Part 1......
Ok... I can't get out of my head "This Manslaughter Plea"....
It won't leave me!!!
lets start with some basics.... Mainly the searches... "The Searches make out Dr Vincent Tabak was looking up laws on Manslaughter on wiki... :The Font of ALL Knowledge... apparently..
But realistically... it wouldn't explain sentencing and what you are likely to get for various crimes that come under 'A Manslaughter Plea"...
Manslaughter
1. Manslaughter is often described as one of the most difficult categories
of case in which to sentence because, as Kerr LCJ observed in Magee,
“offences of manslaughter typically cover a wide factual spectrum”, and the
spectrum ranges from cases which are little more than a tragic accident to
those which are barely distinguishable from murder. From the guidelines
decisions, and decisions at first instance, for sentencing purposes
manslaughter cases can be identified as falling within one of seven broad sub
-categories.
(i) Cases involving substantial violence to the victim. Whilst sentences
range from 6 years on a plea to 14 years on a contest, pleas in cases at
the upper end of the spectrum attract sentences of 10 to 12 years, with
sentences of 12 years being common. Sentences of 6 to 8 years tend to
be reserved for cases where there are strong mitigating personal
factors, or the defendant was not a principal offender.
(ii) Diminished responsibility. Where the defendant was suffering from
diminished responsibility at the time of the offence, and his psychiatric
history shows that he may continue to be a danger to members of the
public in future, sentences of life imprisonment with a minimum term
of 5 to 6 years are almost always imposed, although in one case
(Murray) a minimum term of 12 years was imposed.
(iii) In terrorist cases where the defendant was a secondary party, in two
cases 8 years imprisonment was imposed and 5 years was imposed in
the third.
(iv) Domestic disputes where there may have been an element of violence
and/or provocation by the deceased. In almost every case the
defendant resorted to a knife to stab the deceased. On a plea sentences
range from 4 to 7 years, with the majority attracting sentences of 5
years.
(v) “Single punch” cases. Sentences range between 2 and 5 ½ years, with
sentences of 4 to 5 years reserved for cases where there are many
aggravating factors and few mitigating factors.
(vi) Negligence or “unlawful act”. This residual category encompasses a
wide range of different factual circumstances, sentences range from 1
to 4 years, although in one case (Coyle) the Court of Appeal considered
that the sentence should have been one of 5 to 6 years imprisonment,
but reduced it to 4 to take account of double jeopardy.
(vii) “Corporate manslaughter” involves the failure by a company to meet
its duty of care to ensure the safety of its employees, and may overlap
with cases involving offences under health and safety legislation where
death occurs.
Looking at those guidelines how on earth would Dr Vincent Tabak know pleading to a "Manslaughter Charge" would be his best option... unless advised to do so... And if advise to do so which "Manslaughter" did he plead guilty too???
Wiki... will not give Dr Vincent Tabak this information.... It now tells you different types of Manslaughter... But not what type of sentence you may get...
How does a Dutch National understand English Law not only that.... be on top of English Law making sure that no new laws have been applied and understand that if he plead "Guilty To Manslaughter" In English Law.. He would be out of prison in a matter of years ???
You see I keep going back to that sentencing... And what would have happened If Dr Vincent Tabak had
NOT been found GUILTY OF MURDER.... And the only possible other option I could come up with... Is 'Joint enterprise.. Or.. Secondary Party....
And as an accomplice or "Secondary Party" unless he was convicted of "Joint Enterprise" and charged as thus...
Hang on a minute... I might be about to give Jixy a kiss.... "Jogee" now thats a word to cunjour with... And if i am on the right track i may be able to shed light not only on Dr Vincent Tabk's Plea... But... him saying that he was responsible... !!!
Looks like this will be in parts... sorry guys....
Lets go back to the begining with CJ... And i am not going to apologise... because CJ's videoed interview were he states that the Police had thought that he and Dr Vincent Tabak had colluded.... Now... I think that "This" (sorry leonora) Is the important statement.... (IMO)...
You have right up until March 2011 when CJ eventually gets released on bail.... And the Police always talking about this case in terms of "Killers".... `What did they originally charge Dr Vincent Tabak with and more importantly... was it as an
"Accomplice"..... ..
