Author Topic: The Defence Will State Their Case  (Read 2488 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Nine.. Again

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #150 on: May 28, 2017, 02:58:58 PM »
Has it never been proved that VT bought crisps, beer and rock salt in ASDA then?  Surely, if he was under suspicion of having killed someone and having the body of that person in the boot of his car, I would have thought the police would have been very interested in proving exactly what he bought at ASDA.


I have attached images of him leaving ASDA's ...Or should I say images of someone leaving ASDA's... You need to keep freeze framing the video I have linked below... To see what I mean... This video show what is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak's 2 visits to ASDA.. which were supposed to be within minutes of each other... one his first vistit he is wearing all "Black".. and on his second visit... he is wearing a "RED" top... I also believe the picture in the "RED" top of a man who is supposed to be Dr Vincent Tabak.. walking down the "Aisles"... appears to have developed stubble.....

So when you see this gentleman from behind as he leaves on two occasions... he appears greyer on the first time he leaves than on the second time he leaves with shopping.....

This reminded me when I have been shopping with my husband... And over many a year he has been chased up and around an Aisle.. when someone has mistaken him for John Barnes.... The latest mis-identification they believe him to be is "Will I Am"... which amuses me... And I find it hard to contain my laughter at this ....

But on a more serious NOTE... "The man in ASDA may look like Dr Vincent Tabak... But Is It Dr Vincent Tabak????

The Man leaving ASDA with shopping... has a carrier bag..plus a longer item tucked under his arm... I am presuming they are saying that this item is the "Rock Salt"....




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8818883/Jo-Yeates-trial-Vincent-Tabak-caught-on-CCTV-during-Asda-visit.html

Offline mrswah

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #151 on: May 30, 2017, 08:42:09 PM »
I believe some barristers do both prosecution and defence work----could be wrong (or rather, my hubby, the retired lawyer could be wrong)!!!

I would love to know why VT's lawyers changed so many times. Is it because he was on legal aid? Is it a matter of which lawyer is free at the right time? Or is it more "complex" than that?????

Offline Nine.. Again

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #152 on: June 06, 2017, 12:47:44 PM »
The fact That Dr Vincent Tabak appeared at "The Old Bailey".. has baffled me.. I cannot understand why this would be the case...

I was looking at "The Old Baileys" website to see if I could find an explanation as to "WHY" Dr Vincent Tabak's case would even be heard there and I got even more puzzling answers..

The major problem here is the court that Dr Vincent Tabak appeared in via video link....

Court 2..... Now this is a special court and in No Way should Dr Vincent Tabak appeared here whether in person or via video link...

Quote
Court Two is the high-security court, and terrorist trials and the like often take place here.

What was it about Dr Vincent Tabak that he appeared in COURT 2 at "The Old Bailey"??? he was hardly a threat as he was seen via video link... so why COURT2 ??

Back to a simple murder case... which for all intense and purposes it was .... So why COURT 2..??

The 'Shock and Horror " at his guilty plea should be the last of peoples concerns... more to the point is why "Court 2"??

Was this to seal in the minds of other Authorities that Dr Vincent Tabak was indeed involved in something So Heinous... So Appalling.... That "The Head Of the Complex Case Unit" was also involved and if Dr Vincent Tabak was not a man of unsavioury character , he would not have found himself in COURT 2...

Is this the reason that "The Dutch Authorities never asked questions... did they think he was involved in "Terrorism"? Did Ann Reddrop have people believe that Dr Vincent Tabak was an extremely 'DANGEROUS MAN"!!

Court 2 is shrouded in "Mystery" and I find it difficult to see cases that have been heard there......  So why The Special Treatment of Dr Vincent Tabak.. so as to have him appear in the most special court in the land ???

Quote
Miss Yeates’s parents, David and Teresa, were in Court 2 of the Old Bailey to witness Tabak – who was appearing by videolink from Long Lartin prison where he is on remand – admit to killing their 25-year-old daughter.

Maybe there was pressure from "The Dutch Authorities".. wanting to know about Dr Vincent Tabak... and by sending him to "COURT 2" and explaining "WHO" and what type of criminal ends up in "COURT 2" "The Dutch Authorities "were satisfied with the explanation...(IMO)..


