The Defence Will State Their Case

[Nicholas]

From your posts you seem to have failed to grasp the concept of him pleading guilty and how a trial would work from that. You have posted many examples that you dont understand it!

Right he has looked at porn and included in that is holding a womans neck and being tied up in the boot of a car

She had her neck held, she died and was put in the boot of the car, with blood to prove it

What the sexual element to those scenarios was, we cannot debate because we havent seen the porn he was so keen to look at both at home and work. He was classed as dangerous, which is fully understandable

How do you know how much attention he gave Jo up to that night?

It appears to be a defence mechanism?

"Denial is a defence mechanism in which a person, faced with a painful fact, rejects the reality of that fact. They will insist that the fact is not true despite what may be overwhelming and irrefutable evidence."

[jixy]

It must be.

There is a lot of cherry picking certain words and making whole new scenarios out of them.

The link Nine posted highlights again, how Tabak was actually treated far more fairly than Nine will ever admit. The porn stuff wasnt brought to court, Nine sees that as there not being one. It wasnt - purely because it could not prove that the offence was premeditated

I think that is someone being fairly treated myself

Same as the time he was on suicide watch. That is always referred to as another method to break him when anyone else would see care and concern

Very strange indeed!

[Nicholas]

After Dr Vincent Tabak was arrested, there were many questions people had be speculating about hoping for the answers to come out at trial... I being one of them..

One of the major issues I had with the trial and what also started me to really question Dr Vincent Tabak guilt was the distain the defence Counsel had for their own client.. It concerned me greatly..

How can they influence a jury as to the guilt of their own client rather than show mitigating circumstances as to why it was a Manslaughter plea Or Object at the many discrepencies that the prosecutions case posed.

There are many examples of the lack of Defending the Defence council did (IMO) below are some of the comments...



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.” He could have referred to his client as a psychopath

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. He could have referred to his client as a pathological liar

5: “did everything he could to cover his tracks”. He could have stated his client was cunning and deceptive

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. He could have said his client appeared to be without a conscience

7:  “I’m not going to ask you to have any sympathy for him. He deserves none. He could have referred to his client as evil

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



With comments like these who needs enemies???? (IMO)


1810

VT put forward his own "mitigating circumstances" when he took the stand, the jury didn't believe him!

It seems his defending council did the best he could do given his clients guilty plea to manslaughter.

[justsaying]

Just answering a couple of Nine's questions...

It is a massive difference I agree... Could you tell me how you know that he only said the car had moved, and nothing else???

"During the investigation he had told investigators that his landlords (Volvo) vehicle had moved during the night of the murder..."

https://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Vincent-Tabak-7570-1.law

No mention of him claiming to have helped the landlord. If he had phoned police to tell them he had helped move the car what use would that have been? He would have clearly been giving the landlord an alibi for why the car was moved. He clearly left out that crucial part...

How exactly... Because a judge decided that the evidence that wasn't presented at trial, proved it was a sexually motivated assault??

“The judge agreed with defence counsel that disclosure of his internet use following his victim's death was not proof that the crime was premeditated...”

https://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Vincent-Tabak-7570-1.law

For  the judge not being very fair, it seemed he was more than fair here. Just because he did not allow the jury to hear this evidence does not mean he could not use it during his sentencing to suggest the crime was of a sexual nature – it was an aggravating factor.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/item/aggravating-and-mitigating-factors/

[jixy]

The posts today make the case very clear against Tabak. Some of the points havent been mentioned before and I guess that they just add to the list   that confirms his guilt

[jixy]

My mistake, It appears that The law Pages haven't removed said page...  have relocated it

https://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Vincent-Tabak-7570-1.law

I am still confused as to how you posted this link as a positive ? the only positive is confirmation of a fair trial

[justsaying]

I am still confused as to how you posted this link as a positive ? the only positive is confirmation of a fair trial

I agree, it proves the judge was very fair when considering the case for Tabak.

