2011
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judgment
As Approved by the Court
Crown copyright©
The Context
The proceedings arise from the killing of a young woman, Joanna Yeates, in Bristol on 17th December 2010. Her landlord, Christopher Jefferies, was arrested on 30th December on suspicion of her murder. He was released from custody on unconditional police bail during the evening of 1st January 2011. On 22nd January another man, Vincent Tabak was charged with the murder of Miss Yeates. On 4th March Mr Jefferies was informed that he was released from police bail. 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.
There is therefore no doubt about the identity of the man who killed Miss Yeates or that Mr Jefferies is innocent of any involvement in it.
There is therefore no doubt about the identity of the man who killed Miss Yeates or that Mr Jefferies is innocent of any involvement in it. By way of emphasis, he is not simply presumed in law to be innocent of the killing. As a matter of fact and reality he is innocent. He is not facing trial, and he will never face trial.
Aha.... We at last have discovered he plead guilty to manslaughter based on 'Diminished Responsibilities"...
So where was any supporting evidence at trial with regards "ANY" Diminished Responsibilities???
Why didn't Ann Reddrop accept the Manslaughter Plea with Diminished Responsibilities??
And more importantly ... why weren't these Diminished responsibilities NOT Brought to Dr Vincent Tabak's trial !!!
What were these "Diminished Responsibilities"???
The trial of that issue will take place in the autumn.
And... That issue was "Never" addressed at trial!!!!
You can download the pdf from the link below....
http://iclr.co.uk/document/2011201901/%5B2011%5D%20EWHC%202074%20(Admin)/html?query=tabak&filter=content-available%3A%22Transcript%22&fullSearchFields=&page=1&sort=relevance&pageSize=10
-
http://iclr.co.uk/document/2016040877/%5B2011%5D%20EWHC%202383%20(Admin)/html
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9127.msg445746#msg445746
This post I want to correct myself.. I believe i made a slight error.
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.
It was an oversight... But an Interesting one...
He Denied Murder on the Grounds Of Diminished Responsibilities
But therefore does that mean that he denies "Murder'???
That is only a Defence for the charge of Murder.... Not that it wasn't Murder...
So therefore how can he then admit "Manslaughter"?? And do the grounds of 'Dimished Responsibilities still come into play...
They should do (IMO)
If Dr Vincent Tabak had admitted "Murder". (but on the grounds of diminished responsibilities)
Why did Ann Reddrop not accept that plea??
She tells everyone that The Prosecutions case was that it had always been Murder!..
Well according to The Lord Chief Justice he admitted that fact!
Because it is only when at trial does The Grounds of 'Diminished Responsibilities" comes into play as a Defence... (as was the yorkshire rippers defence I believe...) That the jury decide whether or not that is a good Defence...
Did Dr Vincent Tabak plead guilty to "Murder" on the grounds of Diminshed Responsibilities on 5th May 2011 as " The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales stated in the case of CJ on the 5th July 2011
The Lord Chief justice.. clearly states on this document that Dr Vincent Tabak pleaded
"Guilty to Murder on The Grounds of Diminished Responsibility" (imo)
By saying he denied "Murder on The Grounds of Diminished Responsibilities"
So why all the fuss in The Media that Dr Vincent Tabak plead not guilty to Murder .. But Guilty to Manslaughter... Which is not the case (imo)..
http://iclr.co.uk/document/2011201901/%5B2011%5D%20EWHC%202074%20(Admin)/html?query=tabak&filter=content-available%3A%22Transcript%22&fullSearchFields=&page=1&sort=relevance&pageSize=10
https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/documents/uploaded-documents/120209_-_The_Defence_of_Diminished_Responsibility.pdf
-
"Diminished responsibility" has not been mentioned in any other context relating to this case, so you are falling into your usual trap of leaping to all sorts of wild conclusions based on the assumption that this document is gospel truth. The most probable explanation is that the lawyer who phrased the sentence made a mistake. The second possibility is that he had access to inside information, that someone at the plea hearing on 5 May uttered the words "diminished responsibility", but that they never got any further in the arraignment.