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8496027/Dutch-engineer-Vincent-Tabak-admits-I-did-kill-Jo-Yeates.html

https://old-bailey.com/visiting-the-old-bailey/
« Last Edit: June 12, 2017, 10:47:38 PM by John »

Offline Nine.. Again

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #153 on: June 13, 2017, 03:57:04 PM »
Why did 'The Master Defender"... let Dr Vincent Tabak down so badly????

When his reputation only in an Interview a year before had gone to extraordinary lengths to "Defend"


Quote taken from PDF I have attached ...

Quote
One of the most fascinating periods in
Clegg’s career was when he defended two
men – Anthony Sawoniuk and Szymon
Serannowicz – accused of murdering Jews,
under the orders of the Nazis, in World War
Two. The cases were brought under the War
Crimes Act of 1991 and, in the case of
Sawoniuk, Clegg requested that the court
should decamp from the Old Bailey to
Damachava, Belorussia, scene of the alleged
crime.
“I told the court Sawoniuk couldn’t have
a fair trial unless the jury were able to look
and see for themselves the actual
environment. In addition we had to take
evidence by video from witnesses who were
too ill or too old to travel to England.
“It was quite a surreal experience. I
remember quite literally walking through
knee-high snow to a cottage in pitch dark,
hammering on the door and going in with
cameras and taking evidence from this old
woman who was sitting in front of a fire
with a cat on her lap, about things that had
happened 60 years before.”
Sawoniuk, a retired British Rail ticket
inspector, was found guilty of the murder
of 18 Jews in his homeland and given two
life sentences: he is the first and only
person in the UK to be convicted under the
1991 act. The case of Serannowicz collapsed
after Clegg successfully argued he was
mentally unfit to plead.

"WHY" wasn't The witness statements for the "Prosecution" "Video Taped" to play in Court"!!!! Instead of too many written "WITNESS" Statements that were read out to "The Jury"?????

I wonder if this was in Court 2 of "The Old Bailey??

Quote
Sawoniuk, Clegg requested that the court
should decamp from the Old Bailey to
Damachava, Belorussia, scene of the alleged
crime.

Funny that Clegg was against the 'Trial being held in Winchester because it would be difficult for 'The Jury "to travel"!!!

Quote
Prosecutors asked for his trial to be held at Winchester over fears local publicity could affect proceedings.

The bid was opposed by Tabak’s barrister William Clegg QC and rejected by Judge Mr Justice Field.


And:..
Quote
Prosecutors had wanted the case to be transferred to Winchester but this was rejected by the judge.

Jurors are due to visit Miss Yeates's flat during the trial and hearing the case at Winchester could have caused travel difficulties. Tabak would also have faced a longer journey to court each day from his prison. The judge remanded him in custody pending his next appearance in court in July.

Did you ask Dr Vincent Tabak if he minded Travelling???

"WHY" not Go "Above and Beyond" for Dr Vincent Tabak "???
"WHY" just fold his hand???
"WHY" "Disrespect His Client" and call him all the names under The Sun??

Why Didn't Clegg.. Put on the performance of a life time to show that Dr Vincent Tabak could not have had the time to KILL Joanna Yeates.. "The CCTV " evidence could help to prove this...
"WHY" didn't Clegg call any medical professional.. That had assessed Dr Vincent Tabak "Mental Health" to the stand...
"WHY" didn't Clegg have any "Good Character Witness's for Dr Vincent Tabak"....
 WHY"  Didn't Clegg Object when "The Yeates family appeared at The Hearing at The Old Bailey in May 2011... as he may have needed to call them as witness's later on in the trial in "October 2011"..

And finally ..."WHY" does it appear that Clegg did everything in his power "NOT to help his client????
(IMO)....



http://portal.nasstar.com/3/Files/Articles/PDF/Article%20-%2014th%20April%2009%20AP.pdf

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jo-yeates-neighbour-vincent-tabak-126826

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/i-killed-joanna-yeates-vincent-tabak-pleads-guilty-to-manslaughter-6398430.html
« Last Edit: June 13, 2017, 04:20:12 PM by Nine.. Again »

Offline Nine.. Again

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #154 on: June 13, 2017, 05:05:28 PM »
Just to add to the above post from the same PDF....