[jixy]

Some people see what they want to see. I cannot read that and take away that the murder was not sexually motivated. It is an explanation as to why it wasnt used end of.

[[...]]

The video: Countdown to Murder :4:00

David Yeates:

He took away Jo's primary human right... How can you forgive somebody for that... I do not understand

I've been trying to find the clip where Therea Yeates says a similar comment, of: "How can you forgive someone".. I clearly remember seeing the interview and have spent the last hour, skimming the video's available....

But............ They made me think of something entirely differently... These programs were supposed to be made "AFTER" the trial... They are all a rehash of each other virtually... The dates of release may change, but the content and interviews are the same...

I keep going on about how the media haven't said anything after trial... I had believed that the media had been gagged... If I stay with my belief, ....Then we have a problem 'Huston'..........

Maybe I should forgive the media.... I have been frustrated at the fact that they won't speak... I have been frustrated at the fact that nothing changes..... Yes we have had 'The Lost Honour of CJ' since, but that really doesn't talk about Jonna Yeates at all.... It is all about CJ.... made after the trial..

I couldn't understand why CJ in this story never talks of Vincent Tabak... we have a couple of scenes with Vincent Tabak in, but nothing of The Yeates  or anything else....

I could be getting this wrong, but I am not sure...

The person really whim stood out in the documentaries is in fact Ann Reddrop..... Now we know that no-one from the judicary have spoken at all upon this case since the trial.... The are zipped lips...

So my confusion of Ann's appearance makes it an even more interesting venture....

Is this the Eureka moment..... I don't know....

In my mind these programs have had to have been filmed before the trial.....  with the exception of "The Lost Honour of CJ'....

Now I am not pointing fingers, but am going with what should be a logical conclusion.... based on the belief that  the media and all laywers etc, have stayed silent since the trial of Vincent Tabak... The information in the media never changes... It repeats what happened at the time...

We have I will say , the narrative, we had a trial tweeted and articles written at trial, we have a program that generally when anyone refers to Vincent Tabak, especially The Yeates they refer to him as he....

I had mentioned this the other day, and thought that Tanja's name had never been mentioned, but  the Yeates, but I was mistaken, there is at one time David Yeates mentions Tanja..


Murder at Christmas Part 1: at 13:49 (published 24th November 2011)

I noticed these foot prints going diagonally across the lawn.. and I wondered where these came from, and I saw these two people, a shorter person and a taller person,walking along the same path, ah.. they must be the ones who caused it.. As I was going to the flat, they stopped, the smaller person was Tanja and she asked if she could help, and the man stood well back from things, didn't say anything

So I was mistaken and Tanja was mentioned, but Vincent Tabak wasn't, he is described as the man!

Don't get me wrong, I'm trying to fatham this... Why mention Tanja??  why has David Yeates got a clear memory of Tanja and mentions her by name, yet cannot remember Dr Vincent Tabaks name, describing him as 'The man'... Did the Yeates know Tanja?? I don't know but it gives ME the impression that they did..

Anyway back to the programs... When were they made?? when were these programs filmed?? We have different dates, yet they all seem to have been recorded around the same time, the same people are in these programs wearing the same clothing and sitting in the same enviroment...

This is were it bugs me.... i have DCI Phil jones.... I have Ann Reddrop... I have the Yeates and I have CJ..... All of thes e people  who ordinarily I shouldn't question... but I do... I don't get it....

If as I believe we have a gagging order on the media, and the lawyers don't speak, I can only come to the conclusion that this was made before or during trial....

But Ann Redropp how and why has she got time during a trial to be making programs?? She can't... (imo)

Killers: at 15:27 ( published 27th April 2013)

He went back to work on the Monday, he was talking to people about the disappearance of his neighbour, as already arranged he and Tanja had travelled up country to Cambridge to have Christmas with her parents, and then travelled across to Holland... To have New year with family and friends out there.

The same interview with The Yeates is used in many of these programs...  The details are the same,

I cannot get my head around Ann Reddrop appearing on these programs.... Why?? Why would she... The details she divulges are what was going on at trial, but If I believe that the media and everyone stayed silent after the trial, how do I interpret that??