With the hindsight of the trial in October, we KNOW with 100 percent certainty that Vincent Tabak's guilty plea had to be false, one way or another. If you can't accept the huge wealth of evidence that it was entered by an imposter, then you MUST confront the alternatives, such as hypnotism or the threat of violence.
The trial shows that the police never even had enough evidence even to make him a suspect. If they had done, they would certainly have produced it, since they went to great lengths to call false witnesses for the prosecution. Therefore Vincent Tabak never had a reason to plead anything other than not guilty. The chaplain was put into the witness box to persuade the court the opposite. However, anyone who is not mesmerised by the power of authority knows that nothing the chaplain himself said under oath incriminated the defendant at all. On the contrary, it was Mr Clegg's clever trickery during cross-examination, pretending to incriminate his own client, that showed that all five of them had conspired to deceive the jury.
A secondary reason for relocating to the Old Bailey may have been to make the first application for the bad character evidence without the public hearing about it. Those of you who still believe in the integrity of the criminal justice system MUST conclude that this evidence would have been first discussed at this hearing.
-
leonora.. What i am saying is i find it strange that Dr Vincent Tabak was even mentioned in the context of CJ's case against the papers... Whether or not The Lord Chief Justice divulges incorrect admissions by Dr Vincent Tabak, in my opinion is neither here nor there...
I believe that Dr Vincent Tabak's name should NOT have been mentioned at all in connection of anything to do with CJ in CJ's case...
I have always said I do not believe that Dr Vincent Tabak confessed anything... I still stand by that... But I like to see these documents that have gone before Dr Vincent Tabak's trial... That (IMO) Or prejudicial to Dr Vincent Tabak's trial..
This statement by The Lord Chief Justice is Prejudicial (imo)
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.
Because by saying that he has twice admitted Dr Vincent Tabaks guilt... And on re-reading that as I did.. It is basically saying that Dr Vincent Tabak admitted to Murder..
When we have no evidence that Dr Vincent Tabak admitted to anything...
The pdf is from 5th July 2011 just months before the trial... Everyone had been following CJ's case and him suing the papers... Which in turn means that they would be informed of Dr Vincent Tabak's position just before trial...
leonora.. I am not falling into a trap.. I'm pointing out "WHY" It was even mentioned by The Lord Chief Justice"...
Because (imo) Again... It never should have been !!!!
What needs remembering, is that the jury were selected for Bristol crown Court for the month of October well in advance... many of them may have realised that they could end up on case of Dr Vincent Tabak... Or should I say The Joanna Yeates Case... And read up about the case and CJ's case in July 2011
Anything published in any respect to the case before trial is Prejudicial And especially saying that Dr vincent Tabak is guilty..(imo)
And this from the same document...
There is therefore no doubt about the identity of the man who killed Miss Yeates or that Mr Jefferies is innocent of any involvement in it. By way of emphasis, he is not simply presumed in law to be innocent of the killing.
The Lord Chief Justice has named Dr Vincent Tabak as the man guilty of killing Joanna yeates... And re-emphasises that fact with the above quote..
No doubt The Identity of the man who killed Miss Yeates...
If that isn't prejudicial... I don't know what is ! This is in July... And if anyone accepts he pleaded Guilty to Manslaughter, then they also must realise he could withdrawn that admission.. (imo)
He did not sign his enhanced statement until September 2011...
Edit.. Manslaughter on the Grounds of Diminished Responsibilities can cover a wide range of things...
Diminished responsibility is set out in s.2 of the Homicide Act 1957 as amended by s.52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. To rely on the defence, the defendant must be able to demonstrate the following:
An abnormality of mental functioning caused by a recognised medical condition.
Which provides an explanation for the defendant’s acts or omissions in being party to the killing.