Quote
Clegg works in a profession often
perceived as pompous. He’s quite the
opposite – and if you ever got into serious
trouble, you’d value his calm, down-to-earth
character and supremely logical, reasoned
approach as you faced the jury.

Now if i hadn't read this in Black and White I May have been mistaken them for.. "Interviewing" a completely different person..
Other Than William Clegg QC..

I do not remember him ever showing his "Calm Down to Earth Character" At Dr Vincent Tabak's Trial... When Dr Vincent Tabak was "Clearly" in "Serious Trouble"... As He Sat Sobbing In The Dock!!

As for his "Supremely Logical Reasoned Approach as Dr Vincent Tabak faced a "jury" I cannot remember this either...

Or did I mistake...  These "Unkind Words" as a "Source" of Support for his Client...

1:  His conduct after Yeates died when he hid the body was “frankly disgusting” and had caused untold anguish and agony to her family.

2:  “I’m not going to ask you to like Vincent Tabak. There’s probably nothing to like.”

3:   And Miss Morson seems to agree, having failed to make a single  appearance at court.

4:  He had told “lie after lie to the police.

5: “Did everything he could to cover his tracks”.

6: He added that he would not try to justify Tabak’s actions after her death, saying his client was “living a lie” by
    attending dinner parties and attempting to carry on his life as normal.

7:  “I’m not going to ask you to have any sympathy for him. He deserves none.

8: “I’m not going to ask you to excuse his conduct. There can be no excuse.

9: “If I was to set out to win a popularity contest I would lose.

10: He told the court: “Of course, afterwards his behaviour is utterly disgraceful. It’s not going to be justified by me


"Ten Statements" That he so "Lovingly" used to help with his  "Supremely Logical Reasoned Approach That "The Jury"... (IMO)... might have mistaken for "Total Disregard" of his Own Clients Defence.... And on these words from "The Defence... Happily convicted Dr Vincent Tabak of This Crime"... Knowing that even Dr Vincent Tabak's own Defence Council.. didn't have a "GOOD WORD TO SAY ABOUT HIM"..!! (IMO)..

http://portal.nasstar.com/3/Files/Articles/PDF/Article%20-%2014th%20April%2009%20AP.pdf

Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #155 on: June 13, 2017, 05:11:36 PM »
...Did you ask Dr Vincent Tabak if he minded Travelling???
...
He did actually! At the "defence hearing" on 7th September 2011 (at which VT wasn't seen at all, even by video-link), "Mr Clegg also asked whether it would be possible to house his client at Bristol Prison for the trial, rather than putting him through a four-hour daily round trip back and forth from Long Lartin jail, in Worcestershire, where he is currently in custody". The response he got to this application was not reported.

Offline Nine.. Again

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #156 on: June 15, 2017, 06:27:45 AM »
He did actually! At the "defence hearing" on 7th September 2011 (at which VT wasn't seen at all, even by video-link), "Mr Clegg also asked whether it would be possible to house his client at Bristol Prison for the trial, rather than putting him through a four-hour daily round trip back and forth from Long Lartin jail, in Worcestershire, where he is currently in custody". The response he got to this application was not reported.

I can't find anything on this leonora... have you a link or something?

Offline mrswah

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #157 on: June 15, 2017, 08:49:52 AM »
I can't find anything on this leonora... have you a link or something?

I can't find the link either, but I do remember either hearing about this on the news, or reading about it in the newspaper at the time.

Offline Nine.. Again

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #158 on: June 15, 2017, 02:54:02 PM »
After discovering in "The Independant Newspaper .... that Joanna Yeates had her T-Shirt... pulled over her head when she was found ...

Quote
Post-mortem examination pictures showed her lying on her right side with her jeans still intact but her pink top pulled up over her head, exposing her navel and her grey bra.
Her right arm was bent around her head while her left was resting straight across her body.
A picture of her right foot with the sock removed was also shown.


I know question the "Prepared Statement" that Dr Vincent Tabak signed in September 2011....