We get roughly a story of events on these programs, and a program i pointed out the other day that was way off the mark... I'm trying to work this out... Clegg has said nothing about this case since trial, in fact I have critised him for it... But if he is not allowed to talk about the case as I have suggested that there is an issue with this... Then do I view Ann's appearance on these programs with suspicion??

In my mind I am thinking what came first the chicken or the egg, or in this case the program then the trial....

Ann's interview for both programs is the same interview, 'Murder at Christmas 'is published 24th November 2011 a few weeks after trial....

Killers: 16:19.. Ann Reddrop

Vincent Tabak was spoken to for the first time by the Police, as a result of that call, when they came round to take details, treating it as it was at that time a Missing person's Inquiry

What call is Ann referring too.... Who pointed the finger at Dr Vincent Tabak at that time, is this the evidence that the phone call she is referring too , the phone call of 'The Sobbing Girl"???

So this call is before the 25th December 2010...  We know from Ann statement outside Bristol Crown Court and on The Cps website, that they had been looking at Dr Vincent Tabak since late December 2010....  Yet they arrested CJ... Ann her from her own lips, tells us they had a suspicion whilst Joanna Yeates was Missing, and that obviously prompted the Police speaking to him... We can now understand why DC Karen Thomas, keeps getting in contact with Dr Vincent Tabak, phoning him whilst he is away in Cambridge on the 23rd or 24th December 2010....

Joanna Yeates has supposed to have lain on Longwood Lane for 8 days,... A frequently used lane, by dog walkers , runners, cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists alike... The is news everywhere about a Missing woman,... Yet no-one notices Joanna Yeates lying on a grass verge, not one person has been inquistive as to what the lump maybe... not one dog has gone over to this mound on the verge and discovered what lain there....

I can't see that myself and the residents at the time didn't believe a body could have lain there for that many days either....

So Ann Reddrop has Dr Vincent Tabak in her sights before the discovery of Joanna Yeates body.... Dr Vincent Tabak is away when Joanna Yeates is discovered, so what does that tell us??  Well it tells me a few things...

The apparent Holland Interview was a complete ruse.... Ann tells us that the Police had received a phone call , it has to be The Sobbing Woman, (imo) Yet they miraculously end up in Holland on the 31st December 2010, to interview Dr Vincent Tabak because he apparently knew something about CJ's car.....

So... Was the arrest of CJ a smoke screen to give themselves a reason to Interview Dr Vincent Tabak in Holland?? It has to be (imo)...  But then the information divulged by the caller had to be explosive enough for an elaborate, sting... It would have taken time to get cooperation from the Dutch authorities, now if they new of his plans, then they could start applying for cooperation immediately... So he should have been cautioned... They interviewed him for 6 hours the time allowed by Dutch Authorities to interview a suspect or release them or arrest them...

There is no evidence that Joanna Yeates was Murder at the time of the call... And why at this time would anyone call in regards to Dr Vincent Tabak??

It get very complicated.... You therefore have to imagine that Joanna Yeates was dead... I have suggested this before.... They had to know that when they received the call (imo)... To create a scenario, where they could go to Holland... (imo)..  And if Joanna Yeates is all ready dead, who put her on Longwood Lane??

They have kept tabs on Dr Vincent Tabak from a very early stage without evidence... Joanna Yeates is supposed to  just be a Missing person at this time.... So why the massive interest in Dr Vincent Tabak??  There shouldn't be... No crime has been committed apparent at this point.....

I am not stating any of this as fact as I do not know, but putting forward a scenario, based on the information that is available and when information was recorded in one way or another...

Back to Ann's statement...

Vincent Tabak was spoken to for the first time by the Police, as a result of that call, when they came round to take details, treating it as it was at that time a Missing person's Inquiry

Dr Vincent Tabak has left for Cambridge by the 23rd December 2010 I believe.... So we have the 20th December 2010, the 21st December 2010, 22nd December and possibly the 23rd December 2010, as an available time for Dr Vincent Tabak to have been spoken too....