Which substantially impaired his/her mental ability to either:
a) Understand the nature of their conduct or
b) Form a rational judgment or
c) Exercise self–control
That idea of Diminished Responsibilities leaves many questions... That is all leonora ?{)(**
Edit... Also leonora The main problem with The Lord Chief Justice saying that Dr Vincent Tabak is "Guilty"...
Is... Everyone is supposed to be Innocent until "PROVEN" GUILTY" in a court of Law... Not Guilty until proven Guiltier.. I believe I have said this before...
Isn't appearing in court supposed to start with "The Presumption of Innocence"?? No trial had taken place before the statement that The Lord Chief Justice made in CJ's case... Therefore Dr Vincent Tabak cannot be deemed to be guilty...(imo) Or "Responsible"!
http://iclr.co.uk/document/2011201901/%5B2011%5D%20EWHC%202074%20(Admin)/html?query=tabak&filter=content-available%3A%22Transcript%22&fullSearchFields=&page=1&sort=relevance&pageSize=10
http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Diminished-responsibility.php
-
The last thing I will say for now ... Is the Case against Dr Vincent Tabak was a complete balls up, everything we see creates doubt... Everything they omit, creates doubt.. Every time they make statements about him before trial is prejudicial (imo)....Every time we look at Flat 1 44,Canygne Road creates doubt...
The British Justice System must be seeing the brown stuff, when ever this case gets mentioned... They just want to slam the door shut on the whole affair..
But is that the way to go forward?? The Law is the law, and people should be punished according to the law, and if they manage to slip through because of a loop hole or error then that is the responsibility of the persons collecting or presenting the evidence..
If the chain of command and protocol isn't followed, again that is others who are responsible...
We cannot pick and choose how we are going to send someone to prison because we believe that they are guilty, even if we cannot prove that to be the case. We have to maintain the law.. Because we are all expected to abide by it.....
So whether you believe Dr Vincent Tabak Guilty.. Or like me believe he is Innocent.. We should all expect that the law is maintained and followed.. And proof beyond a reasonable doubt is produced at trial to convict the defendant... And not a wishy washy story that doesn't get supported by any evidence in trial, or a defendant whom is not defended by their own council to the best of their ability..
Anyone can tell a story.... Doesn't mean that story is true... !
-
An example of prejudiced public and jury....
SteffieJay
@steffiejayb16
Follow Follow @steffiejayb16
More
I don't understand how #Tabak can claim to be guilty of MANSLAUGHTER if #Yeates did not provoke him? He went out of his way to kill her.
1:36 PM - 11 Oct 2011
See the general public on the 11th October 2011 are all aware of The Manslaughter Plea.... Now what does that say about a jury??
So what happened to The Presumption of Innocence???
Not Guilty until proven Guiltier!
https://twitter.com/steffiejayb16/status/123859475332468736
-
Anyone know what was read out???
Alex Littlewood
@westnewsprod
Follow Follow @westnewsprod
More
Vincent tabak's police interview statements being read out. "I don't know the girls name" when writing about his knowledge of Jo #yeates
3:12 AM - 11 Oct 2011
https://twitter.com/westnewsprod/status/123702549437100032
'No comment'
After Tabak was arrested on 20 January, he was interviewed by detectives from Avon and Somerset Police.
He was first questioned by Det Con Richard Barnston at Trinity Road police station.
The court heard that each interview was under caution but Tabak largely exercised his right to give no comment.
He then gave police a prepared statement where he claimed that he did not know Jo Yeates and he had never spoken to her or her boyfriend Greg Reardon.
"Until her picture was shown prominently in the press I would not have recognised her," he told police.
In a second prepared statement he said he had "no knowledge" of how his DNA allegedly came to be found on Miss Yeates's body and clothing and disputed that it was his DNA.
In his statement, he then claimed evidence may have been leaked to the press from the laboratory for "financial gain".
In another interview, he repeatedly answered "no comment" to police questions including whether he had been invited to Miss Yeates' flat, and whether he had made sexual advances towards her.
The case was adjourned until Wednesday.