"The Prosecution had kept plenty of Evidence to themselves (IMO)... The 1300 page Document being just one...

So why would they let "The Defence" know that Joanna Yeates was found with her T-Shirt over her head ???

I don't believe they would ,...(IMO).... And this is why (IMO)... Dr Vincent Tabak or The Defence don't ever mention in court that...Joanna Yeates T-Shirt was pulled up over her head ... They Know her Bra and stomach are exposed ... And come to an explanation for this occuring... By saying Dr Vincent Tabak was  trying to put Joanna Yeates over the wall... but i don't believe that would end up with her head being covered by her T-Shirt....(IMO..

I honestly can't see that the Prosecution letting those images be seen by the defence... As their delayed inclusion of the 1300 page Document goes to support this .... (IMO)..

So... What is the Explanation NOW???

If it hadn't been for Dr Delaney describing how Joanna Yeates body was and her clothing position on her being found... we all might still think her T_Shirt was pulled up to expose her Bra...

And this is what "The Prosecution" have always wanted everyone to think (IMO).... because when you start talking covering a person face... You are more than likely "Talking about someone who knew Joanna Yeates"... And didn't want her looking back at them anymore ...... (IMO)...!!!!


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/killer-weeps-over-images-of-joanna-yeates-body-2370602.html

Offline Nine.. Again

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #159 on: June 15, 2017, 03:38:24 PM »
With the information from 'The Independent Newspaper"  Whilst they were reporting the "Trail Taking Place on Friday 14 October 2011 15:57 BST (date of Article )...

I'm now wondering if the original reports by the "Police " was That Joanna Yeates had been there for only a few days  is actually correct...

(A):Her being in the "Foetal Position...

(B): Her T-Shirt over her head

(C): Her arm wrapped around her head

(D): Her lying on her Right Side...

(E): Her left arm across her stomach...

Suggests to me that she was put there in that position... maybe with Rigor Mortis having taken place and Rigor Moris having Finished...  Freezing her in a position that she was found in...

If I believe "The Killer Covered her face when he/she  as not to have her looking back at them... This also goes with her being put on her "Right Side"...

Making sure they did not have to look at her....

But also in my belief... she was dead days before she was left there ...

All the disguising of her identity is done after she is dead .... And I personally believe that was because who ever killed her knew her very well... And they couldn't bare to see her .. even when she was covered in leaves ... she was covered with her back facing them and "NOT Her Front.... (IMO)...

I envisage someone.. pulling her T-shirt above her head... And placing her Right arm on top....  Putting her in The Foetal Position and finally putting her left arm across her body... To make her look as small as possible.... Then the leaves can cover her up.... and hopefully she won't be discovered too quickly...




Offline mrswah

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #160 on: June 15, 2017, 05:30:49 PM »
Hm---interesting. There has always been speculation about exactly how long JY's body had been in Longwood Lane.

Offline Leonora

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #161 on: June 18, 2017, 12:57:10 PM »
I can't find anything on this leonora... have you a link or something?
This hearing on 7th September 2011 was reported ONLY in the Bath Chronicle. This is odd, as it marked the occasion when the Defence announced that the accused would supply an "enhanced statement" describing when Joanna was killed. how much force was used, and how her body came to end up in Longwood Lane. The link was:
http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/Court-hear-Bath-engineer-killed-neighbour/story-13290060-detail/story.html
but, like so many other detailed reports of the case, it is no longer accessible. Sinister, eh?

Offline Nine.. Again

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #162 on: June 18, 2017, 03:19:39 PM »
This hearing on 7th September 2011 was reported ONLY in the Bath Chronicle. This is odd, as it marked the occasion when the Defence announced that the accused would supply an "enhanced statement" describing when Joanna was killed. how much force was used, and how her body came to end up in Longwood Lane. The link was:
http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/Court-hear-Bath-engineer-killed-neighbour/story-13290060-detail/story.html
but, like so many other detailed reports of the case, it is no longer accessible. Sinister, eh?

That's appalling.... I screenshot many articles now because they remove them....  I'd say ...."WHY" do they remove them... But I think the answer is obvious.....

If they have nothing to hide... It all should be all there still... (IMO)...