Also the available time in which the Police received the phone call....  Who does that leave to contact the Police...??  By the 20th December 2010....Darragh Bellew had informed everyone on his facebook post that Joanna Yeates was Missing...  The Yeates had made appeals.... But what one really has to think about this is an extremley significant detail...

It is not until the 22nd December 2010 that DS Mark Saunders is speaking to Camera about Joanna yeates being Missing.... I am not sure if 44, Canygne Road was ever in any news items before... But I am not sure that this matters...

It.'s deduction.... Who ever called the Police before Dr Vincent Tabak and Tanja Morson went to Cambridge, they had to know a few things....

(1): That Joanna yeates lived in the ground floor flat

(2): That Dr Vincent Tabak also lived in the building

(3): That Joanna Yeates was dead

(4): That Dr Vincent Tabak lived next door...

(5): Dr Vincent Tabak had returned from America

(6): That Dr Vincent Tabak was around on Friday 17th December 2010

Now how many people would know that... How many people would know what Dr Vincent Tabak's movement were.... Lets not forget Dr Vincent Tabak had been away... Dr Vincent Tabak had only returned on the Monday 13 December 2010... Someone to even try to connect Dr Vincent Tabak with this Missing persons inquiry would need to know of his movements also , to even suggest that he may be a suspect.... The call , must have been explosive as I have stated... the information divulged by the caller, to even suggest Dr Vincent Tabak, means that the caller knew him... The caller knew him, the caller believed that Joanna yeates was already dead and the caller knew of Dr Vincent Tabak's diary and his work engagements....

It is simple deduction based on what Ann Reddrop tells us.... we do not know wether the caller was male or female, but I have just assumed it has to be the sobbing girl.... The only call we know of that would suggest something untoward abut Dr Vincent Tabak....

So we have CJ... whom they must have wrongly arrested, if they believe at that very early stage that Dr Vincent Tabak is there man.... Bringing me back to did CJ see Dr Vincent Tabak at the gate???? That is the only piece of information that connects the two things we know.....

Someone from that road or from 44, Canygne Road or extremely close to the investigation, had to be the caller... (imo) either that or it had to be one of Dr Vincent work collegues... But i cannot see that being the case, they would have to have a clearer idea of hen she went Missing and every activity that Dr Vincent Tabak did that weekend... Because at this time she has not been found... at this time she is still Missing... at this time, she is not dead.... at this time no-one knew the cause of death or when apparently she had been killed....

What does this phone call hold... what information does this phone call keep from us.... It's a vital piece of evidence, it is the call that points the finger.... There is no forced entry... there is no sexual assault... there is no body... yet this phone call has information that makes the Police sit up and take note... This phone call makes them Interview Dr Vincent Tabak... Are we to believe that this phone call is that sensational, that they ignore all lines of inquiry and focus on Dr Vincent Tabak... A man who didn't know his neighbour... A man who no-one could have known of his movements that Friday night... A man that is polite to all that know him....

So who knew Dr Vincent Tabak... who knew of his movements, who knew enough to make that phone call to the Police.... 

This amongst other things is why what the programs tell us I question this case.... I cannot make out if the programs are made before trial.. And the only reason that I would say they were, is because, I am under the impression that the media, and the judiciary are silent on this subject, which has frustrated me to this day...

So using that s a template... How were the media allowed to make a program on with this content... with information that was not divulged at trial...

Edit.... The phone Call is NOT The Holland phone call that is for sure... Joanna Yeates is still Missing ,The Holland Phone call was December 30/31st 2010


[attachment deleted by admin]

[Nicholas]

The video: Countdown to Murder :4:00

David Yeates:

I've been trying to find the clip where Therea Yeates says a similar comment, of: "How can you forgive someone".. I clearly remember seeing the interview and have spent the last hour, skimming the video's available....