Who prepared the statement????
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-15350510
-
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
2nd count of manslaughter attached to indictment today. prosecution have made it clear they wish to have a trial on Murder count. #yeates
2:17 AM - 5 May 2011
If a second count of Manslaughter was added to indictment , then why was it not accepted??
Isn't a second count a totally different offence??
So if count 2 is Manslaughter, who is that the Manslaughter of??
It is the prosecution who make the indictments... So why add it??
Can someone explain how Dr Vincent Tabak could have 2 counts..One for Murder and one for manslaughter ???
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/drafting-indictment
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/66069078548299776
-
The Old Bailey Listing at Court Room 2 from MWT.... the link he has given is now broken...
Mark Williams-ThomasVerified account
@mwilliamsthomas
Following Following @mwilliamsthomas
More
RT @rupertevelyn: Old Bailey list 4 tomorrow Ct 2 plea hearing for Vincent Tabak accused of killing Jo #yeates - http://tinyurl.com/3fb6fv9
1:22 PM - 4 May 2011
https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/65873924977737729
-
Now explain this one???
Rupert Evelyn
@rupertevelyn
Follow Follow @rupertevelyn
More
credit where it is due to @betover68 for breaking the news of Tabak charge way ahead of police annoucement. one to follow.
2:33 PM - 22 Jan 2011
https://twitter.com/rupertevelyn/status/28943342817509376
Samantha
@WirralMg
Follow Follow @WirralMg
More
RT @betover68: Official : Vincent Tabak to be charged with murder of Jo Yeates. Suspect apparantly confessed. Police news conference soon.
11:39 AM - 22 Jan 2011
https://twitter.com/WirralMg/status/28899640413790208
-
The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales:
In these proceedings Her Majesty’s Attorney-General contends that the first defendant, the publisher of the Daily Mirror newspaper, and the second defendant, the publisher of The Sun newspaper, should be committed, or otherwise dealt with for contempt of court. The contempt is said to arise from articles published in the issues of the Daily Mirror dated 31st December 2010 and 1st January 2011 and in the Sun on 1st January 2011 in breach of the strict liability rule as defined in the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (the Act).
This doesn't make sense...
Comment
The findings of strict liability contempt under issue (2) were novel. The Court acknowledged that it was “unusual” for a contempt case to be based on impediment and that the A-G’s argument that witnesses would be deterred from assisting the defence had not previously been subjected to any analysis in the authorities.
It was not entirely clear from the terms of the judgment whether, in respect of either or both newspapers, the Court also found contempt proved under issue (1) above. Both MGN Ltd and News Group Ltd, who have both made applications to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal, have based their appeals on the assumption that the sole or principal finding against them was under issue (2).
How can it be contempt of court??
Strict liability contempt..
Strict Liability Contempt under the Contempt of Court Act 1981
The strict liability rule may render the publication a contempt regardless of any intent to interfere with the course of justice in the proceedings. Refer to The Law, earlier in this guidance, applies:
to publications (including broadcasts , websites and other online or text-based communication) addressed to the public at large or any section of the public;
which create a substantial risk that the course of public justice will be seriously impeded or prejudiced. Risk is judged at the time of publication. The longer the gap between publication and the trial ('the fade factor'), the less the substantial risk of serious prejudice is likely to be;
and only applies to legal proceedings that are "active" at the time of the publication.
"Active" is defined in Schedule 1 Contempt of Court Act 1981 and proceedings are active if a summons has been issued or a defendant arrested without warrant. Where a warrant has been issued, proceedings cease to be active once twelve months' have elapsed without the suspect's arrest, and where there has been an arrest when the suspect is released without charge otherwise than on bail.
Proceedings also cease to be active where they conclude by, inter alia, acquittal/sentence, any other order bringing proceedings to an end, or by discontinuance/operation of law.
Note: Common law contempt may be committed where proceedings are pending or imminent (albeit not necessarily active for the purposes of the 1981 Act), and where there is actual intent to interfere with the administration of justice in those proceedings.