This I believe is probably the most IMPORTANT aspect of the Case for Dr Vincent Tabak if I am on the right track...
If he was charged as an Accomplice... Normally he would be charged under "Joint Enterprise"... Thus giving him the same sentence as the original perperteter for the same crime...
But... They could "NOT" go to court with that Charge.... (IMO)... Because.... Dr Vincent Tabak as an Accomplice... would have been tried as an Accomplice.... (or Joint Enterprise)... Allowing us all to know that the was not
Responsible But they wanted someone to pay... (IMO)...
And lets not forget.... `Dr Vincent Tabak at NO POINT admits to killing Joanna Yeates... The most we get from him..Is that...
He says he is ResponsibleSO... as we can see all sorts of magician tricks have been used thus far... Did they Charge him Or suggest to him that he would be classed as a "Secondary Party"???
Question... Could they change the "charge" or do they even need to Mention the charge at Trial.. When someone has already admitted to "Manslaughter"?? Negating the possible original charge .. that Dr Vincent Tabak was charged with when they arrested him???? Or to put it simply.. because Dr Vincent Tabak has pleaded "Guilty To Manslaughter " at The Old Bailey".. Do they simply state that Dr Vincent Tabak;s "NOW charge is The Charge of MURDER.. If you follow my drift...!! Basically... His first charge was "Accomplice.. or Joint Enterprise... Then because he pleaded "Guilt To Manslaughter " at The Old Bailey... when they come to trial.. "The Charge Is that of "MURDER"!!!!
D2 Unaware of the Details
In order to be fully implicated in D1’s crime D2 need not have known exactly what D1 was going to do. D1 was intending to commit a terrorist act, to harm innocent people, and D2 agreed to drive him there. It cannot matter that D2 was unclear whether D1 was going to shoot the victims or blow them up, the means were of no consequence in terms of the culpability of D2.
This quote is an example of "Secondary Party".... But lets apply this "Secondary Party" to Dr Vincent Tabak...
We have to concede to what Dr Vincent tabak may have done that he wasn't aware he did ... which could be construed as"A Secondary Party Act"... Which without knowing or understanding English Law... would make him
Responsible....
Come on people... He's a "DUTCH" National... hasn't a cat in hell's chance of understanding English Law... With or Without "Wiki"'s vast knowledge ... (Um)..
So... let me get back to this ....
Literally... How do you get 'A Placid Dutchman" to admit to anything... when you know so far he has not said a word??
Give him "Options"... We do not know what was said in Court Room 2 of The Old Bailey... Even though we know that it's use was highly irregular... So... just as they use a bit of licence with Dr Vincent Tabak... I am doing the same ...
Going back to "responsibility"... The only act that we all are aware that Dr Vincent Tabak did that was made public... was help CJ move his car......
Simple ... Innocent enough.... But marry that with the pressure put on this Placid Dutchman... And the Polices Insistence that CJ and Dr Vincent Tabak had colluded... you then have :
A Secondary party... Responsible..For The actions of The supposed First Party...
By implying to Dr Vincent Tabak he had assisted CJ.. They could quite easily have shown him by "English Law".. He was :"RESPONSIBLE" In assisting an offender... Remember the Police... had already told everyone that they had Interviewed "someone " whom went across .. Clifton Suspension Bridge"... And until they had Dr Vincent Tabak in their sights...... The 18th December 2011.. was the important date.... because it had snowed.... And they originally believed that 'The Killer" had gone across.. Clifton Suspension Bridge on the 18th December 2010...
So... we have Dr Vincent Tabak... "The Placid Dutchman"... feeling responsible because if he had assisted CJ.. move his car from the drive.... Thus being responsible for where Joanna Yeates would be found...
I'm not going to keep repeating this... I AM NOT IMPLYING ANYTHING ABOUT CJ... But... it makes good sense... Because Dr Vincent Tabak has NO IDEA ABOUT ENGLISH LAW... They could have told him anything... He was never to know ...
So... Back to The Manslaughter.... So if we see Dr Vincent Tabak as a "Secondary Party"
N.B Unbeknown to Jixy... It was a conversation about "The Jogee" ruling that reminded me about Joint Enterprise... And in no way did Jixy point me to my conclusions....