But............ They made me think of something entirely differently... These programs were supposed to be made "AFTER" the trial... They are all a rehash of each other virtually... The dates of release may change, but the content and interviews are the same...

I keep going on about how the media haven't said anything after trial... I had believed that the media had been gagged... If I stay with my belief, ....Then we have a problem 'Huston'..........

Maybe I should forgive the media.... I have been frustrated at the fact that they won't speak... I have been frustrated at the fact that nothing changes..... Yes we have had 'The Lost Honour of CJ' since, but that really doesn't talk about Jonna Yeates at all.... It is all about CJ.... made after the trial..

I couldn't understand why CJ in this story never talks of Vincent Tabak... we have a couple of scenes with Vincent Tabak in, but nothing of The Yeates  or anything else....

I could be getting this wrong, but I am not sure...

The person really whim stood out in the documentaries is in fact Ann Reddrop..... Now we know that no-one from the judicary have spoken at all upon this case since the trial.... The are zipped lips...

So my confusion of Ann's appearance makes it an even more interesting venture....

Is this the Eureka moment..... I don't know....

In my mind these programs have had to have been filmed before the trial.....  with the exception of "The Lost Honour of CJ'....

Now I am not pointing fingers, but am going with what should be a logical conclusion.... based on the belief that  the media and all laywers etc, have stayed silent since the trial of Vincent Tabak... The information in the media never changes... It repeats what happened at the time...

We have I will say , the narrative, we had a trial tweeted and articles written at trial, we have a program that generally when anyone refers to Vincent Tabak, especially The Yeates they refer to him as he....

I had mentioned this the other day, and thought that Tanja's name had never been mentioned, but  the Yeates, but I was mistaken, there is at one time David Yeates mentions Tanja..


Murder at Christmas Part 1: at 13:49 (published 24th November 2011)

So I was mistaken and Tanja was mentioned, but Vincent Tabak wasn't, he is described as the man!

If you read up about psychopaths like Tabak you will note they thrive on attention, be it good or bad. Their need for narcisstic supply is their fuel.

All those people who came into contact with him were his victims, not least of all JY's.

By cutting off Tabaks fuel supply (his deep seated need for attention) he no longer has the power/control.

Have you ever considered any of this?

You state:

"I am under the impression that the media, and the judiciary are silent on this subject, which has frustrated me to this day.

And have you ever considered, as one example, your frustrations may come from your lack of knowledge and understanding of dangerous and disordered individuals like Tabak? And that your continued focus on his victims is clouding your judgement?

Could the answer simply be that the media, judiciary and others you mention now have the knowledge and understanding of Tabaks dangerous and disordered personality?

[[...]]

I am sat here questioning my own thinking now..... Thinking the call she is referring to is the call that greg made, nut the more i think about that the more I believe that the "Call" Ann Reddrop is referring to is a different call altogether...

They spoke to Dr Vincent tabak after they arrived at Canygne Road after Greg had phoned them.... They went round, according to the trial, The Police went round and spoke to him.... They didn't interview him then... They had no reason too... Just a house to house inquiry about whether someone had seen their neighbour...

So the call Ann Refers too is a different call... And I mean seperate from Gregs call....

This is the call I believe get the Police to interview all the neighbous and take statements... This is the call that gives them a reason to take the DNA samples that CJ spoke of.... He said in one of his interviews that all the neighbours gave statements and fingers prints I believe and DNA samples...

The call Ann is referring too has to be another call other than Greg's... They wouldn't need to take formal interviews from all the residents at this time in the investigation... It would be simply a door to door inquiry

Has Ann divulged a piece of evidence we didn't know about??? Everyone would just assume by that call she was talking about Greg.... But I don't believe that that is the case.... considering a couple of things..... From the outset, they had an incident van parked outside Canygne Road, they treated it as if it was a Murder inquiry, and to take formal statements from residents, before they have even checked with the people she may or may not have been in contact with who would be more likely to have been suspects, is odd.....