We need it to be active, for it to be active someone needs to be arrested etc.. etc...
The issue with the media of the time should have been that of libel and not a contempt of court issue...
Especially as the proceedings take place some 3 months after CJ is released from bail... Therefore he has NO link to the case, he as the Attorney General has stated a completely innocent man...
Therefore how can whatever was printed at the time of his arrest be strict liability contempt ? He is not the defendant.... He was never going to be the defendant... he was exonerated... How he was exonerated is another matter for discussion...
Provided the proceedings are “active” (and in this case it is not in dispute that at the date of each publication the proceedings against Mr Jefferies were indeed “active”) section 2(2) applies. This provides:
“The strict liability rule applies only to a publication which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced.”
The Strict Liability Rule... Doesn't make sense in this case... As it didn't affect the outcome of a case that hadn't even reached trial in July 2011 and didn't apply to CJ as he was exonerated.. How did they manage to apply it to the papers some months later??
Libelous yes... But not "The Strict Liability Rule..." No contempt of court took place... No hinderance to the trial took place... CJ wasn't even called as a witness...
So how did they apply "The Strict Liability Rule"?? It doesn't make sense to me ...
inter alia, acquittal/sentence
Amongst other things CJ was exonerated in this case... So The papers didn't interfere with a Defendant... What had the papers published that covered 'The Strict Liability Rule"?? It cannot be anything to do with the Joanna Yeates case ...(imo) Because CJ was found Innocent of that Crime..
Two newspapers were in contempt of court when they published articles about the arrest of a man over the killing of Joanna Yeates, the Attorney General claimed yesterday.
How could they be in contempt of court????
The Court acknowledged that it was “unusual” for a contempt case to be based on impediment The Court acknowledged that it was “unusual” for a contempt case to be based on impediment
How could publishing about CJ have been an impediment to the case ?? How could that prejudice the case.. As at The time of The Attorney General's judgement, CJ was...
(A): Not a suspect
(B): Deemed completely Innocent/exonerated.
I find it extremely frustrating that No-one will talk about this case... I cannot understand why Journalists whom are not that daft, refuse to make comment on obvious protocol lapses in this case.... I have pointed out many discrepencies with Dr Vincent Tabak's trial...
And... The only reason I believe that they do not say anything about the obvious.. Is that For the purposes of the Act proceedings against ??? were active.
Is there still active proceedings in regard to this case?? Not against CJ... But I am asking if the reason that no-one will say anything in relation to The Joanna Yeates case and Dr Vincent Tabak...
"Is For the purposes of the Act proceedings against someone still active."????
I'm bemused... As I keep saying nothing makes sense... If It was not "Active" then why The Contempt of court ruling?? He was no longer on bail... he was described as totally Innocent ...Yet they found the papers to be in contempt of Court?? How was that possible when it had no impact on The Trial... They hadn't even applied the "fade factor"
The longer the gap between publication and the trial ('the fade factor'), the less the substantial risk of serious prejudice is likely to be;
Not only that CJ was never going to trial on this issue!!
Just because "the Attorney General" has said that it is Subjudice doesn't make it so...(imo)... It can only be prejudicial.. If the person named in such article, is the actual Defendant in this trial.... Otherwise, it is libel... plain and simple...(imo)
The legal test
In short, once legal proceedings become "active", it is a criminal offence for media organisations to broadcast material which would create "a substantial risk of serious prejudice" to the proceedings. Criminal proceedings become "active" as soon as one of the following has occurred: a person is arrested, a warrant for arrest is issued, a summons has been issued, or a person has been charged, and they remain so until such time as the accused has been acquitted or convicted. Civil proceedings, for example libel proceedings or proceedings for misuse of private information, become active when the hearing date for the trial is arranged and, in Scotland, when the record (written case) is closed.
The media and CJ fail this test...
Criminal proceedings become "active" as soon as one of the following has occurred: a person is arrested, a warrant for arrest is issued, a summons has been issued, or a person has been charged, and they remain so until such time as the accused has been acquitted or convicted.
He didn't get as far as trial... he was exonerated and therefore, there would be NO acquittal or conviction, Therefore No contempt of court...(imo)
Now no contempt of court proceeding were brought in relation to saying that Dr Vincent Tabak had plead guilty to "manslaughter"... No time for a fade factor there... Everyone was reminded daily of this apparent fact...
So why didn't the contempt of court ruling apply to Dr Vincent Tabak's case ???
I may have this wrong... But I don't believe so... can someone explain if I have got this wrong please...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011462/Sun-Daily-Mirror-contempt-court-Joanna-Yeates-murder-articles.html
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/contempt-court-and-reporting-restrictions
http://www.5rb.com/case/attorney-general-v-1-mgn-limited-2-news-group-newspapers-ltd/
http://iclr.co.uk/document/2011201901/%5B2011%5D%20EWHC%202074%20(Admin)/html?query=tabak&filter=content-available%3A%22Transcript%22&fullSearchFields=&page=1&sort=relevance&pageSize=10
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Quote from the above post:
Criminal proceedings become "active" as soon as one of the following has occurred: a person is arrested, a warrant for arrest is issued, a summons has been issued, or a person has been charged, and they remain so until such time as the accused has been acquitted or convicted.
Everyone steers clear of Dr Vincent Tabak... Everyone steers clear of talking about the Joanna Yeates case, When I have stated the obvious, still no-one will support anything I have said, or will maybe state that the protocols were not followed or even with the image of the tiles being painted...They would rather Pretend that I must be having a vision and imagining such details... When it's Blatantly Obvious that after Joanna Yeates death The tiles in the kitchen window sill were painted, and can been seen to have been painted with the 2 different images I have always used to illustrate this point....
But whilst looking at what I posted above.. I began to wonder if there was possibly an outstanding warrant? And an outstanding warrant that hasn't been served as yet,(or is on hold) but would therefore make any reference to this case, prejudicial..
There has to be something legal in place for an entire media to keep quiet, so long and at the time of Dr Vincent Tabak's trial......Were even when the media had visited Flat 1 44, Canygne Road Bristol, they didn't point out once what they had witnessed there, in terms of lack of protocol.. Bob The Builder doing a bad job... Forensic gloves ripped and wiping noses...A Flat that has been staged.... So many examples of failure to follow protocol.. Yet they appear to turn a blind eye to this...
Is the case still being Investigated?? It is not as daft as it may appear...
From the CPS.Gov
The Police will provide the CPS the results of their enquiries. This will include a list of warrants that they think should be withdrawn, and a list of warrants that they think should continue in force, providing reasons in each case.
CPS prosecutors will review the substantive offences in accordance with the Full Code Test of the Code for Crown Prosecutors, i.e. the evidential and public interest stages. They must bear in mind that mere lapse of time does not itself mean that either of these stages can no longer be satisfied.
When I was asked if I believed that you couldn't have so many people involved in such a deception, the answer is "Yes" you could... They being the media, would not be able to speak about the case, if a warrant was still in force...
So is it down to the CPS?? The Police?? What has stopped the real truth of this case ever being made public?/ And why when we have so many Investigative Journalists around , do they not question any discrepancies in this case??
It should realistically be an amazing opportunity for such Journalists, who have knowledge of crime and law and could in effect get their teeth right into this mystery that is "The Joanna Yeates Case"!!!!
So maybe the question needs to be...
Are there any outstanding warrants for anyone in The Joanna Yeates Murder Investigation???
Or should I say "Operation Braid"???Or something that would put the media in contempt of court if they ever spoke about the case.... Other than to repeat the narrative.. That Dr Vincent Tabak is a killer!!
Edit.. Of course this is theoretical from my perspective, I was trying to see if it was a possibility, and I believe it is... That also might add weight to me once being told that this was a "Cold Case"!!
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/withdrawal-warrants