So what day did they take formal interviews from all the residents??

It has to be on or before the 23rd December 2010 .....  So I feel confident that the "CALL" that Ann Reddrop refers too is a different phone call than the one Greg made to the Police, reporting that hs girlfriend was Missing....

[Nicholas]

I am sat here questioning my own thinking now..... Thinking the call she is referring to is the call that greg made, nut the more i think about that the more I believe that the "Call" Ann Reddrop is referring to is a different call altogether...

They spoke to Dr Vincent tabak after they arrived at Canygne Road after Greg had phoned them.... They went round, according to the trial, The Police went round and spoke to him.... They didn't interview him then... They had no reason too... Just a house to house inquiry about whether someone had seen their neighbour...

So the call Ann Refers too is a different call... And I mean seperate from Gregs call....

This is the call I believe get the Police to interview all the neighbous and take statements... This is the call that gives them a reason to take the DNA samples that CJ spoke of.... He said in one of his interviews that all the neighbours gave statements and fingers prints I believe and DNA samples...

The call Ann is referring too has to be another call other than Greg's... They wouldn't need to take formal interviews from all the residents at this time in the investigation... It would be simply a door to door inquiry

Has Ann divulged a piece of evidence we didn't know about??? Everyone would just assume by that call she was talking about Greg.... But I don't believe that that is the case.... considering a couple of things..... From the outset, they had an incident van parked outside Canygne Road, they treated it as if it was a Murder inquiry, and to take formal statements from residents, before they have even checked with the people she may or may not have been in contact with who would be more likely to have been suspects, is odd.....

So what day did they take formal interviews from all the residents??

It has to be on or before the 23rd December 2010 .....  So I feel confident that the "CALL" that Ann Reddrop refers too is a different phone call than the one Greg made to the Police, reporting that hs girlfriend was Missing....

Have you ever considered that your deflective tactics are what's keeping your circular arguments going and why you have been unable to reach any definitive conclusions in this case; other than your apparent irrational ones?

[[...]]

If you read up about psychopaths like Tabak you will note they thrive on attention, be it good or bad. Their need for narcisstic supply is their fuel.

All those people who came into contact with him were his victims, not least of all JY's.

By cutting off Tabaks fuel supply (his deep seated need for attention) he no longer has the power/control.

Have you ever considered any of this?

You state:

"I am under the impression that the media, and the judiciary are silent on this subject, which has frustrated me to this day.

And have you ever considered, as one example, your frustrations may come from your lack of knowledge and understanding of dangerous and disordered individuals like Tabak? And that your continued focus on his victims is clouding your judgement?

Could the answer simply be that the media, judiciary and others you mention now have the knowledge and understanding of Tabaks dangerous and disordered personality?

So therefore who is Dr Vincent Tabak, is he a seperate individual, or someone who is known by another name??

If Dr Vincent Tabak is this narsicist , psychopath, then why do we not hear him shouting from the roof tops that he is innocent, just to get that attention you are talking of.....  Attention for himself, saying look at me.... But he doesn't you yourself have stated that Id Dr Vincent tabak is Innocent , then why is he not making any claims of this....

And if on the other hand he is the type of person you describe.... making wave, shouting from the roof tops, would be a perfect way to bring the attention back on himself.......

[Nicholas]

So therefore who is Dr Vincent Tabak, is he a seperate individual, or someone who is known by another name??

This alone comes across as irrational to me.

[Nicholas]

If Dr Vincent Tabak is this narsicist , psychopath, then why do we not hear him shouting from the roof tops that he is innocent, just to get that attention you are talking of.....  Attention for himself, saying look at me.... But he doesn't you yourself have stated that Id Dr Vincent tabak is Innocent , then why is he not making any claims of this....

And if on the other hand he is the type of person you describe.... making wave, shouting from the roof tops, would be a perfect way to bring the attention back on himself.......

Doesn't he have brothers and sisters? Why aren't they campaigning on his behalf?

As I've previously posted; his fuel supply appears to have been cut off.